id
stringlengths 40
40
| text
stringlengths 101
3.75M
| source
stringclasses 1
value | added
timestamp[s]date 2025-03-31 00:00:00
2025-03-31 00:00:00
| created
timestamp[s]date 2025-03-31 00:00:00
2025-03-31 00:00:00
| metadata
dict | attributes
dict |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
3ae7a1f50c8b76487efc0f8423cce9a9545fe2ba | 29 January 2013
The Company Secretary Network Rail Infrastructure Limited Kings Place 90 York Way London N1 9AG
To the Company Secretary
Notice of modification of Network Rail Infrastructure Limited's network licence
Network Rail Infrastructure Limited (Network Rail) has been granted a network licence (the network licence) under section 8 of the Railways Act 1993 (the Act). In accordance with section 12(2) of the Act on 16 October 2012 I gave notice of our intention to modify that network licence.¹
The Office of Rail Regulation’s (ORR’s) notice set out the reasons for the modification and its effect. I required any representations or objections to be made on or before 13 November 2012. On 9 November 2012 this deadline was extended until 23 November 2012.
ORR has considered the representations and objections which were received during the consultation period and which were not withdrawn. The only issue raised of note, which has resulted in an amendment to the Rail Delivery Group articles of association, was explained in my letter dated 18 January 2013.² As a result no changes are proposed to the licence modification consulted on and to which Network Rail has given its consent.
Under section 12(1) of the Act I therefore modify the network licence by adding new condition 25 ‘Rail Delivery Group’ as set out in the schedule to this notice.
I will place a copy of this letter on our website and public register. We will also update the licence on our website.
Yours sincerely
Michael Beswick
¹ [http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/upload/pdf/rdg-conclusions-and-notice-161012.pdf](http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/upload/pdf/rdg-conclusions-and-notice-161012.pdf) ² [http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/upload/pdf/rdg-formalisation-180113.pdf](http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/upload/pdf/rdg-formalisation-180113.pdf) Schedule: Network Rail Infrastructure Limited’s network licence
Condition 25: Rail Delivery Group
1. The licence holder shall:
(a) become and thereafter remain a Member of RDG; and
(b) comply with its obligations under the RDG Articles.
2. In this condition:
“Member” has the meaning ascribed to it in the RDG Articles;
“RDG” means the Rail Delivery Group (a company limited by guarantee and registered in England and Wales under number 08176197); and
“RDG Articles” means the articles of association of RDG.
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/4968-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 2,
"total-input-tokens": 3233,
"total-output-tokens": 681,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
1815,
1
],
[
1815,
2346,
2
]
]
} |
0a3178a9238c184fd573698f5b3814c8bd8606c4 | 29 January 2013
To holders of GB passenger train licences and SNRPs listed in schedule 1
Dear licence holder
Modifications to the “operators of last resort” passenger train licences and SNRPS
The companies listed in schedule 1 to this notice have been granted licences and statements of national regulatory provisions (SNRPs) to operate railway assets under section 8 of the Railways Act 1993 (the Act) or regulation 10 and schedule 4 of the Railway (Licensing of Railway Undertakings) Regulations 2005 (the Regulations).
In accordance with section 12(2) of the Act and regulation 13(2) of the Regulations on 16 October 2012 I gave notice of our intention to modify certain licences and SNRPs.¹
The Office of Rail Regulation's (ORR's) notice set out the reasons for the modification and its effect. I required any representations or objections to be made on or before 13 November 2012. On 9 November 2012 this deadline was extended until 23 November 2012.
ORR has considered the representations and objections which were received during the consultation period and which were not withdrawn. The only issue raised of note, which has resulted in an amendment to the Rail Delivery Group (RDG) articles of association, was explained in my letter dated 18 January 2013.² As a result no changes are proposed to the licence modification consulted on and to which the licence and SNRP holders listed in schedule 1 to this notice have consented.³
Under section 12(1) of the Act and regulation 13(1) of the Regulations and with the consent of the holders I therefore modify the licences and SNRPs listed in schedule one to this notice by adding new condition 28 ‘Rail Delivery Group’ as set out in schedule 2.
However ORR consents to the condition not being effective for the operators listed in schedule one for the time being and so they are not required to become Licensed Members of RDG. This is because these operators are dormant operators whose licences are only to be used in the event that they need to take over certain rail operations (operators of last resort). This consent will expire in the event that an operator becomes active.
¹ http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/upload/pdf/rdg-conclusions-and-notice-161012.pdf ² http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/upload/pdf/rdg-formalisation-180113.pdf ³ For SNRPs the reference in the consulted licence condition has been amended from ‘licence holder’ to ‘SNRP holder’. I will place a copy of this letter on our website and public register. We will also update all the relevant licences and SNRPs on our website.
Yours sincerely
Michael Beswick Schedule 1: Passenger licences and SNRPs
The licences and statements of national regulatory provisions (SNRPs) subject to this notice, with their reference numbers are:
| Operator licence or SNRP | Reference number | |--------------------------|------------------| | Golding’s Rail Ltd | UK 02 2006 0008 | | • GB passenger SNRP | | | Hay’s Rail Ltd | UK 02 2006 0009 | | • GB passenger SNRP | | | OQS Rail Ltd | UK 02 2006 0010 | | • GB passenger SNRP | | | Orchard Rail Ltd | UK 02 2006 0011 | | • GB passenger SNRP | | | Rail for London Limited | UK 02 2007 0008 | | • GB passenger SNRP | | | SOLR1 Ltd | UK 02 2007 0006 | | • GB passenger SNRP | | | SOLR2 Ltd | UK 02 2007 0007 | | • GB passenger SNRP | | | Strutton Rail Ltd | UK 02 2006 0012 | | • GB passenger SNRP | | | Tyne & Wear Passenger Transport Executive | UK 03 2002 0002 | | • Passenger train licence| | | Westminster Rail Ltd | UK 02 2006 0013 | | • GB passenger SNRP | | Schedule 2
For licences insert new condition 28:
Condition 28: Rail Delivery Group
1. The licence holder shall:
(a) become and thereafter remain a Licensed Member of RDG;
(b) comply with its obligations under the RDG Articles; and
(c) procure that any member of its Group that is entitled under the RDG Articles to become a Member of RDG:
(i) becomes and thereafter remains a Member of RDG; and
(ii) complies with its obligations under the RDG Articles.
2. In this condition:
“Group” has the meaning ascribed to it in the RDG Articles;
“Licensed Member” has the meaning ascribed to it in the RDG Articles;
“Member” has the meaning ascribed to it in the RDG Articles;
“RDG” means the Rail Delivery Group (a company limited by guarantee and registered in England and Wales under number 08176197); and
“RDG Articles” means the articles of association of RDG. For SNRPs insert new condition 28:
Condition 28: Rail Delivery Group
1. The SNRP holder shall:
(a) become and thereafter remain a Licensed Member of RDG;
(b) comply with its obligations under the RDG Articles; and
(c) procure that any member of its Group that is entitled under the RDG Articles to become a Member of RDG:
(i) becomes and thereafter remains a Member of RDG; and
(ii) complies with its obligations under the RDG Articles.
2. In this condition:
“Group” has the meaning ascribed to it in the RDG Articles;
“Licensed Member” has the meaning ascribed to it in the RDG Articles;
“Member” has the meaning ascribed to it in the RDG Articles;
“RDG” means the Rail Delivery Group (a company limited by guarantee and registered in England and Wales under number 08176197); and
“RDG Articles” means the articles of association of RDG.
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/4969-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 5,
"total-input-tokens": 7871,
"total-output-tokens": 1696,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
2410,
1
],
[
2410,
2587,
2
],
[
2587,
3830,
3
],
[
3830,
4736,
4
],
[
4736,
5623,
5
]
]
} |
5ef002f9cb05b4cd0185fa88d1f911e34b2d43cf | 29 January 2013
To holders of GB passenger train licences and SNRPs listed in schedule 1
Dear licence holder
Notice of modifications to passenger train licences and SNRPs
The companies listed in schedule 1 to this notice have been granted licences and statements of national regulatory provisions (SNRPs) to operate railway assets under section 8 of the Railways Act 1993 (the Act) or regulation 10 and schedule 4 of the Railway (Licensing of Railway Undertakings) Regulations 2005 (the Regulations).
In accordance with section 12(2) of the Act and regulation 13(2) of the Regulations on 16 October 2012 I gave notice of our intention to modify certain licences and SNRPs.¹
The Office of Rail Regulation's (ORR's) notice set out the reasons for the modification and its effect. I required any representations or objections to be made on or before 13 November 2012. On 9 November 2012 this deadline was extended until 23 November 2012.
ORR has considered the representations and objections which were received during the consultation period and which were not withdrawn. The only issue raised of note, which has resulted in an amendment to the Rail Delivery Group articles of association, was explained in my letter dated 18 January 2013.² As a result no changes are proposed to the licence modification consulted on and to which the licence and SNRP holders listed in schedule 1 to this notice have consented.³
Under section 12(1) of the Act and regulation 13(1) of the Regulations I therefore modify the licences and SNRPs listed in schedule one to this notice by adding new condition 28 'the Rail Delivery Group' as set out in schedule 2.
I will place a copy of this letter on our website and public register. We will also update all the relevant licences and SNRPs on our website.
Yours sincerely
Michael Beswick
¹ http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/upload/pdf/rdg-conclusions-and-notice-161012.pdf ² http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/upload/pdf/rdg-formalisation-180113.pdf ³ For SNRPs the reference in the consulted licence condition has been amended from 'licence holder' to 'SNRP holder'. Schedule 1: Passenger licences and SNRPs
The licences and statements of national regulatory provisions (SNRPs) subject to this notice, with their reference numbers are:
| Operator licence or SNRP | Reference number | |--------------------------|------------------| | Abellio Greater Anglia Ltd • GB passenger SNRP | UK 02 2012 0001 | | Arriva Trains Wales Ltd • GB passenger SNRP • GB freight SNRP | UK 02 2005 0011 UK 02 2005 0013 | | c2c rail ltd • GB passenger SNRP | UK 02 2005 0015 | | The Chiltern Railway Company Ltd • GB passenger SNRP • GB freight SNRP | UK 02 2005 0019 UK 02 2005 0021 | | Colas Rail Ltd • GB freight SNRP | UK 02 2012 0002 | | DB Regio Tyne and Wear Ltd • Passenger train licence | UK 03 2010 0001 | | DB Schenker Rail (UK) Ltd • GB freight SNRP | UK 02 2005 0029 | | Devon and Cornwall Railways Ltd • GB freight SNRP | UK 02 2010 0001 | | Direct Rail Services Ltd • GB freight SNRP • GB passenger SNRP | UK 02 2005 0026 UK 02 2005 0024 | | East Coast Main Line Company Ltd • GB passenger SNRP | UK 02 2006 0006 | | East Midlands Trains Ltd • GB passenger SNRP | UK 02 2007 0009 | | English Welsh & Scottish Railway International Ltd • GB freight SNRP • GB freight SNRP (international services) | UK 02 2005 0031 UK 02 2005 0033 | | Europorte Channel • GB freight SNRP | UK 02 2011 0001 |
| Operator licence or SNRP | Reference number | |--------------------------|------------------| | First Capital Connect Ltd • GB passenger SNRP | UK 02 2006 0004 | | First Greater Western Ltd • GB passenger SNRP | UK 02 2006 0002 | | First Scotrail Ltd • GB passenger SNRP • GB freight SNRP | UK 02 2005 0035 UK 02 2005 0037 | | First/Keolis Transpennine Ltd • GB passenger SNRP • GB freight SNRP | UK 02 2005 0039 UK 02 2005 0041 | | Freightliner Heavy Haul Ltd • GB freight SNRP | UK 02 2005 0043 | | Freightliner Ltd • GB freight SNRP | UK 02 2005 0045 | | GB Railfreight Ltd • GB passenger SNRP • GB freight SNRP | UK 02 2009 0001 UK 02 2005 0049 | | Grand Central Railway Company Ltd • GB passenger SNRP | UK 02 2007 0003 | | Heathrow Express Operating Co Ltd • Passenger train licence | UK 03 1997 0001 | | Hull Trains Company Ltd • GB passenger SNRP | UK 02 2005 0055 | | London and Birmingham Railway Ltd • GB passenger SNRP | UK 02 2007 0011 | | London and South Eastern Railway Ltd • GB passenger SNRP | UK 02 2006 0003 | | London Overground Rail Operations Ltd • GB passenger SNRP | UK 02 2007 0012 | | Operator licence or SNRP | Reference number | |-------------------------|------------------| | London Underground Ltd | UK 03 2004 0008 | | • Passenger licence | | | Merseyrail Electrics 2002 Ltd | UK 03 2003 0011 | | • Passenger train licence | | | North Yorkshire Moors Railway Enterprises plc | UK 03 2007 0002 | | • Passenger train licence | | | Northern Rail Ltd | UK 02 2005 0067 | | • GB passenger SNRP | UK 02 2005 0069 | | • GB freight SNRP | | | Pre Metro Operations Ltd | UK 03 2003 0004 | | • Passenger train licence | | | Rail Express Systems Ltd | UK 02 2005 0071 | | • GB passenger SNRP | UK 02 2005 0073 | | • GB freight SNRP | |
| Operator licence or SNRP | Reference number | |-------------------------|------------------| | Southern Railway Limited | UK 02 2009 0002 | | • GB passenger SNRP | | | Stagecoach South Western Trains Ltd | UK 02 2007 0001 | | • GB passenger SNRP | | | West Coast Main Line Company Limited | UK 02 2006 0007 | | • GB passenger SNRP | | | West Coast Railway Company Ltd | UK 02 2005 0079 | | • GB passenger SNRP | UK 02 2005 0081 | | • GB freight SNRP | | | West Coast Trains Ltd (Virgin) | UK 02 2005 0083 | | • GB passenger SNRP | UK 02 2005 0085 | | • GB freight SNRP | | | XC Trains Limited | UK 02 2007 0010 | Schedule 2
For licences insert new condition 28:
Condition 28: Rail Delivery Group
1. The licence holder shall:
(a) become and thereafter remain a Licensed Member of RDG;
(b) comply with its obligations under the RDG Articles; and
(c) procure that any member of its Group that is entitled under the RDG Articles to become a Member of RDG:
(i) becomes and thereafter remains a Member of RDG; and
(ii) complies with its obligations under the RDG Articles.
2. In this condition:
“Group” has the meaning ascribed to it in the RDG Articles;
“Licensed Member” has the meaning ascribed to it in the RDG Articles;
“Member” has the meaning ascribed to it in the RDG Articles;
“RDG” means the Rail Delivery Group (a company limited by guarantee and registered in England and Wales under number 08176197); and
“RDG Articles” means the articles of association of RDG. For SNRPs insert new condition 28:
Condition 28: Rail Delivery Group
1. The SNRP holder shall:
(a) become and thereafter remain a Licensed Member of RDG;
(b) comply with its obligations under the RDG Articles; and
(c) procure that any member of its Group that is entitled under the RDG Articles to become a Member of RDG:
(i) becomes and thereafter remains a Member of RDG; and
(ii) complies with its obligations under the RDG Articles.
2. In this condition:
“Group” has the meaning ascribed to it in the RDG Articles;
“Licensed Member” has the meaning ascribed to it in the RDG Articles;
“Member” has the meaning ascribed to it in the RDG Articles;
“RDG” means the Rail Delivery Group (a company limited by guarantee and registered in England and Wales under number 08176197); and
“RDG Articles” means the articles of association of RDG.
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/4970-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 5,
"total-input-tokens": 10103,
"total-output-tokens": 2686,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
2093,
1
],
[
2093,
4525,
2
],
[
4525,
6046,
3
],
[
6046,
6952,
4
],
[
6952,
7839,
5
]
]
} |
c84c6edbe6bb0146f388e58808e9d08559ea9b49 | Notice under section 12(2) of the Railways Act 1993 (the Act) and regulation 13(2) of the Railway (Licensing of Railway Undertakings) Regulations 2005 (the Regulations)
1. This notice concerns the licences granted under section 8 of the Act and Statements of National Regulatory Provisions (SNRPs) granted under regulation 10 of the Regulations, to the operators listed at Schedule 1 to this notice.
2. The Office of Rail Regulation (ORR) hereby gives notice, pursuant to section 12(2) of the Act and regulation 13(2) of the Regulations, of its proposal to modify the licences and SNRPs of those operators out in Schedule 1 by the inclusion of a new licence condition as set out in Schedule 2 to this notice.
3. The reason for this proposed modification is to support the formalisation of the Rail Delivery Group (RDG) as the leadership body of the industry by requiring the licence holders listed in Schedule 1 to be Licensed Members of the RDG and to comply with its articles of association.
4. Formalisation of the RDG in this way will ensure that all licence holders in Schedule 1 will have the opportunity to contribute to the development of policies and strategies for the benefit of the whole industry and be a key factor in delivering a more sustainable and cost efficient railway in the future. Whilst this may result in an unquantifiable increase in the workload of licence holders we consider that this will ultimately be for their benefit, both in helping to develop understanding the implications of proposals for their business/sector, and the impact of delivering RDG’s purpose of improving value for money. There will clearly be some cost implications for licence holders in participating in RDG activities and, where appropriate, contributing to the RDG levy. These costs should however be relatively small. It is not therefore anticipated that the proposed new licence condition will place any additional risk or significant burden, either administrative or financial, on the licence holders affected.
5. Any representations or objections to the proposed modification should be made in writing before 5pm 13 November 2012. Please send any comments on this proposal to:
6. Copies of this notice will be published on the ORR website (www.rail-reg.gov.uk).
MICHAEL BESWICK Date: 16 October 2012 Schedule 1
The licences granted under section 8 of the Act, and SNRPs granted under regulation 10 of the Regulations, subject to this notice, with reference numbers, are:
Abellio Greater Anglia Ltd
- **GB passenger SNRP** UK 02 2012 0001
Arriva Trains Wales Ltd
- **GB passenger SNRP** UK 02 2005 0011
- **GB freight SNRP** UK 02 2005 0013
C2c rail ltd
- **GB passenger SNRP** UK 02 2005 0015
The Chiltern Railway Company Ltd
- **GB Passenger SNRP** UK 02 2005 0019
- **GB freight SNRP** UK 02 2005 0021
Colas Rail Ltd
- **GB freight SNRP** UK 02 2012 0002
DB Regio Tyne and Wear Ltd
- **Passenger train licence** UK 03 2010 0001
DB Schenker Rail (UK) Ltd
- **GB freight SNRP** UK 02 2005 0029
Devon and Cornwall Railways Ltd
- **GB freight SNRP** UK 02 2010 0001 Direct Rail Services Ltd
- **GB freight SNRP** UK 02 2005 0026
- **GB passenger SNRP** UK 02 2005 0024
East Coast Main Line Company Ltd
- **GB passenger SNRP** UK 02 2006 0006
East Midlands Trains Ltd
- **GB passenger SNRP** UK 02 2007 0009
English Welsh & Scottish Railway International Ltd
- **GB freight SNRP** UK 02 2005 0031
- **GB freight SNRP (international services)** UK 02 2005 0033
Europorte Channel SAS
- **GB freight SNRP** UK 02 2011 0001
Eurostar International Ltd
- **GB passenger SNRP** UK 02 2005 0027
First Capital Connect Ltd
- **GB passenger SNRP** UK 02 2006 0004
First Greater Western Ltd
- **GB passenger SNRP** UK 02 2006 0002
First Scotrail Ltd
- **GB passenger SNRP** UK 02 2005 0035
- **GB freight SNRP** UK 02 2005 0037 First/Keolis Transpennine Ltd
- **GB passenger SNRP** UK 02 2005 0039
- **GB freight SNRP** UK 02 2005 0041
Freightliner Heavy Haul Ltd
- **GB freight SNRP** UK 02 2005 0043
Freightliner Ltd
- **GB freight SNRP** UK 02 2005 0045
GB Railfreight Ltd
- **GB passenger SNRP** UK 02 2009 0001
- **GB freight SNRP** UK 02 2005 0049
Golding's Rail Ltd
- **GB passenger SNRP** UK 02 2006 0008
Grand Central Railway Company Ltd
- **GB passenger SNRP** UK 02 2007 0003
Hay's Rail Ltd
- **GB passenger SNRP** UK 02 2006 0009
Heathrow Express Operating Co Ltd
- **Passenger train licence** UK 03 1997 0001
Hull Trains Company Ltd
- **GB passenger SNRP** UK 02 2005 0055 London and Birmingham Railway Ltd
- [GB passenger SNRP](#) UK 02 2007 0011
London and South Eastern Railway Ltd
- [GB passenger SNRP](#) UK 02 2006 0003
London Overground Rail Operations Ltd
- [GB passenger licence](#) UK 02 2007 0012
London Underground Ltd
- [Passenger train licence](#) UK 03 2004 0008
Merseyrail Electrics 2002 Ltd
- [Passenger train licence](#) UK 03 2003 0011
Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd
- [Network licence](#) UK 03 1994 0005
North Yorkshire Moors Railway Enterprises plc
- [Passenger train licence](#) UK 03 2007 0002
Northern Rail Ltd
- [GB passenger SNRP](#) UK 02 2005 0067
- [GB freight SNRP](#) UK 02 2005 0069
OQS Rail Ltd
- [GB passenger SNRP](#) UK 02 2006 0010
Orchard Rail Ltd • **GB passenger SNRP** UK 02 2006 0011
Pre Metro Operations Ltd
• **Passenger train licence** UK 03 2003 0004
Rail Express Systems Ltd
• **GB passenger SNRP** UK 02 2005 0071 • **GB freight SNRP** UK 02 2005 0073
Rail for London Limited
• **GB passenger SNRP** UK 02 2007 0008
SOLR1 Ltd
• **GB passenger SNRP** UK 02 2007 0006
SOLR2 Ltd
• **GB passenger SNRP** UK 02 2007 0007
Southern Railway Limited
• **GB passenger SNRP** UK 02 2009 0002
Stagecoach South Western Trains Ltd
• **GB passenger SNRP** UK 02 2007 0001
Strutton Rail Ltd
• **GB passenger SNRP** UK 02 2006 0012
Tyne & Wear Passenger Transport Executive
• **Passenger train licence** UK 03 2002 0002 West Coast Main Line Company Limited
- **GB passenger SNRP** UK 02 2006 0007
West Coast Railway Company Ltd
- **GB passenger SNRP** UK 02 2005 0079
- **GB freight SNRP** UK 02 2005 0081
West Coast Trains Ltd
- **GB passenger SNRP** UK 02 2005 0083
- **GB freight SNRP** UK 02 2005 0085
Westminster Rail Ltd
- **GB passenger SNRP** UK 02 2006 0013
XC Trains Limited
- **GB passenger SNRP** UK 02 2007 0010 Schedule 2
The proposed modifications are:
1. For the network licence subject to this notice as listed in Schedule 1: Insert the following new licence condition:
**Condition 25: Rail Delivery Group**
1. The licence holder shall:
(a) become and thereafter remain a Member of RDG; and
(b) comply with its obligations under the RDG Articles.
2. In this condition:
“Member” has the meaning ascribed to it in the RDG Articles;
“RDG” means the Rail Delivery Group (a company limited by guarantee and registered in England and Wales under number 08176197); and
“RDG Articles” means the articles of association of RDG.
2. For each passenger and freight licence and SNRP subject to this notice as listed in Schedule 1:
Insert the following new licence condition:
**Condition 28: Rail Delivery Group**
1. The licence holder shall:
(a) become and thereafter remain a Licensed Member of RDG;
(b) comply with its obligations under the RDG Articles; and
(c) procure that any member of its Group that is entitled under the RDG Articles to become a Member of RDG:
(i) becomes and thereafter remains a Member of RDG; and
(ii) complies with its obligations under the RDG Articles.
2. In this condition:
“Group” has the meaning ascribed to it in the RDG Articles;
“Licensed Member” has the meaning ascribed to it in the RDG Articles;
“Member” has the meaning ascribed to it in the RDG Articles;
“RDG” means the Rail Delivery Group (a company limited by guarantee and registered in England and Wales under number 08176197); and
“RDG Articles” means the articles of association of RDG.
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/4971-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 10,
"total-input-tokens": 16133,
"total-output-tokens": 3111,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
2192,
1
],
[
2192,
2316,
2
],
[
2316,
3097,
3
],
[
3097,
3863,
4
],
[
3863,
4538,
5
],
[
4538,
5271,
6
],
[
5271,
5954,
7
],
[
5954,
6368,
8
],
[
6368,
7061,
9
],
[
7061,
8064,
10
]
]
} |
8b67f7ea5f2ed9cca9a48cd80ffd6f8f82f03974 | Research and development tax relief Making R&D easier for small companies
## Contents
| Section | Page | |------------------------------------------------------------------------|------| | Making R&D easier for small companies | 3 | | Background | 4 | | **What is R&D tax relief?** | 5 | | Is my company small or large? | 7 | | Does my company have linked or partner companies? | 8 | | **Which projects qualify?** | 10 | | How to show that your project is R&D within the tax definition | 12 | | The start and end of a project for R&D tax purposes | 14 | | **What costs qualify?** | 16 | | What costs do not qualify | 19 | | **Subcontracted R&D** | 20 | | Subcontracting – who can make a claim? | 22 | | Grants and subsidies | 23 | | More on grants and subsidies | 24 | | Why is RDEC important to SMEs? | 25 | | **How to claim R&D relief** | 26 | | How to calculate your claim | 28 | | Keeping records | 31 | | **Advance Assurance** | 32 | | **Case Studies** | 34 | | The Agri-food Sector | 35 | | ICT | 36 | | Advanced materials | 37 | | Advanced engineering | 38 | | Life and health sciences | 39 | | Construction | 40 | | **Further help** | 41 | | **Frequently asked questions** | 42 | | **Glossary** | 43 | Making R&D easier for small companies
This guidance outlines how tax relief for Research and Development (R&D) works for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs).
It provides:
- straightforward definitions and explanations of the schemes
- details of qualifying costs
- guidance on how to make a claim under the SME and RDEC schemes
- advice on where to find help and further detailed information.
This publication provides general guidance on the law, but how the law applies in a particular case is fact-dependent and where there is doubt you should contact HMRC. Background
In 2000 the government introduced a scheme to encourage scientific and technological innovation within the United Kingdom.
R&D is a Corporation Tax (CT) tax relief that may reduce your company’s tax bill if your company is liable for CT or, in some circumstances, you may receive a payable tax credit. This guidance is designed to help you make a claim for tax relief if you are an SME.
The Research and Development Expenditure Credit (RDEC) scheme was introduced in the Finance Act 2013 – it enables companies with no CT liability to benefit through a cash payment or a reduction of tax or other duties due.
Specific definitions of R&D can be found at: gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/corporate-intangibles-research-and-development-manual/cird81900
Further guidance on RDEC can be found at: gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/corporate-intangibles-research-and-development-manual/cird89705 What is R&D relief? What is R&D relief?
For tax purposes, R&D takes place when a project seeks to achieve an advance in overall knowledge or capability in a field of science or technology.
R&D relief allows companies that carry out qualifying R&D related to their trade to claim an extra CT deduction for certain qualifying expenditure. The level of relief available depends upon which scheme the company uses.
The SME scheme
From 1 April 2015, the relief a company can get has increased to 230% on their qualifying R&D costs. Loss-making companies can in certain circumstances surrender their losses in return for a payable tax credit.
Research and Development Expenditure Credit (RDEC) scheme
From 1 April 2015 a taxable credit is available at 11% of qualifying R&D expenditure. For loss making companies the tax credit is fully payable (subject to certain restrictions).
Features of the RDEC scheme
Companies with no CT liability will benefit from RDEC either through a cash payment or a reduction of tax or other duties due. The payable credit is limited to the company’s PAYE/NIC liabilities of the staff engaged in qualifying activities in the accounting period.
SMEs will be able to claim RDEC if they do subcontracted or subsidised research. Companies in groups can surrender the RDEC against another group company’s CT liability.
Further information on SMEs can be found on page 23. Is my company small or large?
To find out if a company is an SME for R&D tax relief purposes we look at:
- staff headcount (less than 500)
- either turnover (€100m) or balance sheet total (less than €86m).
When accounts are prepared in sterling, convert the turnover and balance sheet totals to euros, using the exchange rate for the balance sheet date.
Sometimes, a company will have to take into account its own data, a proportion of a partner enterprise’s data or the data of a linked enterprise. There’s more about partner and linked enterprises on the next page. If your company has no external investors and isn’t in a group, you only need to count your own company data. Does my company have linked or partner companies?
If your company has external investors or is in a group, it’s worth looking at the detailed guidance. The following is a summary of the main rules.
**Linked companies**
If the company is controlled by or controls other companies it is a linked company, for example if it has more than 50% of the shareholders’ or members’ voting rights in another company.
The data of the linked companies should be added to the data from the company that does the R&D.
**Partner companies**
If 25% or more of a company is owned by another, or if the company owns 25% or more of another, it is a partner company.
Certain companies and types of investor are excluded from consideration as a partner. There is more about this in the detailed guidance.
A proportion of the data of the partner companies should be added to the data from the company that does the R&D. So if the other company controls 30% of the R&D company, add 30% of its data.
Detailed guidance on linked and partner companies can be found at: [gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/corporate-intangibles-research-and-development-manual/cird91000](gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/corporate-intangibles-research-and-development-manual/cird91000) Example of a company being a linked or partner company
Company A is linked to Company B because B has a 60% holding in A.
B also has two partner companies: C and D, which own 32% and 25% of B.
A must add 100% of the data of B plus 35% of the data of C and 25% of the data of D to its own data. Which projects qualify? Which projects qualify?
Work that advances overall knowledge or capability in a field of science or technology, and projects and activities that help resolve scientific or technological uncertainties, may qualify for R&D relief.
R&D has a specific statutory definition for the purposes of R&D tax relief which is not the same as the commercial, engineering or accounting definitions.
To qualify the company must be carrying out research and development work in the field of science or technology. The relief is not just for ‘white coat’ scientific research but also for ‘brown coat’ development work in design and engineering that involves overcoming difficult technological problems.
This can include creating new processes, products or services, making appreciable improvements to existing ones and even using science and technology to duplicate existing processes, products and services in a new way. But pure product development in itself does not qualify.
Some examples of qualifying activities include software development, engineering design, new construction techniques, bio-energy, cleantech, agri-food and life and health sciences. There are case studies at the end of this guide for these industries.
Things to consider
- Does my company have a project?
- Am I seeking an advance in a field of science or technology?
- Does the advance extend the overall knowledge or capability in the field of science or technology and not just the company’s own state of knowledge or capability?
- Does the project involve an uncertainty that competent professionals can’t readily resolve and where solutions aren’t common knowledge?
Judging which projects and activities will qualify for R&D tax relief is usually the area where most people seek help. Experience has shown that companies can benefit from HMRC’s early involvement. There is information about our Advance Assurance scheme, which helps with these issues, later in this guide. How to show that your project is R&D within the tax definition
When you submit a claim it helps if you give details of your project. The questions below will help you decide if your project is within our definition for R&D. If your claim clearly sets out how you approach these questions, it helps HMRC see that your company really is doing R&D.
1. What is the scientific or technological advance? Concentrate on the science and technology Rather than stating the product, process or functionality being developed, consider what scientific or technological advance is being sought. This focuses attention on the project’s aim for an advance. This is important in judging whether or not R&D for tax relief purposes is being undertaken.
Some activities aren’t science Science doesn’t include work in the arts, humanities and social sciences (including economics).
‘Commercially innovative’ isn’t enough It’s not enough that a product is commercially innovative. You can’t claim in respect of projects to develop innovative business products or services that don’t incorporate any advance in science or technology.
2. What scientific or technological uncertainties were encountered? Did you really encounter ‘uncertainty’? Scientific or technological uncertainty exists when knowledge of whether something is scientifically possible or technologically feasible, or how to achieve it in practice, isn’t readily available or deducible by a competent professional working in the field.
Not every problem is an uncertainty But uncertainties that can be resolved through relatively brief discussions with peers are routine uncertainties rather than technological uncertainties. Technical problems that have been overcome in previous projects on similar systems aren’t likely to be technological uncertainties.
Set out what happened In your claim, you should set out at a high level, in a way that can be understood by someone who’s not an expert, what the uncertainties were and when they started and ended. 3. How and when were the uncertainties overcome?
Describe the methods used to overcome the uncertainties and the investigations and analysis undertaken. This shouldn't be in great detail, but enough to show it wasn't straightforward.
Describe the successes and failures and the impact of these on the overall project. If the uncertainties weren't overcome, explain what happened.
Remember that the commercial failure of the product or project does not mean that R&D was not present. And if the scientific uncertainties weren't overcome, that can still mean that the work to address the uncertainties can be R&D.
4. Why wasn't the knowledge being sought readily deducible by competent professionals?
Explain the uncertainty in the context of the known state of the field of research
It might be publicly known that others have tried to resolve the uncertainties and failed. Or maybe others have resolved the uncertainties, but precisely how it was done isn't in the public domain. In either case a valid technological uncertainty can still exist.
What if there's limited available information about the state of the field of research?
If there's little public information available about the project, you'll need to show that the people leading it are competent professionals working in the relevant field. This might be done by outlining their relevant background, professional qualifications and recent experience and then have them explain why they consider the uncertainties are scientific or technological uncertainties rather than routine uncertainties.
Whichever is appropriate, set out the details and have evidence available if needed. The start and end of a project for R&D tax purposes
It’s important to know when an R&D project starts and ends, because that makes sure your company claims the right amount of relief.
When a project starts
The project starts when work to resolve the uncertainty starts. This is when you have identified the technical issues that need to be resolved, and the current state of knowledge within that field of science or technology has not provided a solution to those uncertainties.
When a project ends
A project ends when that uncertainty is resolved or the work to resolve it ceases. This is when you have a working prototype or material device/product or process ready to be tested or go into production, or if you decide not to take the project forward.
R&D can take place even after production starts
If any new problems arise involving scientific or technological uncertainty after the product has been put into production or into use then the R&D process may start again. There is a distinction between such problems involving science and technological uncertainties and routine fault fixing or design tweaks.
It is particularly important that the people doing the work are involved when considering whether the project is R&D for tax purposes as they are the ones who understand best the scientific or technological problems involved. They should focus on what advances the project is seeking to achieve and the uncertainties to be faced rather than on the eventual product aspiration, specification or design. Possible commercial project timeline — defining R&D for tax purposes
This illustrates the qualifying and non-qualifying activities within a ‘whole life’ project plan.
Examples of how this may apply to some of the industry sectors can be found on page 35 onwards.
The parts of a project that require R&D activity to resolve scientific or technological uncertainties qualify for tax relief. The qualifying work starts when work to resolve the uncertainty starts, and ends when the new knowledge is codified in a usable form, or when work to resolve the uncertainty ceases. What costs qualify? What costs qualify?
Direct and externally provided staff, subcontracted R&D, consumables, software, trials, prototyping and independent research costs may all qualify for R&D relief. Capital expenditure does not qualify under this scheme, nor does expenditure on the production and distribution of goods and services.
Direct R&D staff costs
Your company can claim for salaries, wages, class 1 NIC and pension fund contributions for staff directly and actively engaged in the R&D project.
This covers employees who undertake ‘hands on’ R&D work and the proportion of supervisory and managerial time spent specifically directing such employees in those activities.
Support staff costs, for example administrative or clerical staff, do not qualify, except when they relate to qualifying indirect activities. These can be activities like maintenance, clerical, administrative and security work.
Externally provided R&D staff
These are the staff costs paid to an external agency for staff who are directly and actively engaged in the R&D project — these are not employees and subcontractors. Relief is usually given on 65% of the payments made to the staff provider. Special rules apply if the company and staff provider are connected or elect to be connected.
Further information on externally provided R&D staff can be found at: hmrc.gov.uk/manuals/cirdmanual/cird84000.htm
A more detailed definition of support staff costs at: hmrc.gov.uk/manuals/cirdmanual/CIRD81900.htm
Your company cannot claim for employment-related benefits. Subcontracted R&D
SME Scheme
Your company can generally claim for 65% of the payments made to unconnected parties. The subcontracted work may be further subcontracted to any third party. Special rules apply where the parties are connected or elect to be connected.
RDEC Scheme
R&D expenditure subcontracted to other persons is generally not allowable unless it is directly undertaken by a charity, higher education institute, scientific research organisation or health service body — or by an individual or a partnership of individuals.
Consumable items
Your company can claim for the cost of items that are directly employed and consumed in qualifying R&D projects. These include materials and the proportion of water, fuel and power consumed in the R&D process.
From 1 April 2015, the costs of materials incorporated in products that are sold are not eligible for relief.
Software directly used in the R&D
Your company may claim for the cost of software that is directly employed in the R&D activity. Where software is only partly employed in direct R&D, an appropriate apportionment should be made.
Further information on software directly used in the R&D can be found at: hmrc.gov.uk/manuals/cirdmanual/cird82500.htm
Clinical trial volunteers
Pharmaceutical companies and research organisations often make payments to volunteers taking part in clinical trials. These are allowable for relief, but read the guidance first.
Further information on payments to volunteers taking part in clinical trials can be found at: hmrc.gov.uk/manuals/cirdmanual/cird84400.htm
Contributions to independent research
Only large companies may claim R&D relief on contributions they make towards funding relevant independent R&D. This R&D must be carried out by the recipient and be related to the company’s trade. Contributions must be made to a qualifying body — a charity, higher education institute, scientific research organisation or health service body — or to an individual or a partnership of individuals.
Further information on contributions to independent research can be found at: hmrc.gov.uk/manuals/cirdmanual/cird82200.htm
Prototypes
Where a prototype is created to test the R&D being undertaken, the design, construction and testing costs will normally be qualifying expenses.
However, if the prototype is also built with a view to selling the prototype itself (such as the construction of a bespoke machine), HMRC considers that to be production and outside the R&D scheme, even if R&D was undertaken to create the prototype.
In that case you need to work out the split between R&D expenditure and production costs. For example, the construction costs and materials consumed would not be qualifying expenses, but design, modelling and testing costs could still qualify.
Collaborative working
In general, where two companies collaborate on a R&D project, each can claim relief on the qualifying costs they have incurred.
Where a company and a university or other research institute collaborate, only the company can claim relief on the qualifying costs it has incurred.
Collaborative arrangements are governed by their contracts and you should seek advice from HMRC where it’s unclear which company gets the relief. What costs do not qualify
Not all costs qualify, and you cannot receive R&D relief for:
- The production and distribution of goods and services
- Capital expenditure under either of the R&D relief schemes. However, a generous 100% Research and Development Allowance may be due on capital assets, such as plant, machinery and buildings used for R&D activity.
- The cost of land
- Payments for the use and creation of patents and trademarks, as these are the cost of protecting the completed R&D. This also includes the staff costs in relation to the time spent by all staff on the preparation and submission of such applications. However, the Patent Box enables companies to apply a 10 per cent rate of Corporation tax to profits earned from their patented inventions after 1 April 2013.
Further information on capital assets used for R&D activity can be found at: [gov.uk/hmrcinternal-manuals/capital-allowances-manual/ca60000](gov.uk/hmrcinternal-manuals/capital-allowances-manual/ca60000)
Further information on Patent Box be found at: [gov.uk/guidance/corporation-tax-the-patent-box](gov.uk/guidance/corporation-tax-the-patent-box) Subcontracted R&D Subcontracted R&D
SMEs that subcontract qualifying R&D activities can claim tax relief on 65% of the payment to the subcontractor. SMEs undertaking qualifying R&D for large companies may claim under the RDEC Scheme.
Your company as the contractor
Under the SME Scheme the subcontractor does not need to be a UK resident and there is no requirement for the subcontracted R&D to be performed in the UK. There are special rules where the parties are connected or elect to be connected. The diagrams below help explain what you may claim.
Further information and guidance on connected and unconnected companies can be found at: gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/corporate-intangibles-research-and-development-manual/cird91000
Your company as the subcontractor
Generally, if an SME or large company carries out an R&D project under contract to a large company or person not chargeable to tax in the UK as a trade, profession or vocation, they are likely to be able to make a claim under the RDEC scheme.
Further information and guidance on your company as the subcontractor can be found at: hmrc.gov.uk/manuals/cirdmanual/cird81470.htm
Unconnected Subcontractors
| SME Scheme | Company can claim 65% of the qualifying R&D payment made to a subcontractor | |------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | RDEC scheme | Generally the expenditure contracted to other persons is not allowable | | However 100% of the R&D expenditure can qualify if the subcontractor falls within Note 1 |
Connected Subcontractors
| SME Scheme | The lesser of 100% of the R&D payment made to the subcontractor or the relevant expenditure in the connected party’s accounts | |------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | RDEC scheme | Generally the expenditure contracted to other persons is not allowable | | However 100% of the R&D expenditure can qualify if the subcontractor falls within Note 1 |
Note 1: An individual, a partnership made up wholly of individuals, or a qualifying body. Further information can be found at: hmrc.gov.uk/manuals/cirdmanual/cird82250.htm
Note 2: Definitive rules can be found at: hmrc.gov.uk/manuals/cirdmanual/cird84200.htm
## Subcontracting — who can make a claim?
| Contracting company | Relief | Subcontractor | Relief | |---------------------|--------|---------------|--------| | SME | Yes | SME | No | | SME | Yes | Large company | No | | SME | Yes | Qualifying body, individual or partnership | No | | Large company | No | SME (even if the SME further subcontracts to qualifying body individual or partnership) | Yes (under RDEC scheme) | | Large company | No | Large company | Yes | | Large company | Yes | Qualifying body, individual or partnership | No | | Large company | No | Another group company | Yes | Grants and subsidies
Grants or subsidies that your company receives for your R&D project may make a difference to your R&D claim.
The SME scheme is a notifiable State Aid, and a company can’t get the SME relief if is receiving any other notifiable State Aids for the same R&D project.
So if you are thinking of claiming for a project that has already received a grant, it is essential that you establish whether that grant was a notifiable State Aid. The grant provider will be able to tell you that.
If you have received a grant which is notifiable State Aid, for an R&D project, you can’t get relief under the SME scheme, but eligible expenditure will qualify under the RDEC scheme.
You don’t need to reduce the RDEC eligible expenditure by the value of the grant received.
If the company has a number of projects it may make RDEC claims for projects that have had State Aid, and SME claims for non-grant funded project(s). More on grants and subsidies
You may have received a grant which is not a notifiable State Aid — examples include de minimis State Aid, Horizon 2020 or Framework Programme funding.
If you have received a grant which is not a notifiable State Aid, or have received any other type of subsidy for one of your R&D projects, you may be eligible to claim under both the RDEC and the SME scheme.
You can claim under the RDEC scheme for eligible expenditure which has been subsidised by the grant or subsidy. In addition, if there is eligible expenditure on the project which has not been covered by the subsidy, you can make a claim for the balance of the expenditure under the SME scheme.
Example
Expenditure on project: £125,000 — staff and consumables
Amount of grant received: £80,000 — potentially eligible for RDEC claim
Balance of expenditure: £45,000 — potentially eligible for SME Claim Why is RDEC important to SMEs?
SMEs may also claim relief under the RDEC scheme if they cannot claim under the SME scheme because of a grant or subsidy, or because they are carrying out subcontract R&D for a large company.
| SME worked example | Profit and Loss Account (£) | |--------------------|-----------------------------| | Sales | 1,000 | | Cost of sales | (500) | | Gross profit | 500 | | R&D qualifying expenditure | (100) | | Other expenses | (150) | | Total operating costs | (250) | | Net profit before tax | 250 | | Tax due (see below) | 24 | | **Total tax** | **24** | | Profit after tax | 226 |
| Corporation Tax Computation (£) | |---------------------------------| | Net profit before tax | 250 | | Less R&D relief | (130) (130) | | Adjusted profit before tax | 120 | | Corporation Tax due at 20% | 24 | | Corporation Tax payable (£) | 24 |
| RDEC worked example | Profit and Loss Account (£) | |--------------------|-----------------------------| | Sales | 1,000 | | Cost of sales | (500) | | Gross profit | 500 | | R&D qualifying expenditure | (100) | | 11% RDEC on expenditure | 11 | | Other expenses | (150) | | Total operating costs | (239) | | Net profit before tax | 261 | | Tax due at 20% | 52.2 | | **Total tax** | **52.2** | | Profit after tax | 208.8 |
| Corporation Tax Computation (£) | |---------------------------------| | Net profit before tax | 261 | | Corporation Tax due at 20% | 52.2 | | Tax payable (£) | 52.2 | | Corporation Tax due | 52.2 | | Less tax credit | (11) | | Corporation Tax payable | 41.20 | How to claim R&D relief How to claim R&D tax relief
Making a claim
CT600
You can claim R&D relief by entering the total qualifying expenditure on the full Company Tax Return form, CT600.
Payable Tax Credit
Under the SME scheme, SMEs that prepare their accounts on a going concern basis may be able to claim a payable tax credit - up to 14.5% of the R&D loss surrendered from 1 April 2014.
Backdated claims
If your company has been undertaking qualifying R&D and has not yet claimed R&D relief, you may make a backdated claim within the anniversary of your filing date – generally two years after the end of the accounting period. How to calculate your claim
There are three stages to making your claim. Using an example, we explain how to take your figures and turn them into a claim.
1. Work out your allowable expenditure
| Your total costs | What is allowable | Total | |------------------|-------------------|-------| | R&D staff (x3) with total costs £150,000 and 80% time directly on R&D. | £150,000 x 80% allowable as staff costs | £120,000 | | R&D manager’s costs £100,000 with 20% of time directly managing the R&D activity. | £100,000 x 20% allowable as staff costs | £20,000 | | Heat and light £5,000 with 25% consumed in R&D project | £5,000 x 25% allowable as consumable items | £1,250 | | Disposable laboratory equipment consumed £200 | £200 allowable as consumable items | £200 | | £80,000 payments to an unconnected subcontractor for R&D work | £80,000 x 65% of payments allowable as subcontracted R&D | £52,000 | | £70,000 payments to an unconnected staff provider for staff directly engaged on R&D. | £70,000 x 65% allowable as an externally provided worker (EPW). | £45,500 |
£238,950
In this example, we’ve worked out that the total qualifying expenditure is £238,950.
The next thing to do is to turn this into a figure for the amount of R&D tax relief that the company wants to claim. 2. Turn the allowable expenditure into an R&D tax relief figure
| Description | Amount | |--------------------------------------------------|----------| | Total allowable costs | £238,950 | | Multiply by 130% | £310,635 | | Add these together to get the total R&D tax relief: 'enhanced expenditure' | £549,585 |
3. Put the R&D tax relief into the right box on the company tax return
Now that we have worked out the R&D tax relief, this can be entered onto the company tax return.
For accounting periods that start on or after 1 April 2015, use version 3 of the company tax return. Version 2 is for periods before this. The two versions have different box numbers, so we provide guidance on both. Check the front page of the tax return to see which version you are using.
Using version 3 of the company tax return
Put an X in the box at box 650.
Enter the enhanced expenditure figure in box 660 – in this example you would enter £549,585. Using version 2 of the company tax return
Put an X in the box at box 99.
Enter the enhanced expenditure figure in box 101 – in this example you would enter £549,585.
Claiming the payable tax credit?
If your company wants to claim a payable tax credit, there are a couple more steps to carry out before you fill in the tax return.
First you need to know how much tax you are due to pay in this period.
Second, you need to calculate the amount of the payable tax credit. In the simplest cases, this figure will be (‘enhanced expenditure’ x payable tax credit rate). Using 2016 rates and the example above, the payable tax credit will be:
£549,585 x 14.5% = £79,690.
Guidance on how to calculate the amount of the payable tax credit can be found at: gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/corporate-intangibles-research-and-development-manual/cird90500
Now you are ready to enter the figures.
Using version 3 of the company tax return
Enter the company’s Self Assessment figure in box 525.
Enter the tax credit figure in box 530 – in this example you would enter £79,690.
Complete box 545 – in this example, you would enter £79,690.
Complete box 570 – that’s box 545 minus box 525.
Put an X in the box at box 650.
Enter the enhanced expenditure figure in box 660 – in this example you would enter £549,585.
Enter the payable tax credit figure at box 875 – in this example, you would enter £79,690.
Using version 2 of the company tax return
You need to complete boxes 86, 87, 89, 99, 101 and 143.
Claiming the RDEC?
Using version 3 of the company tax return.
You need to calculate the expenditure credit due to the company. Using 2016 rate, and for this example, it would be £238,950 x 11% = £26,285.
Enter the expenditure credit figure at box 530 – in this case, it is £26,285.
Complete box 570.
Check box 650, and for box 660 enter £549,585.
Complete box 880 – in this case it will be £26,285. Keeping records
There is no additional record keeping requirement specifically for the purposes of claiming R&D relief.
You should be able to give a summary of the R&D project undertaken and explain how the project is R&D within the tax relief definition. It would be helpful if you provide this information in a short report at the time of making your claim.
Focus on the advances being sought and the uncertainties faced rather than just a description of the finished product. Include a breakdown of the expenses that qualify for relief. Advance Assurance Advance Assurance
In November 2015, HMRC introduced Advance Assurance for companies that claim R&D tax relief in November 2015. If your company carries out R&D for itself or other companies, it could qualify for Advance Assurance. This means that for the first three accounting periods of claiming for R&D tax relief, HMRC will allow the claim without further enquiries.
Applying for Advance Assurance is voluntary and you can do this at any time before the first claim for R&D tax relief. Your company can still apply for R&D tax relief without Advance Assurance.
Further information, help and advice can be found at: gov.uk/guidance/research-and-development-tax-relief-advance-assurance Case Studies The Agri-food Sector
The Agri-food sector is increasingly exploiting new science and technology.
A project to develop a new feed or to grow crops that have substantially increased vitamin content, produce better or more reliable yields, or are more tolerant to weather conditions and resistant to blight, would be qualifying R&D.
The scientific and technological advance is in resolving the uncertainty in the creation of a new improved strain. However, work to protect this new strain with plant breeding rights does not qualify as it is regulatory, not scientific or technological activity.
Not every change advances overall knowledge and capability. Creating new Vitamin C rich confectionery simply by adding Vitamin C to the ingredients does not qualify. A competent professional could carry out the process without uncertainty in either combining the ingredients or their reaction in the body when consumed.
Creating an innovative chilled food container that provides a substantially longer shelf life than currently available, would also qualify. The scientific or technological uncertainties to be addressed are in the interactions between the food, gas content and container to keep the food fresh for longer. By contrast, the work in dealing with authorities to comply with extended use-by date regulation would not qualify.
Not all innovation qualifies. A project to create a food container where the innovation lies in the artistic design or presentation of the packaging to encourage prospective customer purchases would not qualify. The uncertainty here is in design or marketing, not in science or technology. The computer games industry provides particularly good examples of innovative projects that do meet the requirements of the R&D schemes and also examples of projects which do not.
No matter how original and inventive the game storylines are, these are not scientific or technological advances. The important criterion is not ‘what’ is produced but ‘how’.
A company realised that each object on a game’s screen had to be programmed in respect of its interaction with all the other objects. As the game became more complex, more objects were introduced and the amount of code required rose exponentially. The solution was to programme the properties of each object. When the objects interacted, a separate code was no longer required as the inherent properties produced the outcomes. The qualifying expenditure on developing this innovative code qualified for R&D relief.
The ICT sector is so fast-moving that further advances overtake new and ground breaking developments very quickly. What is important is that a project represents an advance at the time of development. New encryption and security techniques are being developed regularly and in many cases give rise to further advances. Even if the technique is quickly rendered redundant it will probably qualify for relief. The same applies to new search engines using new search methods.
Many advances are in the software field but advances in hardware are not unusual and will qualify for R&D relief if they are designed to overcome a scientific or technological uncertainty. Equally, very small companies dealing in subcontracted work may qualify if the work undertaken is sufficiently innovative, even if the larger contractor’s project does not qualify. Advanced materials
Whilst some companies specialise in the design and production of new materials, other companies find they become involved in this area as an adjunct to their main activities.
A company, specialising in agricultural engineering, used a probe to provide information on the quality of cereals which were transported in sacking. Measurements could only be taken at the top, as anywhere else would damage the sacking. This however did not produce representative samples.
The company designed a material which allowed a probe to enter the sacking and which reverted to a sealed surface once the probe was removed. Although the market for this material was limited, it proved extremely successful in overseas markets. For R&D purposes the company incurred qualifying expenditure in overcoming the uncertainty in developing the material.
A further development arose when the company received orders from Eastern European countries, where the material did not react in the required way in sub-zero temperatures. The company undertook further research to amend the material to meet the requirements of the extreme conditions. The additional expenditure on manufacturing the material was not qualifying but the research costs of amending the material to meet ‘cold weather’ issues again qualified.
In many projects involving advanced materials, the scientific and/or technological uncertainty can be readily identified. However, the use of ‘new’ materials in existing processes may also qualify if it can be shown that the outcome has or was intended to significantly improve efficiency, for example, significantly reduce waste. Advanced engineering
R&D is increasingly providing an important competitive edge in this sector.
A project is commissioned to produce a prototype (not to be sold) that will test a design for a new eco-petrol engine and exhaust. The goal is to achieve a substantial reduction in eco-unfriendly emissions with a performance at least as good as a comparable engine.
This appears to competent professional engineers to offer hope of achieving a real advance by way of an improvement in vehicle technology. The uncertainty in science and technology is whether this substantial reduction with the comparable performance sought is possible. Even if unsuccessful, this and the construction of the prototype is still a qualifying R&D project.
On the other hand, an innovative in-bus eco-waste bin, where the innovation is in the attractive and appealing presentation of different compartments designed specifically to encourage the usage and promotion of recycling, does not qualify. The uncertainty of persuading people to put their litter in the bin is in the field of social science, not in the field of technology. The technology required would be obvious to a competent engineer.
A project for a new standard bus engine which is substantially lighter, cheaper, or faster to produce than any currently available or known to be possible (for example patented), whilst maintaining performance levels (for example in power, robustness and life) can all qualify as R&D. However, a minor and routine adjustment such as one to incorporate slightly better spark plugs, already designed and used in another vehicle, would not qualify. Life and health sciences
The creation of new drugs is an obvious example of qualifying R&D in this sector. Creating a new drug, up to and including Phase III trials, to more effectively and safely reduce the risk of a stroke, is a qualifying project. The salaries of both the scientists and their laboratory assistants doing this hands-on R&D can qualify. However, their work to achieve important regulatory FDA approvals does not qualify, because any uncertainty in achieving these is in regulation, not science or technology.
A project to create a new artificial bladder system for patients with urinary difficulties, substantially more comfortable, safe and leak-proof than any other designed, qualifies as R&D. The advance sought and uncertainty addressed is how to bio-engineer the materials to achieve these qualities, enabling safe insertion and avoiding rejection.
However, where a competitor reverse-engineers this product, for markets not covered by any intellectual property protection, this does not qualify. The advance in science or technology worldwide has already been overcome and the competitor’s uncertainty is not an uncertainty at industry sector level, rather an uncertainty in their own state of knowledge.
A project for newly-diagnosed diabetes patients to provide details of their blood sugar to the hospital via a simple internet web form is innovative. It allows the hospital to monitor their condition in real time and advise the patient immediately on how best to manage their condition.
Although this achieves an advance in patient care, any uncertainty associated with the patient’s use of the software is not an uncertainty in the technology itself. As such, this is not a qualifying R&D project. The design of the web-based system would be obvious to a competent professional. Construction
In general, this is a traditional and well-proven industry. However an increasing number of companies undertake R&D to exceed the traditional methods in terms of life expectancy of buildings, durability or robustness.
A company created a cladding system which had the appearance of ‘normal’ brickwork but incorporated the capacity for off-site fabrication, improved fire protection and suitability to fast-track production. Mechanical fixing rather than wet mortar provided strength and durability, which together with the capacity to construct in all weather conditions provided significant cost savings. The uncertainty of the materials in the cladding system and the technological uncertainties surrounding fixing were qualifying R&D projects.
Another company specialised in constructing laboratories. To combat contamination the company designed some new buildings with removable sections. Exterior walls could be slid away and a unit could be removed in total and replaced by a new unit before the exterior walls were slid back into place.
The technological uncertainties surrounding the mechanisms to achieve this had to be overcome before the concept proved viable, making this a qualifying project.
A further example of innovation is a company which used wood in part of a project. Traditionally the wood needed to be of a certain age but the company was able to modify a coating so that younger and cheaper wood could be used whilst still having the required qualities.
Significantly this development was a small element of an overall conventional project. Only after discussion with the site foreman did the company directors realise that the modification and application of the coating qualified for R&D relief. Further help
Further information on about Research and Development relief can be found at: [gov.uk/guidance/corporation-tax-research-and-development-rd-relief](gov.uk/guidance/corporation-tax-research-and-development-rd-relief)
Further information on Advance Assurance can be found at: [gov.uk/government/publications/research-and-development-tax-relief-application-for-advance-assurance-for-research-and-development-tax-relief-ct-rd-aa](gov.uk/government/publications/research-and-development-tax-relief-application-for-advance-assurance-for-research-and-development-tax-relief-ct-rd-aa)
Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) guidelines can be found at: [gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/corporate-intangibles-research-and-development-manual](gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/corporate-intangibles-research-and-development-manual) Frequently asked questions
Can I claim R&D relief and a grant? Yes, however the EU notification status of the grant will affect under which R&D scheme you can claim. Most grants are ‘notifiable’ therefore both SMEs and large companies can claim under the Large Company Scheme or the RDEC scheme on the gross qualifying expenditure.
How do I know if a grant is notified? Your grant provider will be able to tell you whether or not the grant/subsidy is notified.
Can I claim patent costs? The costs of preparing and registering a patent are not R&D – they are the costs of protecting the completed R&D. However, the Patent Box enables companies to apply a 10% rate of Corporation Tax to profits from its patented inventions after 1 April 2013.
What is the difference between a subcontractor and an externally provided worker? A subcontractor is a person paid by the R&D company to carry out a specific R&D activity. An externally provided worker is an individual who provides or is under an obligation to provide their services personally to the R&D company under the terms of a contract between them and the staff provider. The individual will be paid by the staff provider but work under the R&D company’s direction. The company pays the staff provider.
How do I treat R&D losses? Under the SME scheme, for expenditure incurred on or after 1 April 2014, the company may surrender the R&D loss for a payable tax credit of 14.5% (previously 11% from 1 April 2012). Any unsurrendered or unutilised losses under either the SME or RDEC schemes may be carried forward to be set against future years trading profits under the normal corporation tax rules.
How long will it take to receive an R&D tax credit repayment? HMRC aims to deal with 95% of payable tax credit claims within 28 days of receiving the claim.
Further information on claiming patent costs can be found at: gov.uk/corporation-tax-the-patent-box Glossary
**Appreciable improvement** — to change or adapt the scientific or technological characteristics of something to the point where it is ‘better’ than the original. The improvement should be more than minor or routine upgrading and should represent something that would generally be acknowledged by a competent professional in that field as a genuine and non-trivial improvement.
**Appropriate proportion** — the expenditure claimed by the company for R&D must be representative of the amount of time spent carrying out qualifying R&D activity. The company must be able to demonstrate that costs have been calculated to remove any elements that were not incurred during the R&D process.
**Competent professional** — an expert working within the field of science or technology in which the advance is being sought.
**Consumable items** — Where R&D activity results in items being wholly used up or transformed within the process these are consumable items and may be eligible for relief. However, from expenditure incurred on or after 1 April 2015 where those items are incorporated into the final product and sold then the costs of those items will not be eligible for relief.
**Corporation Tax** — A limited company must pay Corporation Tax on profits from doing business, however the amount of Corporation Tax you pay may be reduced if you are undertaking relevant R&D activity.
**Externally provided workers (EPW)** — Workers are provided through a staff provider. The staff provider is required to operate PAYE in relation to individual workers supplied to a client.
**Filing date** — The date by which a company has to submit its tax return to HMRC. The date will be shown on the notice issued to the company. Any amendment to a tax return must be submitted no later than 12 months after the filing date.
**Notifiable State Aid** — State Aid is granted by public authorities through state resources to provide assistance to an organisation. Many companies receive State Aid as a contribution towards their research and development activity. If your company receives State Aid then HMRC needs to know as it can affect the amount you can claim in R&D tax relief. Your grant notification documents will say it the grant is notifiable State Aid or not.
**Prototype** — An original model constructed to include all the technical or scientific characteristics of the new product or process determined by the R&D undertaken within a project.
The conditions to be satisfied can be found at: gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/corporate-intangibles-research-and-development-manual/cird84100 R&D — Research and Development for tax purposes takes place when a project seeks to achieve an advance in science or technology. The work is undertaken on a systematic basis in order to resolve technical or scientific uncertainty and aims to advance the level of knowledge in a particular field of science beyond the level known before the research and development took place.
R&D project — The R&D project is not the project to develop the product. See paragraph 19 of the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) guidelines (formerly Business Innovation and Skills {BIS}) which defines the “project” for R&D purposes. We very often see claims stating that the advance is the creation of a project which does x, y, or z (and where the claim is based on the costs of creating that product).
That is not the correct test. The specific advances in science and technology with that (commercial) project must be identified. Each such specific advance will be a separate R&D project. Only the costs of resolving the scientific or technological uncertainties linked to each of those advances will qualify.
RDEC — Research and Development Expenditure Credit. A stand-alone credit to be brought into account as a receipt in calculating the profits of large companies for research and development expenditure incurred on or after 1 April 2013. Companies with no corporation tax liability will benefit from RDEC either through a cash payment or a reduction of tax or other duties due.
Readily deducible — Where the knowledge or capability is publicly available or known by competent professionals working in the field.
Science — Science is the systematic study of the nature and behaviour of the physical and material universe. Work in the arts, humanities and social sciences, including economics, is not science for the purpose of these guidelines. Mathematical techniques are frequently used in science but mathematical advances in and of themselves are not science unless they are advances in representing the nature and behaviour of the physical and material universe.
SME — A small or medium sized enterprise.
SME scheme — You can only claim under the scheme for SMEs if your company meets the definition of a SME for R&D tax relief purposes. You can only claim R&D tax relief as a SME if your company is a going concern and not in administration or liquidation when you make your claim. If you’ve made a claim and the company then ceases to be a going concern you can’t get a tax credit.
Technology — Technology is the practical application of scientific principles and knowledge, where ‘scientific’ is based on the definition of science above.
Webinar — HMRC have a number of seminars and presentations which take place on the internet. You can register your interest to view these on the HMRC website.
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/4972-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 45,
"total-input-tokens": 72688,
"total-output-tokens": 12909,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
74,
1
],
[
74,
2619,
2
],
[
2619,
3190,
3
],
[
3190,
4088,
4
],
[
4088,
4108,
5
],
[
4108,
5490,
6
],
[
5490,
6172,
7
],
[
6172,
7412,
8
],
[
7412,
7709,
9
],
[
7709,
7733,
10
],
[
7733,
9679,
11
],
[
9679,
11686,
12
],
[
11686,
13339,
13
],
[
13339,
14863,
14
],
[
14863,
15437,
15
],
[
15437,
15457,
16
],
[
15457,
16996,
17
],
[
16996,
20236,
18
],
[
20236,
21375,
19
],
[
21375,
21393,
20
],
[
21393,
23669,
21
],
[
23669,
24380,
22
],
[
24380,
25312,
23
],
[
25312,
26208,
24
],
[
26208,
28628,
25
],
[
28628,
28652,
26
],
[
28652,
29265,
27
],
[
29265,
30547,
28
],
[
30547,
31590,
29
],
[
31590,
33498,
30
],
[
33498,
34041,
31
],
[
34041,
34059,
32
],
[
34059,
34751,
33
],
[
34751,
34764,
34
],
[
34764,
36394,
35
],
[
36394,
38111,
36
],
[
38111,
39753,
37
],
[
39753,
41380,
38
],
[
41380,
43195,
39
],
[
43195,
44937,
40
],
[
44937,
45789,
41
],
[
45789,
47702,
42
],
[
47702,
50300,
43
],
[
50300,
53132,
44
],
[
53132,
53132,
45
]
]
} |
a80886b7bc4f9c60791bbbcb4b2de3ac9630aaf0 | Re-use of Public Sector Information
The Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body (SPCB) complies with the requirements of the Re-use of Public Sector Information (Amendment) Regulations 2015 by:
- Encouraging re-use of the information we publish by implementing the Scottish Parliament Copyright Licence.
- The Scottish Parliament licence means you can re-use the information we publish so long as you attribute the information to the Scottish Parliament and comply with the terms and conditions of the licence and the requirements of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
- Providing datasets in a machine readable format covering all parliamentary information that can usefully be provided as open data. Datasets are already available, including those containing information on motions, questions, answers and petitions. Access open data at the Scottish Parliament.
The Re-use (Amendment) Regulations 2015 require public bodies to define their “public task” setting out the body’s core role and functions.
The Scottish Parliament was established under the Scotland Act 1998 and its main functions are:
- to hold the Scottish Government to account through oral and written questions and through scrutiny of its policies in the committees;
- to make laws on devolved matters by examining, amending and voting on Bills and to scrutinise subordinate legislation made by the Scottish Ministers;
- to debate important topical issues;
- to conduct inquiries and publish reports.
The Re-use (Amendment) Regulations 2015 require public bodies to provide an asset register. An information asset is information that a public body produces, holds or disseminates that is of interest or value to itself and potentially to re-users and an information asset register is a register of these information assets.
The Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body is responsible for ensuring that the Parliament is provided with the property, staff and services required for the Parliament’s purpose. To carry out these functions the SPCB considers and makes decisions on a wide range of issues to do with the running of the Parliament including; the allocation of the budget; staffing and the use and security of parliamentary facilities at Holyrood.
It is impractical to make a distinction between the information held by the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Parliament Corporate Body and so the information... covered by our public task refers to both the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body.
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/4973-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 2,
"total-input-tokens": 3460,
"total-output-tokens": 563,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
2437,
1
],
[
2437,
2549,
2
]
]
} |
7843925e45b621ba124e8950b221e1279e68f32d | Stewart McNaughton Health and Safety Consultant – HAVS Reactec Ltd Hand Arm Vibration Syndrome What’s the problem?
HAVS sufferers face long term disablement.
There is no cure. Prevention is the only option. Hand Arm Vibration Syndrome
What’s the problem?
Disturbance to hand function caused by transmitted vibration
Blood Vessels
Nervous System
Muscoskeletal Damage
Symptoms include tingling, numbness, reduced grip or dexterity and pain, often severe. Hand Arm Vibration Syndrome
History
1911: Symptoms first described by Professor Giovanni Loriga in Italy
1918: Dr Alice Hamilton MD refers to “dead fingers" syndrome in 1918
1970: Dr Alice Hamilton dies, aged 101
1970: Term ‘vibration induced white finger’ coined by Industrial Injury Advisory Council Hand Arm Vibration Syndrome
History
Dr Hamilton:
“The trouble seems to be caused by the vibrations of the tool, and cold.
If these features can be eliminated the trouble can be decidedly lessened“ Hand Arm Vibration Syndrome
History
1975: First scale published for assessing the condition - The Taylor-Pelmear scale
1985: Listed as a prescribed disease in UK
1997: UK High Court awarded £127,000 in compensation to seven coal miners for vibration white finger
2004: UK government fund set up to cover subsequent claims by ex-coalminers exceeds £100 million in payments. HAVS Current Legislation
Interpretation
- Health And Safety At Work Act 1974.
- Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998.
- Management Of Health And Safety At Work Regulations 1999.
- Physical Agents (Vibration) Directive 2002.
- Control of Vibrations Regulations 2005.
- Supply of Machinery (Safety) Regulations 2008. HAVS Current Legislation Exemptions
• Emergency services • Air transport • Ministry of Defence The Control of Vibrations Regulations 2005
Protect workers from harmful effects of vibration exposure transmitted by hand contact Risk Assessment
Suitable health surveillance should be undertaken where risk assessment indicates a risk to workers’ health. Why and how to detect/report symptoms of HAVS
• Most surveillance is carried out annually.
• Susceptible individuals can develop symptoms in 6 months or less. Hand Arm Vibration Syndrome Implications
Employee
• Health & Safety • Disability • Employability • Family Employee Employee Employee Employee Hand Arm Vibration Syndrome Implications
Employer
• Legal • Litigious • Ethical • Moral • Insurance
• Core Skills • Costs • Morale • Closure • Prosecution • Reputation Hand Arm Vibration Syndrome Implications
Health & Safety Professional
• Ethical • Moral • Trust • Respect • Prosecution • Reputation • Career Lawyers?
AMBULANCE CHASING?
It is reasonable to expect that this emerging market will be filled by qualified professionals. Hand Arm Vibration Syndrome
Litigation
Hand Arm Vibration Claim: Solicitor Sets Out Compensation Amounts For HAVS, Vibration White Finger, Reynaud's Syndrome, Whole Body Vibration Syndrome
1. Financial losses and expenses
2. Pain and Suffering
3. Legal Costs
4. Hand arm vibration affecting the fingers: £2,000 - £11,000
5. Disability to one or both hands: £11,000 - £25,000
'Substantial' payout to Cumbrian man whose hands damaged at work By Jenny Barwise
Thompsons Solicitors £30,000 payout for young man from Doncaster who had to change jobs after vibrating tools permanently damaged his hands Hand Arm Vibration Syndrome
Litigation
Hand Arm Vibration Compensation Claim Amounts
Hand arm vibration syndrome is classed as an industrial injury and as such it is possible to make a claim for personal injury compensation if employer blame has been established for the injuries sustained. See below compensation examples;
£15,000 compensation for a construction worker that used hydraulic breakers and wacker plates and developed vibration white finger.
£10,000 injury compensation for a construction worker using pneumatic tools such as vibrating pokers, scrablers, whacker plates and kango hammers over a 20 year period who developed hand arm vibration syndrome
£6,761 awarded to an employee of the National Coal Board that had hand arm vibration syndrome.
£4,000 out of court settlement to an engineering worker that used needle guns and grinders and developed vibration white finger.
£10,000 compensation awarded to a steel fabricator after he developed vibration white finger.
£20,000 injury compensation to a steel fabricator that used angle grinders on a daily basis after he developed a hand arm vibration syndrome condition. Hand Arm Vibration Syndrome
Litigation
Unite member David Hopps, 65 has received a £15,000 out of court payout after developing Hand Arm Vibration Syndrome (HAVS), caused by the maintenance craftsman’s use of vibrating tools at Drax Power Station.
Worker receives payout over hand injury A STOURBRIDGE man has received a £10,000 out of court payout after his hands were left permanently damaged by using vibrating tools at work.
Keith Rowley, aged 55, was left with the debilitating condition Hand Arm Vibration Syndrome (HAVS), also known as Vibration White Finger, after using vibrating tools in his job as a fitter.
His employer General Kinematics Ltd based in Kingswinford did not admit liability - but settled the claim out of court after Keith’s union, the GMB (Britain’s General Union), instructed Thompsons Solicitors to pursue compensation for his injury. Vibration exposure risk assessment
Your risk assessment should:
• Identify where there might be a risk from vibration and who is likely to be affected
• Contain a reasonable estimate of your employees’ exposures
• Identify what you need to do to comply with the law eg whether vibration control measures are needed, and, if so, where and what type
• Identify any employees who need to be provided with health surveillance and whether any are at particular risk. Vibration exposure risk assessment
What to do:
• Review regularly • After any change in circumstance • Use a competent person • Make lists... • Employees • Activities • Tools Vibration exposure risk assessment
What to do:
• Record the findings of your risk assessment • Create an action plan • Set out what you have done • State what you are going to do • Create a timetable of actions • Say who will be responsible for the work Health Surveillance
• Is identifying HAVS sufferers merely doing the minimum? • Most surveillance is carried out annually. • Susceptible individuals can develop symptoms in 6 months or less. • Isn’t prevention better than identification? The Value of Continuous Monitoring
- Efficient and timely analysis of data.
- Swift Identification of over exposure.
- Early Intervention and Prevention.
- Involves Workforce.
- Contributes to Workforce Safety Awareness.
- Aids change Management. HAVS Management Tools
HAVmeter
HAVi HAVS Management Tools
HAV- pro HAVS Management Tools
......and paper
| Equipment | Y.mag m/s² | Points per Hr | Exp hrs/min | Points per day | Exp hrs/min | Points per day | Exp hrs/min | Points per day | Exp hrs/min | Points per day | Exp hrs/min | Points per day | |-----------|------------|---------------|-------------|----------------|-------------|----------------|-------------|----------------|-------------|----------------|-------------|----------------| | 239 T-Hedgecutter Double Sided 24" | 5.6 | 63 | 2.40 | 230 | 2.00 | 188 | 2.00 | 188 | 2.00 | 188 | 2.00 | 188 | | 239 T-Hedgecutter Double Sided 24" | 5.6 | 63 | 2.40 | 230 | 2.00 | 188 | 2.00 | 188 | 2.00 | 188 | 2.00 | 188 | | 406 T-Blower Back Pack EB | 2.5 | 13 | 6.00 | 72 | 5.00 | 60 | 5.00 | 60 | 5.00 | 60 | 5.00 | 60 | | 406 T-Blower Back Pack EB | 2.5 | 13 | 6.00 | 72 | 5.00 | 60 | 5.00 | 60 | 5.00 | 60 | 5.00 | 60 | | 406 T-Blower Back Pack EB | 2.5 | 13 | 6.00 | 72 | 5.00 | 60 | 5.00 | 60 | 5.00 | 60 | 5.00 | 60 | | 239 T-Hedgecutter Double Sided 24" | 5.6 | 63 | 3.1 | 103 | 4.00 | 50 | 4.00 | 50 | 4.00 | 50 | 4.00 | 50 |
Weekly Exposure: 805
Sum: 199 230 75 254 50 Benefits of HAVS Management Benefits of HAVS Management
- Reduced Labour Costs
- Accurate HAV data
- Accurate Trigger Time Data
- Timely & salient reporting
- Increased Productivity
- Supports Tool Management Benefits of HAVS Management
Simple to use Benefits of HAVS Management
- Swipe out HAVmeter from Basestation
- Pick up flashing HAVmeter
- Connect HAVmeter to any tool
- Lift HAVmeter from tool after use
- Return HAVmeter to Basestation for recharge
Traffic light system when using tools:
- GREEN = GO
- AMBER = BE AWARE
- RED = STOP
### Reporting
**1. Vibration Exposure by Operator From 05/03/2012 To 09/03/2012**
#### Northern Division Ground Works Civil Engineering
| Operator | Date | Day Of Week | Maximum Daily Exposure | EAV | ELV | Exposure Points | |-------------------|------------|-------------|------------------------|-----|-----|-----------------| | 120006 - JAMES GREEN | 05/03/2012 | Monday | 100 | 400 | 0.0 | | | | 06/03/2012 | Tuesday | 100 | 400 | 5.4 | | | | 08/03/2012 | Thursday | 100 | 400 | 0.0 | | | | 09/03/2012 | Friday | 100 | 400 | 138.1 | | | 120002 - ERIC LETHURG | 05/03/2012 | Monday | 100 | 400 | 0.0 | | | | 06/03/2012 | Tuesday | 100 | 400 | 68.0 | | | | 07/03/2012 | Wednesday | 100 | 400 | 0.0 | | | | 08/03/2012 | Thursday | 100 | 400 | 68.3 | | | | 09/03/2012 | Friday | 100 | 400 | 60.2 | | | 120008 - FRANK STEWART | 05/03/2012 | Monday | 100 | 400 | 12.9 | | | | 06/03/2012 | Tuesday | 100 | 400 | 400.3 | | | | 07/03/2012 | Wednesday | 100 | 400 | 400.3 | | | | 08/03/2012 | Thursday | 100 | 400 | 70.0 | |
#### Southern Division Ground Works Civil Engineering
| Operator | Date | Day Of Week | Maximum Daily Exposure | EAV | ELV | Exposure Points | |-------------------|------------|-------------|------------------------|-----|-----|-----------------| | 120004 - JOHN HUME | 05/03/2012 | Monday | 100 | 400 | 0.0 | | | | 08/03/2012 | Thursday | 100 | 400 | 220.9 | | | 120008 - PAUL SMITH | 05/03/2012 | Monday | 100 | 400 | 0.0 | | | | 06/03/2012 | Tuesday | 100 | 400 | 135.2 | | | | 07/03/2012 | Wednesday | 100 | 400 | 222.3 | | | | 08/03/2012 | Friday | 100 | 400 | 158.3 | | | 120009 - PHILIP BUCHANAN | 05/03/2012 | Monday | 100 | 400 | 0.0 | | | | 06/03/2012 | Tuesday | 100 | 400 | 242.3 | | | | 07/03/2012 | Wednesday | 100 | 400 | 109.9 | | | | 08/03/2012 | Thursday | 100 | 400 | 401.3 | | | | 09/03/2012 | Friday | 100 | 400 | 159.9 | |
- Simple overview of operative exposure
- Instances where EAV/ELV are exceeded highlighted automatically
- Records kept indefinitely
- Information defendable in court
- Quick & easy to produce
### Reporting
- Detailed information of what tools are being used and when
- Easily investigate which tools causing over exposure
- Staff productivity analysis
- Potential for comparison of task completion rates between squads
#### 6. Operator Tool Log From 05/03/2012 To 08/03/2012
| Asset No. | Description | Commented | Disconnects | Vibration m/s² | Trigger Time | Exposure Points | Total Points | |-----------|-------------|-----------|-------------|----------------|--------------|-----------------|--------------| | Operator 120000 - JAMES GREEN | | 05/03/2012 | HILTI TETP-ATC HAMMER | 15:00:45 | 15:52:36 | 15.00 | 00:00:43 | 5.575 | | 06/03/2012 | | | | | | | | 07/03/2012 | | | | | | | | 08/03/2012 | | | | | | | | Operator 120002 - ERIC LETHURG | | 05/03/2012 | HILTI TETP-ATC HAMMER | 06:09:28 | 10:17:49 | 15.00 | 00:03:56 | 29.375 | | 06/03/2012 | | | | | | | | 07/03/2012 | | | | | | | | 08/03/2012 | | | | | | | | Operator 120008 - FRANK STEWART | | 05/03/2012 | ANGLE GRINDER | 12:34:13 | 13:19:10 | 7.22 | 00:13:05 | 22.734 | | 06/03/2012 | | | | | | | | 07/03/2012 | | | | | | | | 08/03/2012 | | | | | | | | 09/03/2012 | | | | | | | | 10/03/2012 | | | | | | | | 11/03/2012 | | | | | | | | 12/03/2012 | | | | | | | | 13/03/2012 | | | | | | | | 14/03/2012 | | | | | | | | 15/03/2012 | | | | | | | | 16/03/2012 | | | | | | | | 17/03/2012 | | | | | | | | 18/03/2012 | | | | | | | | 19/03/2012 | | | | | | | | 20/03/2012 | | | | | | | | 21/03/2012 | | | | | | | | 22/03/2012 | | | | | | | | 23/03/2012 | | | | | | | | 24/03/2012 | | | | | | | | 25/03/2012 | | | | | | | | 26/03/2012 | | | | | | | | 27/03/2012 | | | | | | | | 28/03/2012 | | | | | | | | 29/03/2012 | | | | | | | | 30/03/2012 | | | | | | | | 31/03/2012 | | | | | | | Reporting
- Easy to read pie chart showing individuals share of exposure as percentage of the team
- Useful ongoing management tool
- Allows supervisors to balance out total exposure among team Best Practice Local Authorities supporting continuous monitoring
Swansea City and Borough Council Bassetlaw District Council Sunderland City Council Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council The City of Edinburgh Council Hinckley and Bosworth Borough Council North Ayrshire Council North Lanarkshire Council Scottish Borders Council Braintree District Council Harrogate Borough Council Weymouth and Portland Borough Council Flintshire County Council Stirling Council Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council Hyndburn Borough Council West Dunbartonshire Council Norfolk County Council Dundee City Council Peterborough City Council St Edmundsbury Borough Council Hampshire County Council Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council Stoke on Trent City Council Wrexham County Borough Council Southampton City Council Dumfries and Galloway Council Leicester City Council Glasgow City Council Pendle Borough Council Northumberland County Council Forest of Dean District Council Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council Newcastle City Council St Helens Council Vale of Glamorgan Council Falkirk Council Tendring District Council Durham County Council Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Council Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council North Lincolnshire Council Powys County Council East Lindsey District Council South Holland District Council Rhondda Cynon Taff County Borough Council Conwy County Borough Council Perth and Kinross Council West Lothian Council Carmarthenshire County Council Argyll and Bute Council Bridgend County Borough Council Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council Coventry City Council Caerphilly County Borough Council Suffolk County Council Blaenau Gwent County Council Borough Council Rushcliffe Borough Council Hartlepool Borough Council Best Practice Organisations Supporting continuous monitoring End
Thank you
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/4974-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 40,
"total-input-tokens": 52659,
"total-output-tokens": 6347,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
67,
1
],
[
67,
209,
2
],
[
209,
461,
3
],
[
461,
768,
4
],
[
768,
969,
5
],
[
969,
1347,
6
],
[
1347,
1680,
7
],
[
1680,
1776,
8
],
[
1776,
1907,
9
],
[
1907,
2033,
10
],
[
2033,
2194,
11
],
[
2194,
2302,
12
],
[
2302,
2311,
13
],
[
2311,
2320,
14
],
[
2320,
2329,
15
],
[
2329,
2338,
16
],
[
2338,
2509,
17
],
[
2509,
2653,
18
],
[
2653,
2779,
19
],
[
2779,
3381,
20
],
[
3381,
4526,
21
],
[
4526,
5396,
22
],
[
5396,
5863,
23
],
[
5863,
6040,
24
],
[
6040,
6296,
25
],
[
6296,
6535,
26
],
[
6535,
6783,
27
],
[
6783,
6821,
28
],
[
6821,
6853,
29
],
[
6853,
7978,
30
],
[
7978,
8006,
31
],
[
8006,
8188,
32
],
[
8188,
8231,
33
],
[
8231,
8524,
34
],
[
8524,
11852,
35
],
[
11852,
13602,
36
],
[
13602,
13797,
37
],
[
13797,
15528,
38
],
[
15528,
15589,
39
],
[
15589,
15603,
40
]
]
} |
0b16c4a4301e457bef1858e41c24b2f49770a077 | Library Case Studies Different Delivery Models May 2016
Report
## Contents
| Section | Page | |------------------------------------------------------------------------|------| | Executive Summary | 3 | | Case Study Summaries | 3 | | Key Themes | 5 | | Case Studies | | | Kent County Council Libraries, Registration and Archives – internal commissioning | 7 | | Leicester City Council Libraries – transformation of neighbourhood services | 11 | | Middlesbrough Council Libraries and Community Hubs – asset review of buildings | 15 | | Staffordshire County Council Library Service – develop a new tiered model for library provision | 18 | | London Borough of Waltham Forest Libraries – repositioning libraries as first point of contact for council transactions | 22 | Executive Summary
As part of the LGA/Arts Council England cultural improvement programme libraries work strand, the LGA with financial support from Arts Council England have developed a small number of case studies showcasing different service delivery models and approaches taken as libraries reposition as part of a place’s wider cultural offer. The research and report was undertaken by LGA Associate Mark Harrison. The case studies identify:
- the rationale behind the approach these library services have taken
- how the approach links to the council’s corporate plans e.g. transformation, growth and wellbeing
- the opportunities and challenges that have been encountered
- top tips for other councils keen to explore a similar approach.
The five councils all exemplify different approaches taken to ensure that their library services remain relevant and sustainable in the long term, the councils are:
- Kent County Council Libraries, Registration and Archives – internal commissioning
- Leicester City Council Libraries – transformation of neighbourhood services
- Middlesbrough Council Libraries and Community Hubs – asset review of buildings
- Staffordshire County Council Library Service – develop a new tiered model for library provision
- London Borough of Waltham Forest Libraries – repositioning libraries as first point of contact for council transactions.
The key themes identified by the library services are:
- service review
- political direction
- strategic realignment
- partnership
- workforce development
- learning from others
- identifying what success would look like
- consultation
- volunteers.
The following section summarises each case study and sets out the key themes identified by the libraries.
Case study summaries
Kent County Council Libraries, Registration and Archives – internal commissioning
Kent County Council (Kent CC) Library, Registration and Archive (LRA) service has been fully commissioned as an internal service provider. The LRA delivers the service against a specification that reflects the Kent CC outcomes framework. Councillors have contributed directly to the development of the specification and the approach after specification. The LRA has both the freedom and flexibility to determine the best way to achieve the required outcomes. The LRA performance will be assessed annually, and consideration is being given as to how best to involve the public and other stakeholders in this process. Kent CC had been looking at transferring the LRA to a trust, but this is not possible at the moment as a change in primary legislation would be required to transfer the registration element of the service. Kent CC sees internal commissioning as a viable step towards any alternative delivery vehicle as well as an effective way of better demonstrating the outcomes LRA delivers to its customers.
Leicester City Council Libraries – transformation of neighbourhood services
In April 2013 Leicester City Council (Leicester CC) announced its intention to reorganise neighbourhood services across the city. This Transforming Neighbourhoods Services (TNS) programme included libraries, community centres, adult learning and local customer service points. The TNS programme aims to provide different service delivery models according to local need, while reducing delivery costs by 30 per cent. The methodology adopted divided the city into six neighbourhoods. Local people were asked their views on initial proposals, setting out options for colocation of services and better use of buildings. The preferred option took on board the ideas of local people. Leicester report that TNS has achieved the required savings, increased opening hours and usage, helped secure new investment in technology, modernised facilities and enhanced the customer experience. The success of the TNS programme has helped the council set up a city wide asset review, the Using Buildings Better programme, whereby the council is intending to review all of its neighbourhood buildings.
Middlesbrough Council Libraries and Community Hubs – asset review of buildings
During the period 2010-2015, the extensive network of community centres and branch libraries have been reviewed and rationalised. This was part of a corporate asset review across the Middlesbrough estate. This has resulted in the incorporation of branch libraries into community hubs. The process has been challenging, but the changes have been largely successful and has allowed a greater number of people to access a more holistic service offering, despite a reduction in buildings, fewer staff and budget reduction. The council has described the hub as, “a focal point for local communities, where groups and organisations come together to deliver a core offer of services and support essential to the wellbeing and needs of the local people. This approach was endorsed by the Council Executive in November 2015. The final integration of standalone branch libraries into community hubs will happen in 2016.
Staffordshire County Council Library Service – developing a new tiered model for library provision
In 2012 Staffordshire County Council (Staffordshire CC) set out to transform its libraries. This decision was necessary because of changing customer demand and expectations, changing local authority landscape and budget pressures. Libraries were expected to deliver on the key council vision, to create a connected Staffordshire, where everyone has the opportunity to prosper, be healthy and happy. The council was clear that greater community involvement would benefit the library offer. The council proposed a new service delivery model and this was consulted widely. Consequently all libraries will remain as part of the Staffordshire CC network, within three categories of service delivery. These are Staffordshire CC managed and delivered, Staffordshire CC managed and community delivered and community managed and delivered. Following a procurement process contracts have been issued for 11 libraries to be community managed and delivered from April 2016.
London Borough of Waltham Forest Libraries – repositioning libraries as first point of contact for council transactions.
In 2011 Waltham Forest determined to review its library service, this resulted in a strategic realignment of the service to ensure: improved access, increased opening hours, retention of a core library offer and the provision of additional services through library buildings. These additional services are: reporting council services, payments, applications, birth registration, CAB, Met Police contact point, information about fostering, financial advice and events and special activities. As a consequence of the strategic realignment, the council is implementing its Library Plus Improvement Programme. This is a £5 million programme to refurbish and improve Waltham Forest’s four main Library Plus buildings at Leyton, Leytonstone, Walthamstow and Chingford. The capital investment in library buildings aims to maintain the library core offer, while meeting other cultural requirements of residents, such as the provision of performance space.
Key themes
In reviewing their service delivery models the five councils identified certain common themes, these are:
Service Review: All councils undertook a needs based review of the existing service and developed proposals for a redesigned service delivery model. This process provided the opportunity to review the essential components of the library core offer and to ensure that the requirements of the 1964 Public Libraries and Museums act continue to be met. Proposals that have been developed for a new service delivery offer should be flexible, transparent and include consideration for the involvement of stakeholders in an appropriate way. It is desirable to allow time to pilot and assess the new service delivery model and build in flexibility to finesse the model.
Political Direction: All library services advocated the importance of securing political direction throughout the process. Key decision areas identified by the councils are a determination not to close viable libraries, identification and securing investment (revenue and capital), securing human resources to implement the change, agreement of a clarity of direction, agreement of medium term timescales and seek and confirm financial certainty. It is also important to have a project champion at executive officer level within the council. Proposals for service change should be made open to scrutiny (councillors, stakeholders, public) in an appropriate way.
Strategic Realignment: Library services identified the importance of contributing to the corporate agenda and work of the councils. This review process assisted in helping libraries consider how they could deliver a wider range of services leading to better outcomes for the community. Different approaches have been identified based on local need and opportunity, ranging from ensuring that libraries consolidate their core offer through to libraries providing the basis for a complete reappraisal of how services can be delivered in a locality.
Partnerships: It is important for libraries to demonstrate that they are a viable and proactive partner and capable of aligning with corporate and partner agendas, and demonstrating their contribution to key areas of work within the council and other agencies.
Workforce Development: Councils identified the desirability of involving the workforce in developing alternative delivery proposals. This involvement needs to be carefully considered. The level of involvement and clarity about decision making are a necessary part of planning the engagement process. Staff involvement takes managerial time and resources, however the consensus seems to suggest this pays dividends in generating ideas and ownership of outcomes.
Learning from other councils: A number of library services said that they benefited from willingness to learn from and share with other councils. This helped them learn about what works and what doesn’t, the generation of new ideas and the effectiveness of alternative models adopted by other councils. Library services cautioned to be aware that no one size fits all and that it is not always possible to directly import models from elsewhere without testing them locally.
Identifying what success would look like: Certain councils have identified and described the critical success factors necessary to assess the impact of the reconfigured service delivery model. These factors will be built into new contractual arrangements both with internal and external library service providers. Appropriate outcome based performance measures will be developed and regularly reviewed.
Consultation: Councils advocate clarity about consultation proposals and making a conscious effort to involve all stakeholders in the process in a legitimate and timely way. A good communication plan is essential, and consultees appear to be interested in being involved in the development and implementation of solutions, rather than being asked to simply agree or disagree on a prescribed way forward. The continued involvement of the community also engenders buy-in and an enthusiasm to ensure that new approaches work for everyone’s benefit. (See SCC)
Volunteers: Particular attention is required to keep existing and potential volunteers involved in the change process.
The following section considers the five approaches in detail. Kent County Council Libraries, Registration and Archives – internal commissioning
1. Rationale underpinning the approach
Kent County Council’s (Kent CC) Library, Registration and Archive (LRA) service is one of the first council services to be internally commissioned. Previously the LRA was subjected to a full service review, market engagement and extensive public consultation. This led to Kent CC choosing a trust as a preferred delivery model. Currently a trust cannot be implemented because of the need for primary legislation relating to registration services. In Kent the Registration service is fully integrated into the LRA service. Now that Kent CC has adopted the model of internal commissioning, this will not preclude reconsideration of the trust option in the future and is in effect a step towards any alternative model. As, for example, the LRA will be commissioned as a whole service and held to account by Kent CC in the same way as an external provider would be.
From 1 April 2016, LRA will be commissioned to deliver the existing service against the Kent CC outcomes framework. A specification has been developed that reflects the existing service, and will be used as the baseline to test and refine the approach. Councillors have been involved in developing the specification, through the Kent CC Commissioning Advisory Board (CAB) and the Growth, Economic Development and Communities Cabinet Committee. Transparency is an important factor, and the specification will be placed on the Kent CC website and open to customer comment. The specification will be reviewed annually to ensure continuing relevance in delivering the required outcomes and to ensure that it evolves to meet ever changing customer need, demonstrated best value for money and is regularly benchmarked against other delivery options.
The figure 1 below illustrates the annual commissioning cycle proposed for Libraries, Registration and Archives utilising Kent CC’s commissioning cycle of Analyse, Plan, Do & Review. 2. How does the approach link to the council’s corporate objectives?
Much effort has been invested in ensuring that the LRA specification relates directly to Kent CC corporate objectives. New governance structures reflect the separation between the commissioning/contract management function and that of delivery. The specification clearly sets out the expectations placed upon LRA, these are to:
- deliver the service in line with the specification and Kent CC statutory obligations
- develop the service to support Kent CC wider strategic objectives and outcomes, and shape the service around resident and user needs
- maximise opportunities to use LRA premises and assets to maximise use, deliver additional services and generate income.
The Kent CC strategic statement “Increasing Opportunities, Improving Outcomes” sets out key outcomes to be achieved for residents and businesses by 2020. Kent CC is commissioning LRA to ensure that the priority outcomes of Kent CC are achieved whilst providing LRA maximum flexibility in deciding the best way to support this delivery. The specification also sets out social values and minimum (baseline) service delivery requirements.
LRA will contribute to these Kent CC strategic outcomes through its core offer countywide, and provide targeted services to meet local need. LRA will work with partners to evaluate the impact of its activity and to demonstrate it is meeting the required outcomes.
It is accepted that this will be an evolving process, especially in the first year, as the specification is developed. The specification demonstrates this linkage, see diagram 2 below – an extract from the specification showing the need for both quantitative and qualitative measures:
| KCC Outcome | Supporting Outcomes supported through the provision of LRA services | LRA activity | Key PIs/How it will be measured | Baseline 14/15 /Target 15/16 | |-------------|---------------------------------------------------------------|--------------|--------------------------------|-----------------------------| | **Outcome 1: Children and young people in Kent get the best start in life** | Kent’s communities are resilient and provide strong and safe environments to successfully raise children and young people | All babies to receive Bookstart packs as part of the birth registration All parents offered the opportunity to engage with Children’s Centre Services | Number of packs delivered/number of births. Work with Children’s Centres on the number of referrals and impact on parents. Use of parent/carer stock collections | 100% / 100% Feedback from Children’s Centres Tbc / tbc | The LRA specification also details:
- minimum service requirements, including the statutory obligation to provide a comprehensive and efficient library service
- requirement to offer statutory registration of births, deaths and marriages, civil partnerships, citizenships and associated certification
- maintain secure access for public to access archive documents
- principles and professional practice, and as a minimum to meet current service and compliance with for example CILIP and achievement of customer service excellence award and the Archive accreditation
- maintain existing access points
- maintain a balance of permanent and sessional staff
- continue to develop the role of volunteers who add value to the service
- retain the provision of books for loan free of charge
- promote reading and literacy
- contribute to corporate work, in social inclusion, learning and skills developments, digital services and internet provision and community engagement.
Any significant change to the above will require agreement between Kent CC and LRA.
Finally, the specification sets out performance reporting and monitoring arrangements. These will be assessed annually and targets updated.
3. The opportunities and challenges encountered
Kent CC has been open to exploring a range of alternative delivery options for services. As the transfer of LRA to a trust is currently not possible, Kent CC has adapted and is exploring the potential of internal commissioning while still retaining the trust option as a future possibility. Much of the work involved in internal commissioning will further evidence the potential viability of a trust option at some point in the future.
The development of the specification based on outcomes is challenging, and developing performance measures for outcomes is a lot more difficult than measuring outputs. The longer term intention of the arrangement is to measure the impact that the LRA has on individuals and communities, and more work is being carried out to develop new ways to demonstrate this e.g. collecting stories, evaluating impact in different ways and working with local partners to develop joint measures.
However it is recognised by Kent CC and LRA that the specification will evolve and represents a starting point for the new arrangements, and is not an end in itself.
The language of internal commissioning is “new” and efforts are being made to ensure that staff understand the differences between procurement and commissioning. Commissioning is about ensuring the council is focussed on delivering the right outcomes to customers in the right way. This may involve procurement of externally provided services but equally may be about how services are delivered internally.
4. Future challenges and potential solutions
The LRA is required to produce an annual report which will be made publicly available. The intention is to allow residents to review the operation of the LRA in the previous contract year. The service will be working on ways to involve users in shaping future versions of the service. specification. LRA will be required to demonstrate achievements and challenges and specifically demonstrate how the LRA is delivering the expected outcomes set for it by Kent CC.
5. Top tips for other councils
- take time to properly assess the delivery options available, and to be flexible in decision making
- involve councillors throughout, and in particular in the development of the service specification
- strongly link to corporate agenda and involve in the development of the specification as an extra check and challenge to the process.
- build in flexibility to the specification, allow for review within an agreed baseline
- allow the commissioned organisation (LRA) to deliver outcomes as it sees fit and be clear about authority to change minimum (baseline) standards
- accept that this is a journey and that the arrangements at the start may not be perfect or answer every question, so allow yourself freedom to evolve the model once it is in operation.
Contact James Pearson Service Improvement Programme Manager Libraries, Registration and Archives Kent County Council [email protected] 03000 414923 Leicester City Council Libraries – transformation of neighbourhood services
1. Rationale underpinning the approach
In April 2013 Leicester City Council (Leicester CC) announced a Transforming Neighbourhood Services (TNS) programme, with the intention to reorganise neighbourhood services across the city. Services included within this programme were libraries, community centres, adult learning and local customer service points. Other council delivered services in the neighbourhoods were not in scope directly e.g. Housing, Children’s Services etc., but were involved in the development of this model where it is anticipated that they may form a part of the future delivery, for example, by sharing locations.
The TNS programme aimed to identify different new service delivery models across the city of Leicester, with a requirement to reduce the costs of delivery by 30% while maintaining the quality of services. The approach taken is to divide the city into six geographical neighbourhoods and each of these are investigated sequentially to identify methods by which the service delivery model can be transformed through opportunities to co-locate services and make better use of the assets available.
In the first tranche the council asked for people’s views on a set of proposals for transforming the way buildings are used in the South of the city to provide neighbourhood services. This followed a previous consultation where more general views were sought on how the council should approach the transformation programme overall.
Consultees said that the retention of locality based services were more important than the retention of specific buildings. Although stakeholders expressed support for the retention of two buildings – namely Southfields Library and the Linwood Centre.
The council responded with proposals to ensure that services delivered in the South were protected, but be provided from fewer buildings in the area. The council ensured that the views expressed towards the implementation of the proposals be carried out responsively and sensitively. The buildings that are no longer required have proposed alternative uses, this means that none will be left empty. They will be either reused, demolished and land cleared for housing development, or the ownership of the building will be transferred to a community group that meets the necessary criteria (for Community Asset Transfer or other form of tenancy).
The first phase of the TNS review focused on gathering information about the assets of the city’s neighbourhoods, including the buildings, used to support service delivery and information about the associations through which people come together, both through formal organisations and informal networks.
Under the TNS, the council has reorganised libraries, community centres, and adult learning and customer services in some areas of the city. By using fewer buildings and bringing different services together under one roof, TNS has achieved savings and increased opening hours, increased use, secured new investment in technology and modern facilities, improved access for disabled people and enhanced the customer experience.
The library service was an integral part of the initial TNS programme, which piloted the new approach in the south and west of the city. Proposals for the third tranche of TNS are about to be considered by the Cabinet. This successful approach is now being adopted across a corporate Using Building Better (UBB) programme. The Department of Communities and Local Government (DCLG) contributed £90,000 to assist the council in this pilot work as part of its Delivering Differently programme. 2. How does the approach link to the council’s corporate objectives?
In October 2015 the council announced a city-wide review of its buildings called “Using Buildings Better”. The Transforming Neighbourhood Services programme now forms part of this wider programme and is extended to include other neighbourhood based service points. The inclusion in UBB enables dependencies with other relevant areas of work including a wider review of staff accommodation and for channel shift to be better managed.
The types of service delivery option currently under consideration include developing standard efficiency measures (e.g. integration of front-of-house functions, co-location of staff in fewer buildings) plus more transformative measures (e.g. more say for community organisations and associations, development of more self-service transactions, focused outreach such as evening opening or home visits).
For proposals to be agreed they have to achieve a combined 30% revenue saving and align with other service requirements. The latest proposals for the continued roll out of the TNS programme indicates that:
- the model is in line with the majority of views received from the engagement process which suggested greater co-location of services
- the provision of convenient, co-located services be at well located buildings
- the introduction of self-service facilities into the libraries will release staff to support community activity and increased access to council services in the building
- multi-service centres will provide more opportunities for volunteers to get involved in a wider range of services
- investment in multi-service sites ensures the longer-term viability of the services in the area
- potential reduction in energy use of approximately 30% and associated carbon dioxide savings that will contribute towards achieving the corporate environmental improvement objective is to reduce the council’s greenhouse gas emissions
- meets the requirements of the Public Sector Equality Duty. The council actively promotes the benefit of the TNS programme, as demonstrated in Figure 2 above.
3. The opportunities and challenges encountered
The library service has used the TNS programme as an opportunity to review its service delivery and core offer. In addition there has been a particular focus around:
- ensuring libraries are exciting and imaginative places
- places where reading and literacy are promoted via traditional and other methods such as storytelling and drama
- provide exciting reading development support for school children through projects such as Our Best Book, where young people vote for their favourite book of the year
- work with partners, such as Spark Arts to provide drama in non-traditional locations
- enhance access to Wi-Fi and digital services.
4. Future challenges and potential solutions
Further budget reductions may lead to more asset transfers and greater use of technology to deliver services such as unstaffed lending facilities in some locations. 5. Top tips for other councils
- take a look at what other councils are doing to help inform your approach
- involve councillors at all levels through from strategic decision making (The Mayor and Executive) to gathering information/opinion of local ward representatives in the development of proposals
- tell people what you are doing, “this is what you said and this is what we did”
- build on success and test your approach in the less difficult areas, thereby building trust, integrity and reducing suspicion e.g., this is not about closing facilities/services. A single model for all parts of the city is not necessarily what will work best. Ensure proposals are fit for the area they are aimed to support
- develop a clear and transparent model for stakeholder engagement, including arrangements for data collection to identify the buildings in scope, costs associated, services provided, usage statistics, and historical information. Investment in this part of the process is key to making proposals acceptable and owned by the community
- ensure proposals are scrutinised prior to consideration by The Mayor and Executive (all final proposals are presented to the Neighbourhood Services and Community Involvement Scrutiny Commission, following public consultation prior to an Executive Decision).
Contact: Adrian Wills MBE Head of Neighbourhood Services Leicester City Council [email protected] (0116) 454 3541 Middlesbrough Council Libraries and Community Hubs – asset review of buildings
1. Rationale underpinning the approach
Over a five year period (2010 – 2015) the extensive network of community centres and branch libraries located in Middlesbrough were reviewed and rationalised to leave a portfolio of community hubs. Six standalone library facilities were moved and incorporated into community or leisure hub buildings, leaving three standalone branch libraries, still to be incorporated into the community hub model. The incorporation of libraries into community hubs, meant that for these libraries, the existing opening hours were actually increased. Although difficult and controversial at the time, these changes have proved to be largely successful, and have allowed a greater number of people to access a more holistic service offering, despite a reduction in the number of facilities, fewer staff and less collective resources to call upon.
This review process helped embed a more efficient way of working. The council recognised that there were areas where the approach could be further extended, and the success of the hubs represented a major opportunity to go a stage further and implement a more fundamental change in how services are delivered. Despite budget challenges the council was looking to secure a long-term sustainable future for the hubs.
In 2015, work began on a comprehensive review bringing together a wide range of community services including libraries to form a wider delivery model of community hub provision across the nine community based library points. The intention was to explore ways of delivering library services more efficiently and effectively whilst being mindful of the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964. The scope of the work involved a service and staffing re-organisation and a consultation with around 500 service users and 100 stakeholder organisations and groups. The result of this was the production of a strategic plan, agreed by the councils Executive in November 2015. The main points of this plan were that:
- all facilities would be branded and operated as community hubs
- literacy would play a key role in all hubs
- hubs would be truly multi-agency, with a combined offer reflective of local need
- the local community and wider partners would be encouraged and supported to maximise their role in managing and delivering hubs
- the primary role of hubs would be to encourage self-help and self-sustainability
- hubs would provide access to a range of services previously only available in central council locations.
Taking the above into account, the definition of a community hub would therefore simply be described as: “A focal point for local communities, where groups and organisations come together to deliver a core offer of services and support essential to the wellbeing and needs of local people”.
2. How does the approach link to the council’s corporate objectives?
Libraries and community hubs already play an important part in neighbourhoods, offering a welcoming community space with access to IT facilities, information and advice. The buildings play host to a range of organisations offering support and events, making them a genuine hub of activity. A number of current opportunities to extend this role, and reflect the corporate agenda, will be built into a core part of how the hubs operate in future, including: Public Health: Currently, the range of public health interventions currently on offer in Middlesbrough is delivered through a variety of organisations, across many different venues and in many different ways. It is intended that the recommissioning of public health contracts around preventative activities (smoking cessation, weight management etc.) are brought together and are focused through the network of community hubs. This would significantly redefine the role that hubs can play in improving health and wellbeing within communities.
School readiness: The increasing council focus on improving school readiness for children, aged under five, which is aimed at reducing long-term demand on acute services, presents an opportunity to redefine the role that hubs play in the lives of young children and their parents. Hubs offer the potential to exploit the benefits of engaging in activities that boost attainment, early literacy, social interaction and social skills in a more relaxed multi-agency setting.
Work with targeted Individuals: The work to identify and offer support to individuals and families identified as being at risk of needing future safeguarding or other acute service interventions could be built around the hub concept. Each hub should provide a platform for agencies to conduct targeted work with the most vulnerable and ‘hard to reach’ people in communities.
Integration with other venues: As specialist services engage in more co-ordinated outreach around targeted individuals and families in local communities, and move away from providing universal activities based in one building, there is an opportunity to cross refer and explore joint working with more specialist, more defined venues. As community hubs are now part of the same Supporting Communities Service as Myplace, Children’s Centres and school readiness teams, the opportunity exists to develop a much more co-ordinated and mutually supportive offer across the portfolio.
(Note, Myplace is a state-of-the art £4.3 million venue and activity centre for young people in Middlesbrough. It has amazing facilities and opportunities for young people including a theatre, TV and recording studio, Internet café, alcohol free nightclub, sensory room and amphitheatre. Officially opened on 30th June 2012. See http://myplaceboro.co.uk/).
Shared Services: The opportunity to share the space within the buildings with other community focused agencies and services offers the opportunity not only for a more coherent offer for the public, but also the opportunity to share costs and align service objectives. The online resources available in hubs would also enable greater access to wider council services.
Digital by Default: The hubs offer the opportunity to support the overall strategy of moving towards services being offered as digital by default, providing advice, support and access to IT for those least able to make the switch. A recent innovation in this regard is the provision of Wi-Fi to all hubs and Central Library facilities.
Community empowerment: The hubs offer an opportunity to extend the Community Asset Transfer process, supporting communities to take a much more active role in running their own hubs. If designed into the overall hub offer, this process can accommodate the full range of community involvement from offering volunteer opportunities in hubs, through to full self-management for those communities ultimately able to reach a position to do so.
Assertive outreach: For the hubs to be successful in the long run, there needs to be a move away from seeing the buildings as the entirety of the hub model. The hubs of the future should not just be static buildings that expect people to seek them out, but instead should be actively focussed on assertive outreach, to respond to local need. This would allow the hubs to maximise their role in achieving the demand reduction objectives of the Supporting Communities Service, and of the wider public sector. 3. The opportunities and challenges that you have encountered
The council has managed the transition programme well, a substantial amount of the required financial saving was delivered in year one of the current three year change programme. The service appears to be stable, with no closures and an enhanced core offer. The incorporation of the remaining stand-alone libraries within the community hub model as soon as possible, is anticipated.
4. Future challenges and potential solutions
- a re-organisation of library staffing to form part of a broader Stronger Communities service, partly based on locality working where appropriate to the role of the library staff, whilst retaining a town wide team able to implement work at that level
- a commitment to apply the broader community hub model of provision to the remaining stand-alone facilities, with the exception of the Central Library, in 2016
- a review of existing opening times and a re-focus to core opening times and maximising use of the staff resource available
- re-focus of the Library Service Early Years Team around working directly with identified Families with Literacy support from January 2016
- it is planned that all libraries will be rebranded by April 2016 and this will require “modest investment” in new signs alongside an enhancement of existing community provision’
- ensure that customers who are able to, embrace self-service technology. In terms of possible solutions, Middlesbrough are looking to speak to self-service technology suppliers to look at the potential for improved self-service equipment which can offer more services
- the potential of working together regionally to procure library management systems
- the service is now involved with a project called ‘Middlesbrough: A Reading Town’, which is a big partnership across the town, to find a solution to the problem of low levels of literacy.
5. Top tips
- review assets and rationalise services to become more effective and to respond to changing demands e.g. decline in library usage
- set out a clear process for change, including provision for meaningful, open and honest consultation and flexibility to evaluate and incorporate alternative proposals
- seek political support for the programme, and plan for effective scrutiny. Agree parameters of political flexibility e.g. no closures
- involve workforce in the change programme
- do not seek a “one size fits all” model for the hubs
- set out “a proactive view” to determine a clear plan, before potential ‘salami slicing’ of funding reduces the viability of the service
- develop close working partnerships with local organisations throughout the process.
Contact: Diane Fleet Library Development Manager Middlesbrough Central Library [email protected] 01642 729417 Staffordshire County Council Library Service – develop a new tiered model for library provision
1. Rationale underpinning the approach
In January 2014 Staffordshire County Council (Staffordshire CC) Cabinet agreed proposals to transform Staffordshire’s Library Service. The transformation was achieved through a three part programme initially called, “Achieving Excellence – Libraries in a Connected Staffordshire”.
The Cabinet endorsed recommendations to consult on:
- a new three tier model for library provision – virtual, physical locality or town, physical community or village
- engage internal and external stakeholders to map community need, and to:
- commission usage assessments
- gather other insights
- be mindful of statutory duty and recent case history.
The intention was to adapt and reposition the library service, to enable it to remain a sustainable, relevant and valued part of the community and to deliver £1.325 million savings. In making this decision the council was mindful of the following factors:
- In December 2014 the DCMS Independent Library Report for England highlighted the “sustained and severe financial situation” and the “rapid pace of current change” which is impacting on libraries across England.
- The Chartered Institute of Public Finance & Accountancy (CIPFA) statistics December 2014 showed that visits to libraries nationally fell by 2%, in 2013-14 compared to 2012-13. In Staffordshire visits fell by 2.8%.
- As identified nationally and experienced locally, expectations of libraries have and will continue to change and the way in which Staffordshire Libraries (SL) is working with communities and enhancing the online offer, is in line with the recommendations within the Independent Library Report. Continuing to transform the library service will enable it to remain a sustainable, relevant and valued part of the community.
- The library offer in Staffordshire has been reviewed based on the Staffordshire CC Commissioning Framework context, with reference to the Arts Council England’s report: ‘Envisioning the Library of the Future’ and the Society of Chief Librarian’s Universal Offers. The review suggested a tiered library offer.
Staffordshire Libraries are nearing the completion of the three part programme:
Part 1: sets out the proposed changes to the library network and outlined what the new offer could look like. Following wide consultation views were incorporated into refining the initial Part 1 proposals. The consultation process also highlighted the opportunity for further exploration of a number of themed suggestions. These have been developed in parallel to the proposed model.
Part 2: defines the levels of tiered libraries, proposed details of Staffordshire’s library offer and sought permission to consult. Public consultation took place between 16 July and 7 October 2014 to gain additional information and insight from Staffordshire residents and other key stakeholders. Staff and Trade Union representatives were also consulted. These views have informed the final proposals. Part 3: builds on the recommendations made in Part 2 and is informed by the feedback received through staff and public consultation ensuring the refined proposals are fully reflective of the views of Staffordshire residents and other stakeholders.
The Staffordshire CC Cabinet reviewed the final proposals on 18 February 2015 and agreed that no libraries will close and all will remain part of the Staffordshire CC network of libraries and Staffordshire Libraries will:
- continue to manage and deliver 20 libraries, as Staffordshire CC managed and delivered libraries.
- support 23 communities to either deliver Staffordshire CC managed community delivered libraries or manage their own local library which will be community managed and community delivered. These are differentiated, as follows:
- Community managed libraries/community delivered libraries: some community groups will take responsibility for managing and delivering their local library service, following a selection and evaluation process and will have access to support from Staffordshire CC Library staff.
- Staffordshire CC managed/community delivered libraries: for others there will be a transitional stage where volunteers staff the library on a day-to-day basis but the library will be managed by paid members of Staffordshire CC staff. The library will be part of a cluster which will have support from members of library staff on a regular basis.
To enable the Staffordshire CC to contract with an appropriate community organisation a procurement process was used. Local organisations were assisted by Staffordshire Libraries to develop their business case. Once community managed & delivered libraries have been established the service level agreement/contract will be monitored to ensure that the library service delivered by the community organisation meets the required standards.
During the consultation community organisations worked with Staffordshire Libraries to define the level of support they would require from Staffordshire CC to take on the management function. A package of support for community libraries has been developed by Staffordshire Libraries, which includes:
- Staffordshire CC owning and retaining responsibility for the library building at a peppercorn rent
- the council continuing to provide all utilities including maintenance of the infrastructure general grounds and building maintenance
- IT & Wi-Fi
- IT telephone helpline
- strategic advice from a paid member of staff
- training and support
- continued provision of book stock and library resources.
2. How does your approach link to the council’s corporate objectives?
The Achieving Excellence project accords with the Leading for a Connected Staffordshire 2014 - 2018 strategic plan, in that Staffordshire Libraries are taking the lead, seeking to achieve better outcomes and looking to a sustainable future for libraries.
The introduction of the commissioning framework in early 2013 changed Staffordshire CC’s approach to the delivery of services. The commissioning framework seeks to deliver better outcomes for people and communities rather than necessarily directly delivering services, and seeks to do so through the most appropriate and value for money solution. This encourages innovation and creativity in finding ways of providing what people want and need that may not be directly through Staffordshire CC. The role of the council is therefore changing into seeking out, developing and facilitating new approaches that encourage personal responsibility amongst communities in order to achieve outcomes. The Achieving Excellence programme conforms to this framework.
3. The opportunities and challenges encountered
The key themes of the proposals put forward as part of the collective consultation presented a range of opportunities for consideration, as follows:
- closure: consider reviewing poor performing libraries with a view to possible closure as a vehicle to deliver savings
- resourcing: consider retaining paid library staff capacity to provide a more tactical management to a cluster of libraries
- Mobile Service: review the mobile library service in line with the static offer
- branding: remove the naming of Extra & Core
- management: review the management structure and level of authority given locally to empower each library to control their offer
- opening hours: consider seasonal opening hour changes and a general reduction of hours to mitigate redundancies
- cost reduction: multitude of options provided from environmental efficiencies, staff reductions, potential relocations and greater adoption of IT.
These were assessed against the following viability criteria:
- the Critical Success Factors (see Figure 3)
- contribution towards the delivery of £1.325 million savings
- contribution towards the outcomes of Staffordshire CC
- the vision and values of Staffordshire CC.
Viable consultation submissions have been incorporated into the development of final proposals and considered alongside and in relation to the findings of the public consultation process. The collective consultation process has also highlighted the opportunity for further exploration of a number of themed suggestions that will be developed in parallel to the proposed model as business as usual activity. These are:
- income generation – a range of ideas have been put forward to increase revenue streams in the libraries
- stock management – the current stock management process has generated a great deal of feedback and highlighted some potential areas of improvement
- promotion of the library service and linked Staffordshire CC offers - there is understanding of the need to better advertise the service.
Other challenges include:
- time taken to produce legal documents/contracts
- fundamental restructure of all staff roles in anticipation of change
- workforce engagement and development to prepare staff for new roles and maintaining staff morale • deciding on an appropriate level of support across the tiers, tailored according to need • undertaking further related reviews e.g. opening hours and mobile and travelling library services
4. Future challenges and potential solutions
• establishing Friends Groups for every library • roll out of new 3 tier model, and identify other possible community management and support via the Transformation Support Unit
5. Top tips for other councils.
• set out a clear process for change, including provision for meaningful, open and honest consultation and flexibility to evaluate and incorporate alternative proposals • seek political support for the programme, and plan for effective scrutiny and agree parameters of political flexibility e.g. no closures • involve workforce in the change programme • model what “good” looks like i.e. 4 Critical Success Factors model (See below) • identify and use other resources and exemplars – Warwickshire, Suffolk • think carefully about accreditation, training and continued support for volunteers.
Figure 3: Critical Success Factors – What a “good” library looks like.
Contact: Catherine Mann, Libraries & Arts Manager Staffordshire Libraries & Arts Service Staffordshire County Council [email protected] Telephone: 01785 278320 or 07800 626568 (m) Waltham Forest Libraries – repositioning libraries as the first point of contact for council transactions
1. Rationale underpinning the approach
In 2011 Waltham Forest determined to review its library service, this resulted in a strategic realignment of the service to ensure improved access, increase opening hours, maintain a core library offer and to provide additional services through library buildings (reporting services, payments, applications, birth registration, CAB, Met Police contact point, information about fostering, financial advice and events and special activities).
As a consequence of the strategic realignment the council is implementing its Library Plus Improvement Programme. This is a £5 million programme to refurbish and improve Waltham Forest’s four main Library Plus buildings at Leyton, Leytonstone, Walthamstow and Chingford. This is a major investment at a time when many councils are facing financial challenges in their library services.
During this period the library service has built upon the momentum created by the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games and the refurbishment of the William Morris gallery. The legacy has seen more visitors to the borough and increased resident appetite for cultural activity. The role of the libraries is seen as a critical success factor in this development.
Chris Robbins (leader of the Council and Portfolio Holder for Culture) in his forward to the new borough arts strategy “Arts for All, Great Arts and Culture in Waltham Forest” sets out the vision for arts and culture in Waltham Forest. He says that arts and culture will make Waltham Forest a better place to live and affirms his determination to continue to invest in this area.
The library service has repositioned in order to align with Waltham Forest corporate priorities.
2. How does the approach link to the council’s corporate objectives?
The council reaffirmed its core priorities for 2015 - 2018, which include helping to build a strong economy and helping people enjoy a good quality of life. The new arts strategy and the pre-existing cultural strategy demonstrate the cultural services and libraries contribution to these objectives.
The new Arts and Culture Strategy sets out a number of core principles, and makes specific reference to the contribution that libraries will make to the future provision of arts and culture in Waltham Forest. Specific reference is made to:
Enterprise: Use of community spaces for culture and arts e.g. libraries
Investing in art and communities libraries: Libraries have never been more relevant in opening up possibilities and opportunities for residents, helping them improve their wellbeing by pursuing their interests, aspirations and potential and tackling the problems of social isolation, inequality, and disadvantage. Children who read well by 11 do better at school, get better exam results and do better in the workplace. However, books are only part of the library story as all libraries provide free internet access, opening up the world of digital technology to aid self-improvement and advancement, support for those seeking new skills and employment and providing access to local services. Collaboration and Partnership: Waltham Forest has developed strong partnerships to deliver a high quality and ambitious events programme. Examples include:
- Leytonstone Library has developed a partnership with their local children’s centre and registrars’ service, with funding from Arts Council England. All under-5s activities at Leytonstone Library are run by the children’s centre. When parents come to register the birth of their baby, they are signed up for library membership and given a free Bookstart bag, with some first books to read to their child and signed up for membership of the children’s centre which offers a whole variety of support to parents including advice and training.
- In Higham’s Park, the Friends of Hale End Library have successfully obtained grants from their local community ward forum to deliver a range of events for adults and children, including silver surfer ICT sessions. There is also a successful film club ‘Film as Cultural Capital’ at the library, which screens a range of films to meet a variety of interests.
In 2015 the Walthamstow Garden Party brought together over 30,000 residents and visitors to the borough to experience and enjoy a programme of music, food, arts activity and crafts market, delivered by Waltham Forest with a range of partners including Barbican, Create London, Artillery and the E17 Designers Market with support from Arts Council England. Waltham Forest is now building on this partnership to bring in external funding to recreate this offer in other parts of the borough.
The Barbican, feedback on the partnership with Waltham Forest is:
“The partnership has enabled us to utilise the programming expertise of a world class arts and learning institution to develop a large-scale cultural event in the community. It has deepened existing relationships with local arts organisations, providing us with further insight relating to the needs and interests of local communities, whilst helping to further build capacity in those organisations to develop and expand upon existing cultural provision in the area”.
The borough’s Culture Strategy, Taking Our Place in London: the aim in this strategy to “increase participation in arts, culture and sport across the borough’s diverse and changing population” is supported by proposals in the development plan to increase library usage.
3. The opportunities and challenges encountered
Waltham Forest has recognised the potential that arts, culture and libraries has to bring prosperity to the borough, as well as helping Waltham Forest to secure its unique identity in and contribution to London.
The recommendations in the council’s 2014 Growth Commission report acknowledge the borough’s history of creativity and innovation. Reputation is being secured into the future through investment in high-quality arts and culture resources and “fantastic” events throughout the year.
The realigned library service has identified the contribution that it can make to the cultural fabric of Waltham Forest. The capital investment in library buildings aims to maintain the library core offer, while meeting other cultural requirements of residents, such as the provision of performance space. This approach is integral to the design brief for the buildings. Cultural opportunities, including performance and exhibition space, are considered in all stages of the planning and development of the design of the refurbished Walthamstow Library/Town Square development, along with space for employment and skills training. Leytonstone Library Plus reopened after £1.5 million investment. The Grade II\* listed building has been sensitively refurbished to enhance its beautiful listed features. The library also offers 36 state of the art PCs with free internet access, Wi-Fi connection and space for workshops and events for families and young people, in the restored theatre hall.
The library service has been proactive in engaging with partners to maximise the cultural offer for residents and visitors e.g. Arts Council England, Leytonstone Festival.
The library service has been proactive in incubating new projects and delivering existing projects in different ways:
- ACE funding supports Leytonstone Library in developing a strong partnership with the local children’s centre and registrars service
- Higham’s Park Library has silver surfer ICT sessions and a successful “Film as Cultural Capital” film club
- 3D Printer Artwork is being trialled in libraries, using local artists and library staff skills.
East London has become a hub for creative activity and much focus is placed on ensuring that the cultural infrastructure is in place to ensure that the momentum continues. Waltham Forest has identified a number of regeneration hotspots (Walthamstow Town Centre, Wood Street and North Olympic Fringe) where the library service will be a visible and active partner.
4. Future challenges and potential solutions
Waltham Forest will continue its programme of capital investment and identify new opportunities for collaboration, within the core priorities of the council.
5. Top tips for other councils.
- engage with the political leadership of the council
- become a proactive and viable partner (Arts Council England, E17 Arts Trail)
- review and reposition library provision to provide core library services and other council and public services as a community hub/front door
- link to one or more of the council’s core areas of work, in this case regeneration and to demonstrate the positive contribution that libraries will make to the regeneration activity in Waltham Forest.
- identify opportunities for collaboration, be nimble, take risks and be flexible.
Contact: Lorna Lee Head of Cultural and Heritage Services London Borough of Waltham Forest [email protected] 0208 4963203
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/4975-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 24,
"total-input-tokens": 59699,
"total-output-tokens": 11988,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
64,
1
],
[
64,
1078,
2
],
[
1078,
3652,
3
],
[
3652,
7554,
4
],
[
7554,
11302,
5
],
[
11302,
12557,
6
],
[
12557,
14571,
7
],
[
14571,
17203,
8
],
[
17203,
20275,
9
],
[
20275,
21403,
10
],
[
21403,
25069,
11
],
[
25069,
27081,
12
],
[
27081,
28083,
13
],
[
28083,
29516,
14
],
[
29516,
32921,
15
],
[
32921,
36904,
16
],
[
36904,
39698,
17
],
[
39698,
42769,
18
],
[
42769,
45849,
19
],
[
45849,
48726,
20
],
[
48726,
50038,
21
],
[
50038,
53236,
22
],
[
53236,
56768,
23
],
[
56768,
59062,
24
]
]
} |
5433fb6f107925a9f8bd658f889fa12b62806a60 | Pensions for councillors and other elected local office holders
Response from the Local Government Association Labour Group
The LGA Labour Group response
1. On 15 April the LGA Labour Group Office wrote to all Labour Councillors and the response from our members was a clear support of option 3. Therefore our positions is
1.1 To support option 3 – no change. Access to the Local Government Pension Scheme remains for all councillors and elected local office holders on the same basis as present.
Note: Members requested the removal of the phrase “taxpayer-funded” which implies that councillors do not contribute towards their pension.
1.2 To support the proposal to bring contributions in line with the rest of the scheme in the event that councillors continue to be part of the Local Government Pension Scheme from 1 April 2014.
Background
2. In 2003, the LGPS Regulations 1997 were amended to allow councillors under the age of 75 to join the scheme. Councils can only offer membership on the recommendation of their independent remuneration panel. In England, independent remuneration panels also determine whether the basic allowance, the special responsibility allowance or both can be pensionable. In Wales, both allowances are pensionable.
3. LGA research carried out in February through the pension funds found that 59% of councils offered councillors access to their pension scheme, compared with 52% in 2008. Overall, 17% of councillors are in the scheme. (see table 1 on page 2).
4. In its response to the Government’s response to the CLG Select Committee report, Councillors on the frontline, the LGA said “It is generally agreed that we would like to see more people from all walks of life interested in and standing for political office. We are clear that we do not want to see a professional class of councillor. However if we want to see increasing representation of local councillors, particularly those of working age, we need to look at the role in its entirety. Remuneration alone will not overcome this issue; however, remuneration needs to reflect the loss of earnings councillors may face. We also think that councillors should continue to have access to the LGPS because access to a pension is a factor in attracting a broad cross-section of people to become councillors”.
| | England | Wales | All | |--------------------------------|---------|-------|------| | No of councils offering councillors access to LGPS | 179 (57%) | 19 (95%) | 198 (59%) | | No of councillors taking up LGPS in councils offering access | 2897 (30%) | 414 (38%) | 3311 (30%) | | No of councillors with SRAs taking up LGPS in councils offering access | 2016 (21%) | 274 (25%) | 2290 (21%) | Table 1 – Councillors in the Local Government Pension Scheme
| No of councillors taking up LGPS across all councils | 2897 (16%) | 414 (36%) | 3311 (17%) | | No of councillors with SRAs taking up LGPS across all councils | 2016 (11%) | 274 (24%) | 2290 (12%) |
The LGA Labour Group’s position
5. If we want to live in a democracy, then we have to ensure that those that give up their time to deliver it for their local communities are treated respectfully and fairly.
6. Many Councillors make significant salary sacrifices and reduced career opportunities in order to carry out public office. As a result of these sacrifices councillors’ opportunities to build up a pension are impaired.
7. The consultation had moved on from the original ministerial statement, and now included the Mayor of London, elected mayors and the London Assembly but still excluded MPs. Members noted that under the Parliamentary Pensions (Amendment) Regulations 2009 (SI 2009/1920), MPs have access to a final salary contributory pension with contribution rates set at 11.9%, 7.9% and 5.9%. The average pension in payment from the scheme is £18,000 per annum, including transfers in from other schemes and payments for added years. Therefore, the average pension financed by contribution from the Exchequer is estimated to be around £15,000 pa.
8. The Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA) is currently reviewing MPs pay and pensions. In its summary report following consultation, it summarises the principles guiding pensions:
- the MPs’ pension scheme must provide MPs with an appropriate pension in retirement, based on their service as an MP;
- it should, as far as possible, seek to be more equitable between MPs of different ages, background and income levels;
- it must have an appropriate and fair balance of costs and risks between the member and the taxpayer;
- it must be sustainable and affordable in the short and long term and not require significant amendment for at least 25 years;
- any reforms should protect accrued rights.
Legal advice
9. The LGA has sought legal advice on the proposals contained in the consultation document. The initial view of our external legal advisers is that “there are real problems for the Minister should he decide to withdraw membership”. Lawyers have highlighted three particular courses on which the LGA might wish to mount a challenge, depending on the outcome of the consultation. This is supported by the LGA Labour Group.
10.1 Judicial review, “The prospects of success in a judicial review depend on the consultation response, the way in which the Minister effects the changes and the detailed provisions of the regulations brought forward. If the Minister fails to give
______________________________________________________________________
1 Based on a response by 77 of the 89 pension funds due regard to the outcome of the consultation, then there may be recourse to judicial review.
10.2 **Designation of councillors under the Pensions Act 2008.** The pensions act requires employers to provide access to a pension scheme for its workers. Until now, councillors have not been designated workers. However, initial advice is that “In summary we consider that Members that receive a regular allowance are “workers” for the purposes of the pensions Act 2008”. However it is understood that the government’s own legal advice on this matter concluded that elected members are not workers for the purposes of this legislation.
10.3 **Challenges under the Equalities Act 2012.** Legal advice supports the view that operating a two-tier approach, as set out in option 2, could lead to claims under the Equalities Act 2010 for indirect discrimination/ equal pay. It could also amount to a breach of the public sector equality duty.
10. The Consultation makes no real reference to previous government policy, which took positive action to encourage more high quality councillors from a greater diversity of backgrounds. Many serving councillors made important choices based on the expectation this created, and access to the LGPS will have been a factor. Given that the principle of “legitimate expectations” is embedded in European legal decisions, the LGA intends to pursue this avenue further if necessary.
**Conclusion**
11. Resolving the issue of members’ pensions is a high priority for the LGA Labour Group. The LGA Labour Group will rigorously defend the continuation of current pension arrangements, which enable individual councils to decide whether to offer pensions to their elected members, based on their own local needs and circumstances.
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/4976-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 3,
"total-input-tokens": 7288,
"total-output-tokens": 1763,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
2736,
1
],
[
2736,
5537,
2
],
[
5537,
7295,
3
]
]
} |
6a31e2fc878c4e06ef8e9645348a0b702798ee5c | The English Reformation c1527-1590 How did state and people respond to religious change?
This is a full, but by no mean comprehensive, reading list for the Reformation, covering England, Wales and Ireland.
The material is mixed: some of the items are paperback books, most (though, unfortunately not all) of which are relatively reasonably priced. Many items, however, are journal articles which you will primarily find in, or via, a university library (it is possible to ‘rent’ or buy access to individual journal articles through the publishers’ websites, but this can be pricey). Many institutions now offer access to JSTOR (the main repository of journal articles online) to alumni for free; some institutions (like my own) also offer access to teachers in the local area. So it is worth exploring both of these options. Remember that JSTOR has a ‘moving wall’ of usually five years – in other words, you will only get access to articles that were published five or more years ago.
However, if you have full access to a university's library, you can usually get access to more recent material through the journal's publishers itself, e.g. Cambridge University Press, Oxford University Press (although via the library catalogue). As with all things, what is available is dependent on what subscriptions the university has (and journal subscriptions are very expensive) and whether journals have digitised their back issues (most have by now).
Generally, these lists are organised with general/introductory material at the beginning of each section and then more specialised material later on. Some of the larger topics are broken down into subsections (organised on the same basis).
1. General books
Robert Tittler & Norman Jones (eds.), A Companion to Tudor Britain (Oxford, 2009) – doesn't just cover the Reformation; a really good introduction to a range of issues. Often available as an e-book in univeristies.
Susan Doran and Norman Jones (eds.), The Elizabethan World (London and New York, 2011) – expensive but very good. Like Tittler & Jones, above, covers more than just the Reformation.
Christopher Haigh, English Reformations: religion, politics and society under the Tudors (Oxford, 1993) – really good for lots of evidence of what was happening ‘on the ground’.
Felicity Heal, Reformation in Britain and Ireland (Oxford, 2003).
Alec Ryrje, Being protestant in Reformation Britain (Oxford, 2015) – focused on the nature of devotion, rather than the impact of the Reformation. Natalie Mears and Alec Ryrie (eds), *Worship and the parish church in early modern Britain* (Farnham and Burlington, VT, 2013), esp. essays by Ryrie, Willis, Marsh and Craig
**Sourcebooks and specific material on types of sources**
David Cressy & Lori Anne Ferrell (eds.), *Religion and Society in early modern England: a sourcebook* (2nd edn, Abingdon & New York, 2005).
Alec Ryrie, ‘Counting sheep, counting shepherds: the problem of allegiance in the English Reformation’, in Peter Marshall and Alec Ryrie (eds.), *The beginnings of English protestantism* (Cambridge, 2002), pp. 84-110.
Michael L. Zell, ‘The use of religious preambles as a measure of religious belief in the sixteenth century’, *Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research*, 50 (1977), 246-9 – relevant for understanding the will of Rauff Shelton
J.D. Alsop, ‘Religious Preambles in Early Modern English Wills as Formulae’, *Journal of Ecclesiastical History*, 40 (1989), pp. 19-27 – relevant for understanding the will of Rauff Shelton
**Reference material**
*Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (ODNB)* This contains biographies of many people involved in the Reformation, from monarchs and higher clergy to London preachers. It is always worth checking because, inevitably with this period, biographical information is weaved quite closely into the political, social and religious events of the period. Most public libraries in the UK subscribe to ODNB.
**Historiography**
Patrick Collinson, ‘The English Reformation’, in Michael Bentley (ed.), *Companion to Historiography* (London and New York, 2002), pp. 336-60 – very good on the broad historiography of the Reformation.
Christopher Haigh, ‘The recent historiography of the English Reformation’, *Historical Journal*, 25 (1982), pp. 995-1107 – the standard and seminal essay on how to make sense of the speed and direction of change ‘on the ground’
Alec Ryrie, 'Paths not taken in the British Reformations', *Historical Journal*, 52 (2009), pp. 1-22.
**2. The Pre-Reformation Church**
Ben R McRee, ‘Traditional religion’, in Tittler and Jones (eds.), *Companion to Tudor Britain*, pp. 207-20. Eamon Duffy, *The stripping of the altars* (New Haven, 1992), chs 1-10.
Christopher Harper-Bill, ‘Dean Colet’s Convocation sermon and the pre-Reformation church in England’, *History*, 73 (1988), pp. 191-210.
James G. Clark, ‘Humanism and reform in pre-Reformation English monasteries’, *Transactions of the Royal Historical Society*, 6th series, 19 (1999), pp. 57-93.
Henry A Jeffries, ‘A church ‘in decline’?: The pre-Reformation Irish church’, *History Ireland*, 14:6 (2006), pp. 13-18.
3. The Henrician Reformation
a) Reformation ‘at the top’
Conrad Russell, ‘The Reformation and the creation of the Church of England, 1500-1640’ in John Morrill (ed.), *The Oxford Illustrated history of Tudor and Stuart Britain* (Oxford, 1996), pp. 258-77 only.
Christopher Haigh, *English Reformations: religion, politics and society under the Tudors* (Oxford, 1993), chs. 6-9 (primarily on change at the top)
Richard Rex, *Henry VIII and the English Reformation* (London, 1993)
Felicity Heal, *Reformation in Britain and Ireland* (Oxford, 2003), ch.4 (8 useful too)
Brendan Bradshaw, ‘The opposition to the ecclesiastical legislation in the Irish reformation parliament’, *Irish Historical Studies*, 16 (1969), pp. 285-303.
Diarmaid MacCulloch, ‘The religion of Henry VIII’, in David Starkey (ed.), *Henry VIII: a European court in England* (London, 1987), pp. 160-62.
D. MacCulloch, ‘Henry VIII and the reform of the church’, in D MacCulloch (ed.), *The reign of Henry VIII* (1995)
Alec Ryrie, ‘The strange death of Lutheran England’, *Journal of Ecclesiastical History*, 53 (2002), 64-92
Maria Dowling, ‘Anne Boleyn and reform’, *Journal of Ecclesiastical History*, 35 (1984), pp. 30-46
John Guy, ‘Thomas Cromwell and the intellectual origins of the Henrician revolution’, in Alistair Fox and John Guy, *Reassessing the Henrician Age* (Oxford, 1986) and reprinted in Guy, *The Tudor Monarchy* (1997)
Susan Brigden, ‘Popular disturbance and the fall of Thomas Cromwell and the reformers, 1539-1540’, *Historical Journal*, 24 (1981), pp. 257-78
Richard Hoyle, ‘The origins of the dissolution of the monasteries’, *Historical Journal*, 30 (1995) Peter Cunich, ‘The dissolutions and their aftermath’, in Tittler & Jones (eds.), *Companion to Tudor Britain*, pp. 221-37.
Glyn Redworth, ‘A study in the formulation of policy’, *Journal of Ecclesiastical History*, 37 (1986)
**b) Reformation on the ground**
Christopher Haigh, ‘The recent historiography of the English Reformation’, *Historical Journal*, 25 (1982), pp. 995-1107.
Christopher Haigh, *English Reformations: religion, politics and society under the Tudors* (Oxford, 1993), ch. 11
Felicity Heal, *Reformation in Britain and Ireland* (Oxford, 2003), ch.6
C S L Davies, ‘The Pilgrimage of Grace reconsidered’, *Past and Present*, 41 (1973), pp.49-83
M L Bush, ‘“Up for the commonweal”: the significance of tax grievances in the English rebellions of 1536’, *English Historical Review*, 106 (1991), pp. 299-318
M E James, ‘Obedience and dissent in Henrician England: the Lincolnshire rebellion, 1536’, *Past & Present*, 48 (1970), pp, 3-78 and reprinted in his *Society, Politics and Culture*.
Ronald Hutton, ‘The local impact of the Tudor Reformations’, in Christoper Haigh (ed.), *The English Reformation revised* (Cambridge, 1987) and reprinted in P. Marshall (ed.), *The impact of the English Reformation* (London, 1997).
Robert Whiting, ‘Local responses to the Henrician Reformation’, in MacCulloch (ed.), *The reign of Henry VIII* (Basingstoke, 1995).
Susan Brigden, *London and the Reformation* (Oxford, 1989), chs. 6, 8-9.
Margaret Bowker, *The Henrician Reformation: the diocese of Lincoln under John Longland, 1521-1547* (Cambridge, 1981), (chapter 3 part 4; ch. 4)
John Craig, ‘Reformers, conflict and revisionism: the Reformation in sixteenth-century Hadleigh’, *Historical Journal*, 42 (1999), pp. 1-23.
Margaret Spufford, *Contrasting communities: English villagers in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries* (Cambridge, 1974), ch. 10.
Eamon Duffy, *The voices of Morebath: Reformation and rebellion in an English village* (New Haven and London, 2001)
Danae Tankard, ‘The Johnson family and the Reformation, 1542-52’, *Historical Research*, 80 (2007), pp. 469-90.
Glanmor Williams, *Renewal and Reformation: Wales, c. 1415-1642* (1987), pp. 276-96 Steven G. Ellis, *Ireland in the age of the Tudors* (London and New York, 1999), ch. 8
Henry A. Jeffries, ‘Parishes and pastoral care in the early Tudor era’, in Elizabeth Fitzpatrick and Raymond Gillespie (eds.), *The parish in medieval and early modern Ireland: community, territory and building* (Dublin, 2006), pp. 211-27.
Brendan Bradshaw, ‘Sword, word and strategy in the Reformation in Ireland’, *Historical Journal*, 21 (1978).
Stephen G. Ellis, ‘Economic problems of the Church: why the Reformation failed in Ireland’, *Journal of Ecclesiastical History*, 41 (1990)
Brendan Bradshaw, ‘The Reformation in the cities: Cork, Limerick and Galway, 1534-1603’, in J. Bradley (ed.), *Settlement and society in medieval Ireland: essays presented to F.X. Martin* (Kilkenny, 1988), pp. 445-76.
Brendan Scott, *Religion and reform in the Tudor diocese of Meath* (Dublin, 2006)
c) The Maid of Kent
Ethan Shagan, *Popular politics and the English Reformation* (Cambridge, 2003), ch. 2.
Ethan Shagan, ‘Print, orality and communication in the Maid of Kent affair’, *Journal of Ecclesiastical History*, 52 (2001), pp. 21-33.
Richard Rex, ‘The execution of the Holy Maid of Kent’, *Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research*, 64 (1991), pp. 216-20.
d) The Lincolnshire Rising and the Pilgrimage of Grace
Krista J Kesselring, ‘Rebellion and disorder’, in Susan Doran and Norman Jones (eds), *The Elizabethan world* (London, 2011), pp. 372-86.
Andy Wood, *Riot, rebellion and popular politics in early modern England* (Basingstoke, 2002)
M H Dodds and R Dodds, *The Pilgrimage of Grace, 1536-7, and the Exeter conspiracy, 1538* (Cambridge, 1915).
Richard W. Hoyle, *The pilgrimage of grace and the politics of the 1530s* (Oxford, 2001).
Richard Hoyle, ‘Thomas Master’s narrative of the Pilgrimage of Grace’, *Northern History*, 21 (1985), pp. 53-79.
A G Dickens, ‘Secular and religious motivation in the Pilgrimage of Grace’, in G.J. Cuming (ed.), *Studies in Church History*, 4 (1967), 39-64.
G R Elton, ‘Politics and the Pilgrimage of Grace’, in B C Malament (ed.), *After the Reformation: essays in honour of J H Hexter* (Manchester, 1980), pp. 25-56 and reprinted in G R Elton, *Studies in Tudor and Stuart politics and government* (4 vols, Cambridge, 1974-92), III, pp. 183-215.
C S L Davies, ‘Popular religion and the Pilgrimage of Grace’, in Anthony Fletcher and J Stevenson (eds), *Order and disorder in early modern England* (Cambridge, 1985), pp. 58-91.
Michael L. Bush, *The pilgrimage of grace: a study of the rebel armies of October 1536* (Manchester, 1996).
Michael L Bush, ‘The Richmondshire uprising of October 1536 and the Pilgrimage of Grace’, *Northern History*, 29 (1993), pp. 64-98.
M E James, ‘Obedience and dissent in Henrician England: the Lincolnshire rebellion, 1536’, *Past & Present*, 48 (1970), pp. 3-78 and reprinted in his *Society, Politics and Culture*
Steven J. Gunn, ‘Peers, commons and gentry in the Lincolnshire revolt of 1536’, *Past & Present*, 123 (1989), pp. 52-79.
Michael L Bush, ‘The Tudor polity and the Pilgrimage of Grace’, *Historical Research*, 80 (2007), pp. 47-72.
C S L Davies, ‘The Pilgrimage of Grace reconsidered’, *Past and Present*, 41 (1973), pp.49-83
M L Bush, “Up for the commonweal”: the significance of tax grievances in the English rebellions of 1536’, *English Historical Review*, 106 (1991), pp. 299-318
Michael L Bush, ‘The Pilgrimage of Grace and the pilgrim tradition of Holy War’, in Colin Morris and Peter Roberts (eds), *Pilgrimage: the English experience from Becket to Bunyan* (Cambridge, 2002), pp. 178-98.
e) Propaganda
Virginia Murphy, ‘The literature and propaganda of Henry VIII’s first divorce’, in Diarmaid MacCulloch (ed.), *The reign of Henry VIII: politics, policy and piety* (London, 1995), pp. 135-58
J Christopher Warner, *Henry VIII’s divorce: literature and the politics of the printing press* (Woodbridge, 1998)
John Guy, ‘Thomas Cromwell and the intellectual origins of the Henrician revolution’, in Alistair Fox and John Guy (eds), *Reassessing the Henrician Age* (Oxford, 1986), pp. 151-78, and reprinted in Guy (ed.), *The Tudor Monarchy* (London, 1997), pp. 213-32
S W Haas, ‘Henry VIII’s *Glasse of Truthe*’, *History*, 64 (1979), pp. 353-62
Tracey A Sowerby, "All our books do be sent into other countreys and translated": Henrician polemic in its international context\*, *English Historical Review*, 121 (2006), pp. 1271-99 Richard Rex, 'Paul's Cross and the crisis of the 1530s', in Torrance Kirby and P G Stanwood (eds), *Paul's Cross and the culture of persuasion in England, 1520-1640* (Leiden and Boston, 2014), pp. 105-27
4. The Edwardian Church
Christopher Haigh, *English Reformations: religion, politics and society under the Tudors* (Oxford, 1993), chs. 10-13
Diarmuid MacCulloch, *Thomas Cranmer: a life* (New Haven, 1996), chs. 9-11.
Felicity Heal, *Reformation in Britain and Ireland* (Oxford, 2003), chs. 4, 6
Glanmor Williams, *Renewal and Reformation: Wales, c. 1415-1642* (1987), ch. 12
Steven G. Ellis, *Ireland in the age of the Tudors* (London, 1999), pp. 218-25
D MacCulloch, *Tudor church militant* (1999), chs. 2-3.
Eamon Duffy, *The stripping of the altars* (1992), ch. 14
Susan Brigden, *London and the Reformation* (Oxford, 1989), ch. 10.
John N King, 'Paul’s Cross and the implementation of protestant reforms under Edward VI', in Torrance Kirby and P G Stanwood (eds), *Paul's Cross and the culture of persuasion in England, 1520-1640* (Leiden and Boston, 2014), pp. 141-59
John N King, 'Freedom of the press, protestant propaganda and Protector Somerset', *Huntington Library Quarterly*, 40 (1976), pp. 1-9
John Craig, 'Reformers, conflict and revisionism: the Reformation in sixteenth-century Hadleigh', *Historical Journal*, 42 (1999), pp. 1-23
Margaret Spufford, *Contrasting communities: English villagers in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries* (Cambridge, 1974), ch. 10.
Eamon Duffy, *The voices of Morebath: Reformation and rebellion in an English village* (New Haven and London, 2001), ch. 6
Danae Tankard, ‘The Johnson family and the Reformation, 1542-52’, *Historical Research*, 80 (2007), pp. 469-90.
Brendan Scott, *Religion and reform in the Tudor diocese of Meath* (Dublin, 2006)
**South Western and Kett's Rebellions, 1549**
Barrett L. Beer, *Rebellion and riot: popular disorder in England during the reign of Edward VI* (rev. edn) (Kent, Ohio, 2005).
Andy Wood, *The 1549 rebellions and the making of early modern England* (Cambridge, 2007). J Youings, ‘The Southwestern Rebellion of 1549’, *Southern History*, 1 (1979), pp. 99-122
D MacCulloch, ‘Kett’s rebellion in context’, *Past & Present*, 84 (1979)
Ethan H. Shagan, ‘Protector Somerset and the 1549 rebellions: new sources and new perspectives’, *English Historical Review*, 114 (1999), pp. 34-63 WITH Michael L Bush, ‘Protector Somerset and the 1549 rebellions: a post-revision questioned’, *English Historical Review*, 115 (2000), pp. 103-12, AND George W. Bernard, ‘New perspectives or old complexities?’, *English Historical Review*, 115 (2000), pp. 113-20 AND Ethan H. Shagan, “Popularity” and the 1549 rebellions revisited’, *English Historical Review*, 115 (2000), pp. 121-33.
Jane Whittle, ‘Lords and Tenants in Kett’s Rebellion 1549’, *Past & Present*, 207 (2010), pp. 3-52.
5. The Marian Church
Eamon Duffy, *The stripping of the altars, c. 1400-c.1580* (Oxford, 1992), ch. 16.
Felicity Heal, *Reformation in Britain and Ireland* (Oxford, 2003), ch. 4, 6
Susan Doran, ‘A ‘sharp rod’ of chastisement: Mary I through protestant eyes during the reign of Elizabeth I’, in Susan Doran and Thomas S Freeman (eds), *Mary Tudor: old and new perspectives* (Basingstoke, 2011), pp. 21-36
Thomas S Freeman, ‘Inventing Bloody Mary: perceptions of Mary Tudor from the Restoration to the twentieth century’, in Susan Doran and Thomas S Freeman (eds), *Mary Tudor: old and new perspectives* (Basingstoke, 2011), pp. 78-102
William Wizeman, SJ, ‘The religious policy of Mary I’, in Susan Doran and Thomas S Freeman (eds), *Mary Tudor: old and new perspectives* (Basingstoke, 2011), pp. 153-70
Eamon Duffy & David Loades (eds.), *The church of Mary Tudor* (Aldershot, 2006), particularly intro, essays by Loades (both essays), Houlbrooke, Collinson, Duffy, Edwards & Wooding.
John Edwards (ed.), *Reforming Catholicism in the England of Mary Tudor* (Aldershot, 2006), particularly introduction, essays by Tellecha Idígoras, Loades, Wooding & Mayer [some overlap with Duffy & Loades volume]
Rex H Pogson, ‘Reginald Pole and the priorities of government’, *Historical Journal* (1975)
Thomas Mayer, *Reginald Pole: prince and prophet* (Cambridge, 2000), ch. 7
Anna Whitelock and Diarmaid MacCulloch, ‘Princess Mary’s household and the succession crisis, July 1553’, *Historical Journal*, 50 (2007), pp. 265-87.
Lucy Wooding, *Rethinking catholicism in early modern England* (Oxford, 2000) William Wizeman, *The theology and spirituality of Mary Tudor’s church* (Aldershot, 2006)
Thomas S Freeman, ‘Burning zeal: Mary Tudor and the Marian persecution’, in Susan Doran and Thomas S Freeman (eds), *Mary Tudor: old and new perspectives* (Basingstoke, 2011), pp. 171-205
Elizabeth Evenden and Vivinne Westbrook (eds), *Catholic renewal and protestant resistance in Marian England* (Farnham and Burlington, VT, 2015)
Susan Brigden, *London and the Reformation* (Oxford, 1989), ch. 14.
Elizabeth Russell, ‘Marian Oxford and the Counter-Reformation’, in C.M. Barron & C. Harper-Bill (eds.), *The church in pre-Reformation society* (Woodbridge, 1985), pp. 212-27.
Margaret Spufford, *Contrasting communities: English villagers in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries* (Cambridge, 1974), ch. 10.
Christopher Haigh, *English Reformations: religion, politics and society under the Tudors* (Oxford, 1993), ch. 12.
Danae Tankard, ‘The Johnson family and the Reformation, 1542-52’, *Historical Research*, 80 (2007), pp. 469-90.
Glanmor Williams, ‘Wales and the reign of Queen Mary I’, *Welsh History Review*, 10 (1981), pp. 334-58.
Brendan Scott, *Religion and reform in the Tudor diocese of Meath* (Dublin, 2006)
6. The Elizabethan Church
a) General books
Christopher Haigh, *English Reformations: religion, politics and society under the Tudors* (Oxford, 1993), chs. 15-16.
Felicity Heal, *Reformation in Britain and Ireland* (Oxford, 2003), ch.9 & 10
Glanmor Williams, *Renewal and Reformation: Wales, c. 1415-1642* (1987), ch. 13
Steven G. Ellis, *Ireland in the age of the Tudors* (London and New York, 1999), pp. 225-42.
Brett Usher, ‘New wine into old bottles: the doctrine and structure of the Elizabethan church’, in Doran and Jones (eds.), *The Elizabethan world*, pp. 203-21.
Patrick Collinson, ‘Windows in a woman’s soul: questions about the religion of Queen Elizabeth I’, in Collinson (ed.), *Elizabethan essays* (London and Rio Grande, 1994), pp.87-118. Susan Doran, ‘Elizabeth I’s religion: the evidence of her letters’, *Journal of Ecclesiastical History*, 51 (2000)
**b) The Elizabethan Settlement**
Norman Jones, ‘Religious settlements’, in Tittler & Jones (eds.), *Companion to Tudor Britain*, pp. 238-53.
J.E. Neale, *Elizabeth I and her parliaments*, 1559-1581 (London, 1953), part 1
N M Sutherland, ‘The Marian exiles and the establishment of the Elizabethan regime’, *Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte*, 78 (1987), pp. 253-86
Norman Jones, *Faith by statute: parliament and the settlement of religion, 1559* (London, 1982)
Roger Bowers, 'The Chapel Royal, the first Edwardian Prayer Book and Elizabeth’s settlement of religion', *Historical Journal*, 43 (2000), pp. 317-44
**c) Puritans and puritanism**
John Coffey, *The Cambridge companion to puritanism* (Cambridge, 2008), essays by Collinson and Craig
Peter Iver Kaufman, ‘The godly, the godlier and godliest in Elizabethan England’, in Doran and Jones (eds.), *The Elizabethan world*, pp. 238-53
Carol Z. Wiener, ‘The Beleaguered Isle: a study of Elizabethan and early Jacobean anti-catholicism’, *Past & Present*, 51, 1971
Peter Lake, ‘The significance of the Elizabethan identification of the pope as Antichrist’, *Journal of Ecclesiastical History*, 31, 1980
Peter Iver Kaufman, ‘The protestant opposition to Elizabethan religious reform’, in Tittler & Jones (eds.), *Companion to Tudor Britain*, pp. 271-88.
Patrick Collinson, *The Elizabethan puritan movement* (Oxford, 1967), pp.243-88 and 291-329 [Though some parts of this book are a little outdated, it remains one of the most important and influential studies by the doyen of Elizabethan Puritanism and is well worth consulting generally]
Louise Campbell, ‘A diagnosis of religious moderation: Matthew Parker and the 1559 Settlement’, in Luc Racaut and Alec Ryrie (eds.), *Moderate voices in the European Reformation* (Aldershot and Burlington, VT, 2005), pp. 32-50.
Brett Usher, ‘The deanery of Bocking and the demise of the Vestiarian Controversy’, *Journal of Ecclesiastical History*, 52 (2001), pp. 434-55
Thomas S. Freeman, ‘As true a subject being prysoner’: John Foxe’s notes on the imprisonment of Princess Elizabeth, 1554-5’, *English Historical Review*, 117 (2002), pp. 104-16 Elizabeth Evenden and Thomas S. Freeman, ‘Print, Profit and Propaganda: The Elizabethan Privy Council and the 1570 Edition of Foxe’s ‘Book of Martyrs’, *English Historical Review*, 119 (2004), pp. 1288-1307.
Thomas S Freeman, “The reformation of the church in this parliament”: Thomas Norton, John Foxe and the parliament of 1571, *Parliamentary History*, 16 (1997)
Patrick Collinson, ‘The downfall of Archbishop Grindal and its place in Elizabethan political and ecclesiastical history’, in Peter Clark, AGR Smith & Nicholas Tyacke (eds.), *The English Commonwealth, 1547-1640* (Leicester, 1979), pp. 39-57.
Ethan Shagan, ‘The battle for indifference in Elizabethan England’, in Luc Racaut and Alec Ryrie (eds.), *Moderate voices in the European Reformation* (Aldershot and Burlington, VT, 2005), pp. 122-44.
Patrick Collinson, ‘Ecclesiastical vitriol: religious satire in the 1590s and the invention of puritanism’, in Guy (ed.), *The reign of Elizabeth I* (Cambridge, 1995)
Christopher Haigh, *Reformation and resistance in Tudor Lancashire* (Cambridge, 1975), ch. 14.
Ethan Shagan, ‘The English Inquisition: constitutional conflict and the English law in the 1590s’, *Historical Journal*, 47 (2004), pp. 541-65.
d) Catholicism
William Sheils, ‘Catholics and recusants’, in Tittler & Jones (eds.), *Companion to Tudor Britain*, pp. 254-70.
John Bossy, *The English catholic community, 1570-1850* (London, 1975) [the classic account of English catholicism]
John Bossy, ‘The character of Elizabethan catholicism’, *Past & Present*, 21 (1962), pp. 39-59
Christopher Haigh, ‘Review article: Catholicism in early modern England: Bossy and beyond’, *Historical Journal*, 45 (2002), pp. 481-94.
Christopher Haigh, ‘From monopoly to minority’, *Transactions of the Royal Historical Society*, 5th series, 31 (1981), pp. 129-47
Alexandra Walsham, Church papists: Catholicism, conformity and confessional polemic (Woodbridge, 2009)
Michael C. Questier, ‘What happened to English Catholicism after the English Reformation?’, *History*, 85 (2000), pp. 28-47.
Malcolm Thorpe, ‘Catholic conspiracy in early Elizabethan foreign policy’, *Sixteenth Century Journal*, 15 (1984)
Patrick McGrath, ‘Elizabethan Catholicism: a reconsideration’, *Journal of Ecclesiastical History*, 35 (1984), pp. 414-28 Christopher Haigh, *Reformation and resistance in Tudor Lancashire* (Cambridge, 1975), ch. 14.
Michael C. Questier, *Catholicism and community in early modern England: politics, aristocratic patronage and religion, c.1550-1640* (Cambridge, 2006), chs. 1-8
Michael C. Questier, ‘Loyal to a fault: Viscount Montague explains himself’, *Historical Research*, 77 (2004), pp. 225-53.
Peter Lake & Michael C. Questier, ‘Margaret Clitherow, Catholic Nonconformity, Martyrology and the Politics of Religious Change in Elizabethan England’, *Past & Present*, 185 (2004), pp. 43-90.
E. Gwynne Jones, ‘The Lleyn recusancy case, 1578-1581’, *Transactions of the Honourable Society of Cymmrodorion*, (1936).
Colm Lennon, ‘Taking sides: the emergence of Irish Catholic ideology’, in Vincent P. Carey and Ute Lotz-Heumann (eds.), *Taking sides?: colonial and confessional mentalités in early modern Ireland* (Dublin, 2003), pp. 78-93.
Thomas M. McCoog, SJ, *The Society of Jesus in Ireland, Scotland and England, 1541-1588: “our way of proceeding”* (Leiden, 1996)
Peter Lake, *The Anti-Christ’s lewd hat* (New Haven, 2002), chs. 6-8
e) Reformation on the ground
Christopher Haigh, ‘Success and failure in the English Reformation’, *Past & Present*, 173 (2001), pp. 28-49.
John Craig, *Reformation, politics and polemics: the growth of protestantism in East Anglian market towns, 1500-1610* (Aldershot & Burlington, VT, 2001), chs. 1, 3
Caroline Litzenberger, ‘Defining the Church of England: religious change in the 1570s’, in Susan Wabuda and Caroline Litzenberger (eds.), *Belief and practice in Reformation England* (Aldershot, 1998), pp. 137-53
Margaret Spufford, *Contrasting communities: English villagers in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries* (Cambridge, 1974), ch. 10.
Christopher Haigh, *English Reformations: religion, politics and society under the Tudors* (Oxford, 1993), chs. 14-19.
Christopher Haigh, ‘The taming of Reformation: preachers, pastors and parishioners in Elizabethan and early Stuart England’, *History*, 85 (2000), pp. 572-88.
Eric Carlson, ‘Good pastors or careless shepherds?: parish ministers and the English Reformation’, *History*, 88 (2003), pp. 423-36. f) The Northern Rising, 1569
R R Reid, ‘The rebellion of the earls, 1569’, Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 2nd series, 20 (1906), pp. 171-203.
M E James, ‘The concept of order and the Northern Rising of 1569’, Past and Present, 60 (1973), pp. 49-83.
David Marcombe, “A rude and heady people”: the local community and the rebellion of the Northern Earls’, in David Marcombe (ed.), The last principality: politics, religion and society in the bishopric of Durham, 1494-1660 (Nottingham, 1987), pp. 117-51.
Krista J Kesselring, The Northern Rebellion of 1569: faith, politics, and protest in Elizabethan England (Basingstoke, 2007).
Krista J. Kesselring, “A Cold Pye for the Papistes”: Constructing and Containing the Northern Rising of 1569, Journal of British Studies, 43:4 (2004), pp. 417-43.
Stephen Alford, The early Elizabethan polity: William Cecil and the British succession crisis, 1558-1569 (Cambridge, 1998), ch.8
7. Reformation in Wales and Ireland
a) Ireland
Steven G. Ellis, Ireland in the age of the Tudors (London, 1999)
Felicity Heal, Reformation in Britain and Ireland (Oxford, 2003)
Felicity Heal, ‘Mediating the Word: Language and Dialects in the British and Irish Reformations’, Journal of Ecclesiastical History, 56 (2005), pp. 261-86.
Brendan Bradshaw, ‘Sword, word and strategy in the Reformation in Ireland’, Historical Journal, 21 (1978).
Nicholas Canny, ‘Why the Reformation failed in Ireland: une question mal posée’, Journal of Ecclesiastical History, 30 (1979).
Stephen G. Ellis, ‘Economic problems of the Church: why the Reformation failed in Ireland’, Journal of Ecclesiastical History, 41 (1990)
Colm Lennon, ‘Taking sides: the emergence of Irish Catholic ideology’, in Vincent P. Carey and Ute Lotz-Heumann (eds.), Taking sides?: colonial and confessional mentalités in early modern Ireland (Dublin, 2003), pp. 78-93.
Brendan Bradshaw, ‘The opposition to the ecclesiastical legislation in the Irish reformation parliament’, Irish Historical Studies, 16 (1969), pp. 285-303.
Henry A Jeffries, ‘The Irish parliament of 1560: the Anglican reforms authorised’, Irish Historical Studies, 26 (1988), pp. 128-41. Henry A. Jeffries, ‘Parishes and pastoral care in the early Tudor era’, in Elizabeth Fitzpatrick and Raymond Gillespie (eds.), The parish in medieval and early modern Ireland: community, territory and building (Dublin, 2006), pp. 211-27.
Helen C. Walshe, ‘Enforcing the Elizabethan settlement: the vicissitudes of Hugh Brady, bishop of Meath, 1563-84’, Irish Historical Studies, 26 (1989), pp. 352-76.
Brendan Bradshaw, ‘The Reformation in the cities: Cork, Limerick and Galway, 1534-1603’, in J. Bradley (ed.), Settlement and society in medieval Ireland: essays presented to F.X. Martin (Kilkenny, 1988), pp. 445-76.
Brendan Scott, Religion and reform in the Tudor diocese of Meath (Dublin, 2006)
b) Wales
Glanmor Williams, Renewal and Reformation: Wales, c. 1415-1642 (1987), pp. 276-96
Peter Marshall, “The Greatest Man in Wales” : James ap Gruffydd ap Hywel and the International Opposition to Henry VIII”, Sixteenth Century Journal, 39 (2008), pp. 681-704.
Felicity Heal, 'Mediating the Word: Language and Dialects in the British and Irish Reformations', Journal of Ecclesiastical History, 56 (2005), pp. 261-86.
Glanmor Williams, ‘Wales and the reign of Queen Mary I’, Welsh History Review, 10 (1981), pp. 334-58.
E. Gwynne Jones, ‘The Lleyn recusancy case, 1578-1581’, Transactions of the Honourable Society of Cymmrodorion, (1936).
8. A religion of the word?
a) Print and print culture
Alexandra Walsham, and Julia C. Crick, ‘Introduction : script, print and history’, in Julia C. Crick and Alexandra Walsham (eds.), The uses of script and print, 1300-1700 (Cambridge, 2004), pp. 1-26
Elizabeth Eisenstein, The printing press as an agent of change (1979) (or the abridged edition: The printing revolution in early modern Europe (Cambridge, 1983)).
Margaret Spufford, Small books and pleasant histories: popular fiction and its readership in seventeenth-century England (London, 1981) [17th century but seminal]
Andrew Pettegree, ‘Printing and the Reformation: the English exception’, in Peter Marshall and Alec Ryrie (eds.), The beginnings of English protestantism (Cambridge, 2002), pp. 157-179
Felicity Heal, Reformation in Britain and Ireland (Oxford, 2003), ch.7 John Barnard, D.F. McKenzie and Maureen Bell (eds.), *The Cambridge History of the book in Britain, volume IV* (Cambridge, 1999-), chs. 1, 3, 14, 20, 26, 27, 32, 34, 35 [Covers a wide range of issues; reference only]
David McKitterick, *Print, manuscript and the search for order, 1450-1830* (Cambridge, 2003)
Jennifer Loach, ‘The Marian establishment and the printing press’, *English Historical Review*, 101 (1986), pp.135-48.
Elizabeth Evenden, ‘The Michael Wood Mystery: William Cecil and the Lincolnshire Printing of John Day’, *Sixteenth Century Journal*, 35 (2004), pp. 383-94
Elizabeth Evenden and Thomas S. Freeman, ‘Print, Profit and Propaganda : The Elizabethan Privy Council and the 1570 Edition of Foxe’s ‘Book of Martyrs”, *English Historical Review*, 119 (2004), pp. 1288-1307.
David Scott Kastan, ‘Little foxes’, in Christopher Highley and John King (eds.), *John Foxe and his world* (Aldershot and Burlington, VT, 2002) [plus other good essays on a number of topics]
David Cressy, ‘Literacy in context: meaning and measurement in early modern England’, in John Brewer and Roy Porter (eds.), *Consumption and the world of goods* (London and New York, 1993), pp. 305-19
W.B. Stephens, ‘Literacy in England, Scotland and Wales, 1500-1900’, *History of Education Quarterly*, 30 (1990)
Peter Clark, ‘The ownership of books in England, 1560-1640’, in Lawrence Stone (ed.), *Schooling and Society: studies in the history of education* (Baltimore and London, 1976)
R Geraint Gruffydd, ‘The Renaissance and Welsh literature’, in Glanmor Williams and Robert Owen Jones (eds.), *The Celts and the Renaissance* (Cardiff, 1990),
J Gwynfor Jones, ‘The Welsh poets and their patrons, c. 1550-1640’, *Welsh History Review*, 14 (1979), pp. 245-77
Brian Ó Cuív, ‘The Irish language in the early modern period’, in T.W. Moody, F.X. Martin and F.J. Byrne (eds.), *A new history of Ireland III: Early modern Ireland, 1534-1691* (Oxford, 1976, 1991 edn), pp. 509-45
Alan Bliss, ‘The English language in early modern Ireland’, in T.W. Moody, F.X. Martin and F.J. Byrne (eds.), *A new history of Ireland III: Early modern Ireland, 1534-1691* (Oxford, 1976, 1991 edn), pp. 546-60.
*The Oxford history of the Irish book: volume III: the Irish book in English, 1550-1800*, ed. Raymond Gillespie and Andrew Hadfield (Oxford, 2006), chs. 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 11 [Note that some of these chapters cover 17th century as well]
Raymond Gillespie, *Reading Ireland: print, reading and social change in early modern Ireland* (Manchester, 2005) Desmond Clarke and P J Madden, ‘Printing in Ireland’, *An Leabharlann*, 12 (1954), pp. 113-30
M. Pollard, *Dublin’s trade in books, 1550-1800* (Lyell Lectures, Oxford, 1989), ch. 2
Elizabeth Armstrong, ‘English purchases of books from the Continent, 1465-1526’, *English Historical Review*, 94 (1979), pp. 268-90.
b) ‘Manuscript publication’, script and oral culture
Alexandra Walsham, ‘Preaching without speaking: script, print and religious dissent’, in Julia C. Crick and Alexandra Walsham (eds.), *The uses of script and print, 1300-1700* (Cambridge, 2004), pp. 211-34.
Thomas S. Freeman, ‘Publish and perish: the scribal culture of the Marian martyrs’, in Julia C. Crick and Alexandra Walsham (eds.), *The uses of script and print, 1300-1700* (Cambridge, 2004), pp. 235-54.
Adam Fox, *Oral and literate culture in England, 1500-1700* (Oxford, 2000)
c) Censorship
Anthony Milton, ‘Licensing, censorship, and religious orthodoxy in early Stuart England’, *Historical Journal*, 41 (1998), pp. 625-51 [though seventeenth century, this article is reflects the current understanding of how censorship worked in this period]
Annabel Patterson, *Censorship and interpretation: the conditions of reading and writing in early modern England* (Madison, WI, 1984)
C.S. Clegg, *Press censorship in Elizabethan England* (Cambridge, 1997).
d) Images
Patrick Collinson, *The birthpangs of Protestant England: religious and cultural change in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries* (New York, 1988), pp. 94-126
Margaret Aston, *England’s iconoclasts, I: laws against images* (Oxford 1988).
Tessa Watt, *Cheap print and popular piety, 1550-1640* (Cambridge, 1991).
John Phillips, *The reformation of images: destruction of art in England, 1535-1660* (Los Angeles & Berkeley, CA, 1973)
Margaret Aston & Elizabeth Ingram, ‘The iconography of the Acts and monuments’, in David Loades, *John Foxe and the English Reformation* (Aldershot & Burlington, VT, 1997), pp. 66-142.
William A. Dyrness, *Reformed theology and visual culture: the protestant imagination from Calvin to Edwards* (Cambridge, 2004), ch. 4 Alexandra Walsham, ‘Impolitic pictures: providence, History and the iconography of protestant nationhood in early Stuart England’, in R.N. Swanson (ed.), The church retrospective: studies in Church History, 33 (1997), pp. 307-28
Edward Hodnett, Image and text: studies in the illustration of English literature (London, 1982), esp. ch. 2
Sheila O’Connell, The popular print in England, 1550-1850 (London, 1999)
Rowena J. Smith, 'The lambe speaketh…: an English protestant satire', Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes, 61 (1998), pp. 262-7
Malcolm Jones, ‘The lambe speaketh…: an addendum’, Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes, 63 (2000), pp. 287-94
University of Durham
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/4977-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 17,
"total-input-tokens": 38216,
"total-output-tokens": 12693,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
2501,
1
],
[
2501,
4644,
2
],
[
4644,
6797,
3
],
[
6797,
8987,
4
],
[
8987,
11159,
5
],
[
11159,
13437,
6
],
[
13437,
15524,
7
],
[
15524,
17932,
8
],
[
17932,
19918,
9
],
[
19918,
22191,
10
],
[
22191,
24492,
11
],
[
24492,
26686,
12
],
[
26686,
28854,
13
],
[
28854,
31045,
14
],
[
31045,
33580,
15
],
[
33580,
35691,
16
],
[
35691,
36389,
17
]
]
} |
e79df3968041cec6321e109d8a9aee81e6f6fe17 | Realising Talent: employment and skills for the future
A Report for the Local Government Association
July 2014 Contents
Introduction ............................................................................................................... 8 Growth for all ............................................................................................................. 9 The skills and employability challenge ................................................................. 11 The skills gap ........................................................................................................ 12 Different local skills gaps .................................................................................. 15 Growth at risk ...................................................................................................... 15 The spare capacity in the Labour Market ............................................................ 17 Filling the skills gap: challenges along the way ....................................................... 30 Ageing population, ageing workforce ............................................................... 30 Young people ...................................................................................................... 31 Employers want higher qualifications ............................................................... 31 Are employers hiring the unemployed? ............................................................. 32 Mixed picture for disadvantaged people ......................................................... 33 Closing the geographical gaps? ....................................................................... 34 Age and Benefit claimants ............................................................................... 35 The delivery infra-structure .................................................................................... 36 The view from local government ..................................................................... 38 Why local government should be concerned .................................................. 40 Implications and questions for local government ............................................. 41 Annex 1: Calculating the skills gap and impact on growth ..................................... 43 Annex 2: Changing Composition of Employment by Occupation ....................... 45 Annex 3: Qualifications Framework ..................................................................... 46 Executive Summary
This is the first report in a series of three which will set out the challenges for our employment and skills system and propose ways it can be improved. As the economy grows and employment increases, new challenges emerge for our local economies. The new challenge is how the whole workforce meets the jobs and skills demand of growth.
‘Realising Talent’ looks at the extent and nature of the skills gap we face in the future – at both the national and local level. A continuing trend towards higher skilled jobs will mean there will be significant changes in the demand for labour over the next seven years and beyond. This is illustrated by a number of local authority case studies in the centre pages of this report – showing what the challenges are and what they are doing about it.
The Skills Gap
The skills gap for England is the equivalent of increasing everyone from an average of five GCSEs to an average of three ‘A’ levels (or their equivalents) by 2022. This is because employers will want many more high qualified people, and fewer people with low or no qualifications. There will still be a constant supply of low skilled jobs but we will have too many low skilled people if we don’t sufficiently increase skill levels. The consequence of not meeting this challenge by 2022 will be:
- 9.2 million low skilled people chasing 3.7 million low skilled jobs – a surplus of 5.5 million low skilled workers with an increasing risk of unemployment
- 12.6 million people with intermediate skills will chase 10.2 million jobs – a surplus of 2.4 million people
- employers will struggle to recruit to the estimated 14.8 million high skilled jobs with only 11.9 million high skilled workers – a gap of 2.9 million.
Impact on growth
This could restrict economic growth if employers can’t recruit the skills and capabilities they need. We have calculated that in 2022 between 16% and 25% of growth could be lost by not investing in skills. This means that up to £375 billion of output is at risk. The consequences could be that employers look elsewhere to recruit or seek to re-locate. Our current workforce, and the young people joining it, need to grasp the opportunities that future growth will bring.
Thriving local economies need a local workforce with high levels of employability – one which is skilled and motivated. Without a commitment to build employability the local workforce could become a constraint on growth rather than a driver of new jobs. Responding to current employer demand is important but it is equally important to build the workforce skills of the future.
Achieving a step-change in qualification levels is not possible by relying on ever better qualified young people – adults already in the workforce will need to continue to attain higher qualifications. Our workforce is getting older both because there are fewer young people and people are working for longer.
**Impact on areas and people**
Realising the opportunities will not be easy in every locality and for some groups of people. The benefits of economic growth may not reach everyone. Local economies need a good match between employer demand and labour supply – the right skill levels and the right sort of skills. Delivering the benefits of local growth for local people will mean maximising opportunities for residents to upskill, re-train, progress in work and find the job they want.
Despite recent reductions in the wide measure of unemployment, it remains 546,000 higher than immediately before the recession, and long-term unemployment remains 454,000 higher. If unemployment remains a problem, so too does the spare capacity in the workforce – including where people have a job but are not working as many hours as they need or want.
**In England we need 15% more jobs and across the case study areas it ranges from 10% to 30%**. Some areas have significantly higher spare capacity in their labour market than others.
Those most at risk of not benefiting from the upturn are: the long-term unemployed of all ages; those with low qualifications; those with disabilities and health problems; and other groups with low employment rates. People with known disadvantages in the labour market will not automatically benefit unless there are further steps to help them improve their employability and find work. There will need to be more opportunities to improve skills and qualifications – integrating employment and skills provision at the local level. The Work Programme is due to be replaced in 2016. This provides an opportunity for new programmes that will meet the new challenges, especially for those with disabilities and health problems. This is best fixed at the local level – integrating health and employment support.
Local influence?
The costs of unemployment are not only borne by national government. There are significant costs at the local level in terms of spending and lost growth. However, the infrastructure to deliver employment and skills for working age people is highly complex. A new report commissioned by the LGA has identified annual expenditure of almost £13 billion on skills and employment support going through 28 different programmes and budgets. This again highlights the complicated array of national agencies and programmes, most of which have insufficient connection with local areas.
As part of the research for this report, the LGA surveyed local authorities to get their views on how national agencies are working. It found:
- 79% said that it was very or fairly difficult to alter national commissioning to suit local needs
- 39% thought national commissioning delivered good outcomes to a ‘moderate extent’, the rest thought it was a ‘small extent’ or ‘not at all’
- 84% thought that DWP programmes were responsive to local needs ‘to a small extent’ or ‘not at all’, however local authorities were more positive about employment providers with 61% saying they were responsive to a ‘moderate’ or ‘great’ extent
- Local authorities were more positive about the responsiveness of the Skills Funding Agency but still 66% thought that they were responsive to local needs ‘to a small extent’ or ‘not at all’
- 87% felt they had insufficient oversight or ability to hold providers to account
- 84% wanted to see funding devolved to LEPs and/or groups of local authorities.
1 Fragmented Funding, Shared Intelligence, commissioned by the Local Government Association, June 2014 The overall picture of national agencies and programmes is one of insufficient responsiveness to the needs of local economies, and insufficient partnership across the board. There was strong support for devolved funding and local commissioning in the belief that public funds would be better aligned with the needs of employers, the local economy, and local people.
But it is not just about joining-up budgets, it is also about joining-up services to deliver a more coherent and personalised service to our most vulnerable people and communities – and this is often better done at the local level. But how would a more devolved system work in practice?
Central and local government are already working together to test new ways in which local employment and skills can be improved through City Deals and Community Budgets. In addition, through LEPs, there promises to be greater influence over some skills spending in the future. These initiatives are a start, and are providing some useful learning, but they will not go far enough to meet the needs and ambitions of local economies.
Meeting the challenges of the future will require a more robust and clearer partnership between central and local government. It will need clarity of responsibilities and set out a national framework within which central and local government can work. This is why Local Labour Market and Skills Agreements being explored in the North Eastern LEP, could potentially provide a new way of working.
**Conclusions**
This analysis suggests that a more agile and responsive skills and employment system will be needed in the coming years. One which is geared to:
- fast-changing employer requirements
- the needs of local people; and
- opening opportunities to reduce poverty and promote social mobility.
The challenges and barriers to achieving this are:
1. an **ageing workforce**, it will primarily be adults’ skills and capabilities that will either deliver or constrain growth
2. re-claiming the **lost generation of young people** by providing better skills, improved guidance and new pathways to employment
3. achieving a **better local skills match** between publicly funded training and employer demand
4. further **improving the efficiency of the local labour market** by increasing information on jobs, education and training
5. making sure that **long-term unemployed people** and disadvantaged groups are not left behind
6. **integrating provision** at the local level – more effective and more efficient.
To take this forward there will need to be a wide acceptance within local government that the effectiveness of employment and skills support is critical to their local economies and reducing the social costs of unemployment and poverty. Many local authorities have already demonstrated their willingness to meet the challenges and want new responsibilities, but this willingness and capability will need to work everywhere.
The government has established LEPs to bring business and local government together to decide priorities for local investment in both physical and human capital. Government now needs to reinforce their capacity to take further responsibilities both in policy and commissioning.
Finally, both local and central government need to be working together to shape how a reformed system could better work for local economies and people. Relevant government departments need an active dialogue with local government over the coming period – one which moves beyond the current phase of initiatives and considers wider and more extensive devolution. For its part, local government will need to develop its vision for the future – a task which the next reports in this series will turn to. Introduction
The prospects for the UK economy are the strongest for many years. Growth has picked up over the last year and forecasts predict strong and continuing growth. This brings the promise of a sustained increase in employment. Unemployment has now been declining for over 12 months and most sectors are reporting a growth in vacancies.
Growth brings its own challenges for the nation and for local economies, particularly when moving out of the longest recession since the 1930’s. One of the main challenges is the capabilities and capacity in the workforce – do we have the right skills and qualifications for the new jobs being created and to replace those retiring?
The Local Government’s Association ‘Hidden Talents’ campaign focuses on the position of young people in the labour market. ‘Realising Talent’ looks at the extent and nature of the skills gap we face in the future – at both the national and local level. Continuing trends towards higher skilled jobs will mean there will be significant changes in the demand for labour over the next seven years and beyond.
This is illustrated by a number of local authority case studies throughout the report – showing the challenges in each of the areas and how local government and their partners are meeting them. The distinctive local economies demonstrate the range of local solutions that are needed to meet their particular challenges.
______________________________________________________________________
2 Data labelled in this report as Newcastle and the North East is for the local authorities that make up the North East Combined Authority. Growth for all
The employment and skills of the local workforce is assuming a higher priority for local government. Local authorities recognise that employment and skills is a key driver of local economic growth – a motivated, flexible, and skilled workforce attracts employers and boosts productivity.
However, employment and skills can also constrain growth. If the attitudes, skills and qualifications of a local workforce do not match employer needs then employers find solutions elsewhere. At worst, they can leave the area causing redundancies; at best, they can recruit from elsewhere meaning that local residents lose out.
At the local level inclusive growth means that the:
- benefits of growth should be felt by people at all income levels, especially those in poverty
- benefits are seen in all parts of the community, especially deprived areas.
The same principles for inclusive growth apply at the national level. Economic growth always tends to be uneven across the country – reflecting the growth and decline of different industries. In general, growth in the UK has become more uneven as manufacturing has declined (disadvantaging the former industrial areas) and business services and finance have increased (favouring London and the South East).
Between 2007-11, London’s nominal GVA grew by 12.4% whilst the UK grew at 6.5% and with East Midlands the lowest at 2.3%. See Chart 1. However, beneath this broad regional picture there are some significant areas of growth, as well as areas of increased deprivation. For example, Leeds has seen a significant increase in finance jobs but in the South many seaside towns have not shared in the wider success of the region. Realising Talent
Chart 1: ONS measure of nominal GVA growth 2007-11 (not accounting for inflation)
Source: ONS
Central Government through ‘The Plan for Growth’ and other reports have set out its actions for stimulating growth across industries and regions. This has seen the establishment of Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs), Enterprise Zones, City Deals and funds for investment at the regional and local levels. The Heseltine report (No Stone Unturned) advocated a strong localist approach to pursue the objective of more even growth across the country.
Local authorities and employers (often through Local Enterprise Partnerships) work together to identify how growth can be stimulated in their areas. Central to this is a thorough understanding of the changing nature of local economies – which industries are growing and which are in decline? It has been particularly urgent for those local economies with a high proportion of public sector jobs to identify ways in which private sector employment can be stimulated.
Local authorities and their partners will need to be improving how they target resources and support to business. Allied to this is the need for increased local ability to focus effort on identified job growth areas. Through local growth plans and City Deals, local authorities and LEPs are increasingly showing how they can boost growth for their local economies, although much more could be done.
Aiming for a more balanced growth will need greater co-ordination between local authorities, LEPs and employers and stronger powers to steer public spending for the benefit of their local economies. The skills and employability challenge
Up to 2022 there will be over 12 million jobs to which employers will need to recruit skilled workers. Working Futures(^3) has forecast there will be around 1.8 million new jobs created up to 2022 and 12.5 million job vacancies because people have retired or left the labour market.
However, the nature of these jobs is changing. In general, there will be more white-collar jobs requiring higher levels of qualifications. The occupations with the largest new employment growth will be managers, professional and technical jobs, and caring and leisure occupations. Table 1 shows the change for each occupation.
| Table 1: Change in demand for different occupations | |-----------------------------------------------| | Percentage Shares | 2012 | 2022 | % Net Change | | 1. Managers, directors and senior officials | 10.7 | 11.8 | 17.7 | | 2. Professional occupations | 19.7 | 22.1 | 18.6 | | 3. Associate professional and technical | 13.4 | 14.4 | 14 | | 4. Administrative and secretarial | 11.7 | 9.5 | -13.5 | | 5. Skilled trades occupations | 10.8 | 9.3 | -8.8 | | 6. Caring, leisure and other service | 9 | 10.4 | 22.8 | | 7. Sales and customer service | 8.4 | 7.8 | -2.1 | | 8. Process, plant and machine operatives | 6.2 | 5.2 | -10.4 | | 9. Elementary occupations | 10.3 | 9.5 | -1.8 | | Total | 100 | 100 | 5.9 |
Source: Working Futures, UKCES
Because people are retiring (or leaving the labour market for other reasons) there are always plenty of workers that have to be replaced – the so-called ‘replacement demand’. These replacement jobs outnumber the new growth in jobs by six to one, and by putting the two together we get a better picture of total demand – over 12 million jobs with 55% of all the jobs coming from the top three high qualification occupations. See Annex 2 for the total estimated change in employer demand between 1992 and 2022.
(^3) ‘Working Futures 2012-2022, UKCES, 2014, analysis for England The demand for skills that need higher level qualifications is rising but so too are the number of people with higher qualifications. Most of this increase in the supply of higher qualifications comes from better qualified young people joining the labour market.
**However, the increase in qualifications is not happening fast enough.** New forecasts of qualification levels in 2022 show that we will have an under-qualified workforce compared to that being demanded by employers.
Against the backdrop of a strong increase in business confidence, the Federation of Small Businesses has recently highlighted skills shortages as a significant barrier to growth for small firms. In a survey, almost one third (29.9%) of SMEs reported skills shortages as hampering growth.4
> “It is therefore crucial to the long term sustainability of economic expansion that training for the right types of skills is provided, and for the stock of human capital is increased – a longstanding area of weakness for the UK economy.”
*Federation of Small Business, June 2014*
Our analysis also shows there are important differences between local economies with areas requiring very different types of uplifts in qualifications.
**The skills gap**
We have identified the skills gap for England and for each of our case study areas – gaps that will constrain the level of economic growth unless closed.
The skills gap is the difference between:
- the **qualifications of the future** that will be needed for the jobs in 2022, as identified by Working Futures
- the **qualifications of the workforce** in 2022 based on projecting demographic changes from the 2011 Census.
To calculate the qualifications of the workforce in 2022 we have factored in the increasing age of retirement, and assumed the current level of qualification
______________________________________________________________________
4 Small Business Index Q2 2014, Federation of Small Business, 2014 attainment of young people will persist through to 2022. So with each year of young people joining the labour market our workforce becomes more qualified – but not fast enough. Annex 1 describes how we calculated these changes.
"Better qualified people have a higher probability of obtaining and retaining a job than someone less well qualified. They are also more likely to be active in the labour market than less qualified people, except when they are young and still acquiring qualifications."
UK Commission for Employment & Skills, Working Futures 2014
To more easily show the difference we have divided the eight National Qualification Framework (NQF) levels into three – high, intermediate, and low.5
For England in 2022 this analysis shows that for:
- the qualifications of the future will need an average qualification level of NQF Level 3 or 3 ‘A’ Levels of the equivalent
- the qualifications of the workforce will have an average qualification level of NQF 2.3, or just above 5 GCSE’s or equivalent.
The gap between the two is 0.7, or almost one whole National Qualification Framework (NQF) ‘level’ of qualification. It means, on average, we have to lift England’s workforce to A-level standard rather than the projected 5 GCSEs standard.
Chart 2 shows the difference between the skills needs of 2022 and the projected population skills of the English workforce in 2022.
Chart 2: Projected skills needs and population skills levels 2022
Source: Inclusion estimates
5 See Annex 3 for the definition of NQF levels. Those without qualifications are counted as ‘low’. Table 2, below, shows the deficit of high-level skills that England faces if we do not do more to increase qualification levels.
| | Low skilled | Intermediate skills | High skilled | |--------------------------|-------------|---------------------|--------------| | Population skills in 2022| 9,246,904 | 12,610,938 | 11,877,076 | | Employer skill needs in 2022| 3,746,573 | 10,203,578 | 14,775,959 | | Skills gap 2022 | +5,500,330 | +2,407,360 | -2,898,883 |
Source: Inclusion estimates from Working Futures
On these forecasts we will have:
- 9.2 million low skilled people chasing 3.7 million low skilled jobs - a surplus of 5.5 million low skilled workers with an increasing risk of unemployment
- 12.6 million people with intermediate skills will chase 10.2 million jobs – a surplus of 2.4 million people
- employers will struggle to recruit to the estimated 14.8 million high skilled jobs with only 11.9 million high skilled workers – a gap of 2.9 million.
Chart 3: Skills gap 2022, numbers of people
Source: Inclusion estimates Different local skills gaps
Chart 4 shows the qualification gaps for our case study areas. The gap is expressed as the percentage of one qualification level that each area must catch up by 2022. For example, Surrey has 37% of one qualification level to catch up whilst Essex has 75% of one qualification level (on average) to meet their employer needs in 2022.
Chart 4: Qualification skills gaps for case study areas in 2022
Source: Inclusion estimates
Growth at risk
A skills gap can constrain the extent and nature of economic growth. Research(^6) indicates that there is strong relationship between skills and productivity. Consequently, any shortfall in the qualifications needed for the future will likely lead to a shortfall in productivity and growth. We have used the skills gaps we have identified for England, and each of the case study areas, and calculated the potential loss of economic output in 2022.
(^6) ‘Skills, Workforce Characteristics and Firm-Level Productivity: Evidence from the Matched ABI/Employer Skills survey’, Galindo-Rueda and Haskel, IZA, 2005 Chart 5 shows the growth at risk of not meeting the skills challenge for England. For England we have calculated that in 2022 between 16% and 25% of growth could be lost if we do not bring skills up to the levels expected by employers. This means that up to £375 billion of output is at risk.
**Chart 5: GVA gap**
| Skill needs 2022 | Population skills 2022 | |------------------|------------------------| | £1,467 billion | £1,092 billion |
Source: Inclusion estimates
We have calculated the growth at risk for each of the case study areas. This ranges from 14% of growth at risk for Staffordshire to 27% for the London Boroughs of Lambeth, Lewisham and Southwark. Whilst the London Boroughs do not have a large skills gap in comparison with other areas, the GVA per head of population is much higher in London, therefore more growth will be at risk compared to other areas.
______________________________________________________________________
7 We used two different models to generate a productivity per filled job estimate for each area and the resultant GVA. We have given the range of impact given the results from the models. See Annex 1. The spare capacity in the Labour Market
Unemployment in the last recession did not increase to the extent that would have been expected from previous recessions but there is still plenty of spare capacity in the labour market.
We have used the Office for National Statistics definition of ‘slack’ or the spare capacity that exists in the labour market. For England this is composed of:
- 2 million unemployed people
- 1.8 million of the economically inactive who say they want a job; and
- 1.1 million who are working part-time but want a full-time job.
This amounts to almost 5 million people who want a job or more hours. In England this amounts to 16% of spare capacity in the working age population. The spare capacity in the Labour Market
Unemployment in the last recession did not increase to the extent that would have been expected from previous recessions but there is still plenty of spare capacity in the labour market.
We have used the Office for National Statistics definition of ‘slack’ or the spare capacity that exists in the labour market. For England this is composed of:
- 2 million unemployed people
- 1.8 million of the economically inactive who say they want a job; and
- 1.1 million who are working part-time but want a full-time job.
This amounts to almost 5 million people who want a job or more hours. In England this amounts to 16% of spare capacity in the working age population.
The variation in the amount of spare capacity in our case study areas ranges between 5% in Devon and 30% in the North East Combined Authority (NECA) area.
To add to this picture an earlier LGA report looked at under-employment for young people and adults across the country. ‘Under-employment’ incorporates a wider definition of spare capacity to include those that are working below their skill level.
______________________________________________________________________
8 ‘Hidden Talents: Totalling Hidden Talent: youth unemployment and underemployment in England and Wales’, Local Government Association, April 2014 Chart 9 shows that the South West has significant levels of under-employment mainly due to higher numbers of graduates not working at their skill level. Taken together these indicators show the extent to which local economies need local labour market strategies that meet their particular challenges.
**Chart 9: Under-employed people as a proportion of the population (%), England and Wales, Oct 2012–Sep 2013**
Young people (16 - 24 year olds)
- 6.0 - 11.2
- 11.3 - 13.0
- 13.1 - 13.8
- 13.9 - 14.0
- 14.1 - 16.0
Adults (25 - 64 year olds)
- 7.0 - 8.0
- 8.1 - 9.0
- 9.1 - 9.5
- 9.6 - 10.0
*Source: NOMIS (Annual Population Survey), Inclusion estimates*
**The changing nature of worklessness**
Worklessness in this recession is very different from previous recessions. Chart 10 below shows the peaks in worklessness over the last three recessions. The 1980’s and ‘90’s were dominated by large numbers of people on unemployment benefits, but with incapacity benefits growing rapidly in the 1990’s.
Now there is a more even split between those on different benefits and those saying they are unemployed and not claiming benefits at all (a trend that has been growing for over a decade). This new picture of worklessness means local and national interventions need to be more balanced and responsive to different circumstances.
... continued on page 28 Realising Talent: Case Studies
Eleven local authorities, or groupings of local authorities, agreed to profile their employment and skills ambitions and challenges – and what they are doing about it.
All of the areas are doing much more than can be profiled here, and there are many other local authorities who are taking action. In future reports we will look in more detail at what is happening across England.
Devon County Council
Ambitions and Challenges
Devon’s employment growth is expected to be 5% from 2013 – 2020 and a further 3.7% from 2020-2025. The sectors with the largest quantities of employment are the public sector, construction, distribution, hotels/accommodation and food, and business and finance. Of these, construction will see the most growth in the next 12 years at 38%, almost 20% more than the expected UK growth. Other sectors identified as having growth potential in Devon include professional services, logistics and creative media. The public sector, on which there has been much historical reliance, will see minimal growth, with both the traditional sectors of agriculture and manufacturing declining.
Realising the ambition and meeting the challenges
But, the real challenge for Devon, masked by the figures, is the volume of part time jobs and opportunities, alongside the amount of ‘underemployment’ in the county, with a great number of people not realising their full potential, employed in roles that do not fully utilise their skills and qualifications. Both of these challenges are compounded by the rural nature of the county. Essex County Council
Ambitions and Challenges
If the Government honours the Growth Deal, 117,745 new jobs will be created by 2021. Through this, economic growth will come from advanced manufacturing, medical technologies, health/care economy, logistics, renewable energy and digital / creative industries, which will grow significantly. The service, health and public sectors are the largest employment sectors. The service sector will grow more quickly in line with population growth, whilst the public sector will continue to shrink. The challenge is to address the relatively poor skills and basic skills gaps, which will impede local growth and our residents’ employability. Key sectors need higher level academic, practical and technical skills to compete and innovate. Preparing young people for higher value jobs and upskilling the workforce are vital. For this to happen, the skills system needs systemic change and greater localism.
Realising the ambition and meeting the challenges
Statutory provision needs to be more responsive to business needs. This requires localised employment, skills and welfare, steered by Essex’s Employment & Skills Board. Key initiatives to address the skills mismatch include Essex Apprenticeships and (higher level) Skills for Economic Growth to support SME growth.
Greater Lincolnshire
Ambitions and Challenges
13,000 new jobs are expected by 2030. Growth and greatest competitiveness will come through six sectors which are agri-food, manufacturing/engineering, the visitor economy, health and care, port and logistics, and low carbon. Demand for experienced, higher skilled staff (technological and managerial) has grown in sectors traditionally lower skilled. Some employers are struggling to recruit. The ambition is to meet demand with local labour. A lack of available information from DWP is challenging in relation to LEP decisions about future activity for unemployed residents.
Realising the ambition and meeting the challenges
Greater Lincolnshire is working to change perceptions about their sectors through better Labour Market Intelligence.
With excellent Level 2 qualification results, the ambition is to support the local population to progress to Level 3, and Level 4. The 16-35 population falls behind national averages considerably. Freedom has been sought to use European Social Fund (ESF) to deliver training at Level 3 to support our ambitions. Greater Manchester Combined Authority
Ambitions and Challenges
101,000 additional jobs are forecast in Greater Manchester (GM) over the next decade, 70% of which will be in professional and business services. Over 60% of new jobs will require Level 3 or above skills. Jobs in public administration, education and manufacturing are forecast to reduce.
Challenges include higher levels of long term worklessness (especially young people), low skills and working poverty resulting from poor quality work.
Greater Manchester’s Combined Authority works well with Job Centre Plus (JCP), employers and providers to address labour market failures, such as via an Apprenticeship Hub, a Youth Contract Extension, Jobs with Training for long term young unemployed, and Working Well - a comprehensive employment support offer co-funded with DWP for ESA claimants who have not found jobs via the Work Programme.
Realising the ambition and meeting the challenges
Flexibilities sought include more influence over Skills Funding Agency (SFA) budgets in line with local priorities and ESF, a role within future DWP programme procurement, and financial risk/reward models between GM and Whitehall with devolved accountability.
London Boroughs of Lambeth, Lewisham and Southwark community budget
Ambitions and Challenges
Lambeth, Lewisham and Southwark are developing an integrated system of support from welfare through to employment. The aim is to get the right intervention at the right time, from universal credit application to employment, supported by skills and training provision that meets local needs.
Current support does not always deliver the best deal for residents especially those with complex needs. It can be confusing and hard to navigate, skewed as it is towards national objectives, and in the worst cases, can drive residents further away from, and not closer to, the world of work.
Realising the ambition and meeting the challenges
We want to embrace the opportunities (and risks) that a more locally integrated system brings. This means government letting go, being prepared to share intelligence (e.g. on employment destination data) and creating financial incentives to local skills providers to improve the quality of provision. We are ready to act; we hope that the Government is too. Labour Market Challenge 2022: local and England wide
Closing the skills gap looks different in different local economies. Securing growth means getting the best local skills match between local employer demand and local skills. A positive skills gap bar means a surplus of people and a negative bar means a shortage. Labour Market Slack 2013 highlights the current challenge.
Key
- % of spare capacity of the Working Age Population
- Skills gap surplus or shortage of people in 2022
- GVA gap estimated impact of the skills gap on Gross Value Added
- GVA gap percent of growth at risk in 2022 North Eastern Local Enterprise Partnership
Ambitions and Challenges
The North East Combined Authority (NECA) is a legal body that brings together seven\* local authorities to drive economic growth and improve employment and skills performance in a challenging area. While employability and skills leadership and resources are currently dispersed across a number of national and local organisations, evidence suggests locally-led models aligned with other services can enable more effective and efficient delivery.
Realising the ambition and meeting the challenges
The NECA ambition, articulated through the Strategic Economic Plan, is a more coordinated and locally accountable approach through a NE Labour Market and Skills Agreement. The agreement will support NECA in negotiations with government to:
- develop a framework for local management and delivery of services responsive to specific area needs, including a locally-led and commissioned framework; and
- explore devolution of funding and programme design, flexibilities in performance, improved data sharing and progression tracking across programmes.
\*County Durham, Gateshead, Newcastle, North Tyneside, Northumberland, South Tyneside and Sunderland
Shropshire part of the Marches LEP
Ambitions and Challenges
By 2020, Shropshire is forecast to have an additional 4,400 jobs – a 4% increase. The Marches LEP will see an increase in support services, construction, and professional services. Declining sectors will be agriculture, engineering, manufacturing (excluding food and drink) and public administration. Demand for occupations requiring high qualifications will rise by 17%, while there will be a 10.3% drop in process and plant operatives requiring lower qualifications. By 2020, 37.3% of the Marches LEP workforce is forecast to be qualified to NVQ level 4 and above compared with 27.6% in 2010. The challenge will be to support local people into sustained jobs, particularly those in rural areas with low level qualifications.
Realising the ambition and meeting the challenges
Shropshire’s Economic Growth Strategy includes initiatives such as a new University campus in Shrewsbury with an innovation centre to increase employment in growth sectors, new sustainable urban extensions with office parks, and incentives and start-up support for high growth businesses. Shropshire seeks an alignment of funding and providing an easier platform to fund local initiatives that can improve impact. Southampton and Portsmouth City Councils
Ambitions and Challenges
The two maritime cities are working together to support local people with skills to compete for jobs created through major developments and public sector procurement. The aim is to create a LEP-wide ‘Solent Jobmatch’ employment and skills ‘hub’ to co-ordinate, support and monitor activity across Solent’s eleven local authorities.
Realising the ambition and meeting the challenges
An existing integrated approach in Southampton has led to 616 supported jobs for unemployed people, 203 new apprenticeships, 345 work placements and 411 pre-employment training opportunities over five years, and the pace is increasing. The programme seeks to match publicly funded provision with private sector demand across Solent. The challenge is coordinating employment and skills funding streams, which vary greatly in local flexibility and responsiveness, from a range of national agencies (EFA, SFA, DWP and HEFC) and their providers.
A devolved and flexible local budget with local brokerage would increase the impact and scale of this initiative, enable integration with local funds and joint commissioning, and offer a truly responsive solution to private sector demand.
West Yorkshire Combined Authority
Ambitions and Challenges
The LEP ambition is to become NEET-free with more and better jobs and a skilled workforce. Over 500,000 new and replacement job opportunities will be created in the Combined Authority area over the next decade, however skills gaps persist. Six key growth sectors are financial and professional services, health and life sciences, innovative manufacturing, creative and digital, food and drink, low carbon and environmental.
Realising the ambition and meeting the challenges
Current initiatives include: £4.6m City Deal Apprenticeship Hub network across the region, creating 2,500 additional SME Apprenticeships; £4.6m Cabinet Office funded Headstart programme supporting 18-24s into jobs; Devolved Youth Contract (DYC) pilot in Leeds, Bradford and Wakefield, engaging 16/17 year olds through community projects; Five three one campaign brokering skills support for companies of any size or sector (adding £7 million to the economy); working with SMEs to address software engineering/coding skills shortages; and strong integration with local authority job programmes.
Devolved Youth Contract has achieved 68% engagement, compared to circa 30% nationally. Further devolution will provide flexibility of design and delivery, local responsiveness and increased outcomes as a result. Staffordshire County Council
Ambitions and Challenges
56,000 more jobs are expected by 2025. Largest increases will be professional, managers and senior officials, associate professional and technical occupations. High growth sectors will include engineering and manufacturing. A targeted skills policy is needed to upskill Staffordshire’s workforce, where areas have up to 20% with no qualifications, and other places less than a fifth qualified to level 4+.
Realising the ambition and meeting the challenges
Initiatives include:
- **Open Door**, council run 12 week work placement for unemployed/vulnerable groups, now developed with local employers.
- Devolved £39m **Skills Pilot** with local colleges using Adult Skills Budget (ASB) to deliver LEP priorities. 5% redistribution applied where priorities are not met.
- **Sector Based Work Academy** with Jaguar Land Rover to recruit semi skilled workers to I54 Manufacturing Centre. Those completing a 6 week programme are guaranteed a place at the Assessment Centre (ASB funded).
- New **automotive/engineering hub** in Tamworth, funded through City Deal, the County Council and South Staffordshire College.
- **Delivering employability** and ICT courses for Work Programme leavers through Adult and Community Learning in conjunction with Jobcentre Plus.
Surrey County Council
Ambitions and Challenges
Job growth sectors will be health and social care, professional and business services, retail, government services and construction. Over half of all jobs in Surrey are already in the top three high qualified occupations; this trend will increase. Challenges will be new jobs outstripping population growth, employers struggle to recruit young people with employability skills, and re-engaging hard to reach young people not in education, employment or training.
Realising the ambition and meeting the challenges
‘Skills for the Future’, part of Surrey’s Public Service Transformation Network programme, will develop new interventions for young people. These include an integrated, reformed and localised IAG system from Year 8, an employability curriculum for Year 10s, and a Young Adult Employment Support scheme to equip young people with adaptive employability skills for future jobs. This could result in savings to central Government through a reduction in JSA claimants and increased tax returns to HMRC. Surrey is keen to negotiate a gain share agreement based on these, to ensure savings are reinvested in the ongoing delivery of services for local residents. Chart 10: Numbers of workless people 1979 to 2014
Source: NOMIS (Annual Population Survey)
Long-term unemployment remains a significant problem across the country and in local communities. Whilst it has recently started to decline, it remains at 1997 levels for adults and 1994 levels for young people. Altogether there remain 900,000 people who say they are long-term unemployed.
Chart 11: ILO Long-term unemployment
Source: NOMIS (Annual Population Survey) However, historically high proportions of the long-term unemployed are not claiming JSA. 70% of young long-term unemployed people are not claiming JSA and 46% of adults are not claiming. There are a number of different reasons for the high proportion who are not claiming. However, the consequence is that there are increasing numbers of long-term unemployed people who are outside the benefits system and therefore not eligible for most employment and skills support. This adds to the challenges at the local level where the social costs of long-term unemployment are felt but where there is diminishing engagement with the long-term unemployed.
______________________________________________________________________
9 See ‘Economic & Labour Market Review’, Clancy and Stam, July 2010 Filling the skills gap: challenges along the way
Ageing population, ageing workforce
The impact of an ageing population is well understood by local government as social care costs absorb an increasing proportion of funding. The average age of a ‘working age’ person is now just tipping over 40, and by 2017 it will be 41 and will continue to steadily increase until 2037 when it will be over 44(^{10}).
The number of people aged between 50 and 64 in employment in the UK has increased by nearly 2 million over the past 15 years to 7.7 million. Overall it is estimated that the proportion of over-50s in the workforce will be a third of all workers by 2020. However, qualification levels reduce with age. For example, 44% of thirty year olds have a degree but only 30% of 55-64 years olds have one.
At the same time there are fewer young people entering the labour market up to 2018. In 2021 the total number of 16 year olds is expected to be below current levels. In addition, the ‘raising of participation age’ will lead to reduced numbers of 16-18 years olds in employment.
This means, as a country, we will be more reliant on our adult workforce to deliver the economic growth we need. It will primarily be adults’ skills and capabilities that will either deliver or constrain growth.
The adult unemployed account for 66% of the ILO unemployed – more than double the number of young unemployed. This should be the case given the range of years covered by 25 to 64 year olds compared to 18-24 year olds. Adults also represent the majority of the long-term unemployed at 63% of the entire total. 82% of those finding jobs from unemployment were aged 25 plus.
The skills of the adult unemployed will become more important in tomorrow’s labour market. This should mean there will need to be a greater emphasis by BIS and DWP programmes on upskilling or re-training adults – fit for local economies.
(^{10}) These projections take into account the changes to state pension age. Young people
Research for the LGA’s Hidden Talents campaign has consistently highlighted the challenges faced by young people in the labour market. The most recent report examined the extent of under-employment(^{11}) amongst young people. Chart 12 below shows the difference between young people and adults. The research for this report forecast that whilst youth under-employment would fall, it would still be higher in 2018 than it was in 2005.
Employers want higher qualifications
Over the last two decades, graduates are clearly doing better compared to all other qualification groups. Those with ‘A’ Levels (or NQF Level 3) are doing better than those with GCSEs (or Level 2), but both are dropping further behind graduates.
Chart 13 shows the qualifications of those people who have been recruited for each of the years given. It shows recruitment of graduates now stands well above the recession and has increased steadily since 1996/7. This is in contrast to those with low qualifications for whom hiring rates have consistently declined. This is reflecting the change in occupations over the same period – see Annex 2.
______________________________________________________________________
(^{11}) Totalling Hidden Talent: youth unemployment and underemployment in England and Wales, LGA, June 2014 Overall, employers are preferring to recruit people with higher levels of qualifications for the jobs that are being created and this trend is forecast to continue. This will mean that those local economies with fewer people with high qualifications may be disadvantaged in creating new jobs and attracting inward investment.
**Chart 13: Hiring by qualifications**
*Source: Inclusion analysis of the Labour Force Survey*
**Are employers hiring the unemployed?**
The hiring rate(^{12}) for the long-term unemployed is very much lower than for the short-term unemployed. More than one-third of those who were short-term unemployed had jobs three months later. This declined to one in eight of those who had been unemployed for two years or more.
The hiring rate of the unemployed varies from around 18% (Merseyside) to almost 30% (East England and the South East). This means there are significant differences in the strength of local labour markets and this should mean that different responses are needed for how the unemployed are supported.
______________________________________________________________________
(^{12}) The ‘hiring rate’ shows the percentage of the unemployed who start work in a three month period. A high percentage shows larger numbers of unemployed successfully competing for jobs. The hiring rates of economically inactive people markedly decline with age. The 25-29 age group is the highest and will include some moving from education to employment. The hiring rates for over-50’s (economically inactive) is just one-third of younger workers, however hirings for older workers now exceed pre-recession levels.
**Chart 14: Hiring rates of the unemployed by duration of unemployment**
Source: Inclusion analysis of the Labour Force Survey
**Mixed picture for disadvantaged people**
Disadvantaged groups are those that have had employment rates consistently below the national average. Chart 15 below shows the extent of the gap from the national employment rate. The success of over-50’s can be seen clearly – almost closing the gap from a minus 12% deficit in the 1990’s. Conversely young people (not in full-time education) have moved from a positive to a negative gap as a result of the recession. The sharpest deterioration has been for the low skilled. The Level 1 qualification rate has opened up a -10% deficit and those with ‘no qualifications’ always had a low employment rate but this has worsened to an almost -35% deficit. The hiring rates of economically inactive people markedly decline with age. The 25-29 age group is the highest and will include some moving from education to employment. The hiring rates for over-50’s (economically inactive) is just one-third of younger workers, however hirings for older workers now exceed pre-recession levels.
Chart 14: Hiring rates of the unemployed by duration of unemployment
Source: Inclusion analysis of the Labour Force Survey
Mixed picture for disadvantaged people
Disadvantaged groups are those that have had employment rates consistently below the national average. Chart 15 below shows the extent of the gap from the national employment rate. The success of over-50’s can be seen clearly – almost closing the gap from a minus 12% deficit in the 1990’s. Conversely young people (not in full-time education) have moved from a positive to a negative gap as a result of the recession. The sharpest deterioration has been for the low skilled. The Level 1 qualification rate has opened up a -10% deficit and those with ‘no qualifications’ always had a low employment rate but this has worsened to an almost -35% deficit.
Chart 15: Employment rate gaps for disadvantaged groups
Source: Office for National Statistics, NOMIS and Inclusion analysis
Closing the geographical gaps?
There are 134 local authorities with an employment rate below the national average and a group of 29 local authorities with an employment rate below 65%. The difference between employment rates in local authorities is stark with Nottingham at 58% and South Northamptonshire at 89% - a difference of 31 percentage points. The difference in employment rates and labour market conditions across local authorities is clearly highly significant, but local authorities have few levers to influence the nature of labour market interventions.
Chart 16: Local Authorities employment rates – ranked lowest to highest
Source: NOMIS (Annual Population Survey) and Inclusion analysis Responding to the skills gap challenge cannot be solved by a national solution alone for upskilling everyone. Local economies have their own distinctive challenges governed by their:
- levels of employment, unemployment and economic activity;
- existing skills profile of the population;
- profile of benefit claimants, especially those on Employment Support Allowance;
- the nature of the spare capacity in the local labour market; and
- the growth and declining sectors in the local economy.
This reinforces the need to integrate provision at a more local level – driven by employer needs and the strategic economic priorities of local government and LEPs.
**Age and Benefit claimants**
Too often the monthly unemployment and JSA figures mask the full scale of claimants on ESA which, in turn, masks the full extent of adults claiming out of work benefits. JSA is clearly a ‘young persons’ benefit – 26% are 18-24 and 52% are under 35. On ESA, just 8% are young people and 42% are over-50 (compared to 17% over-50 on JSA). In addition, of the remaining 500,000 still on Incapacity Benefit, 260,000 are over-50 years old.
Taken together there are:
- half a million 18-24 claimants, 70% on JSA
- 4 million over-25s on benefits, and three-quarters are on ESA.
This raises questions about how local government can be empowered to work more closely with health services to tackle barriers to work for people with disabilities and health problems. The delivery infra-structure
The employment and skills infra-structure, almost exclusively funded by central government, is supposed to play a critical role in improving the employability of the local workforce. The infra-structure controlled by central government consists of:
- Jobcentre Plus: administering most benefits; monitoring and improving jobsearch; recruitment support for local employers; managing the Flexible Support Fund; support to some Work Programme leavers.
- Department for Work & Pensions contractors: providing the Work Programme, Work Choice, Community Work Placement, and other programmes
- Skills Funding Agency: providing funding for adults (18 plus) in local colleges and providers of training; responsible for the National Apprenticeship Service and delivering apprenticeships and traineeships
- Education Funding Agency: providing funding for 16-19 year olds in colleges, providers, schools and academies
- National Careers Service: provides online and phone careers advice, and face-to-face interviews for 19 year olds and over.
In addition, some of the infra-structure is controlled or administered at the local level:
- Local authorities: manage Housing Benefit administration for DWP; control of Council Tax Reduction; delivers Troubled Families with CLG funding; responsible for public health; some local funding for targeted projects.
- Local Enterprise Partnerships: access to Growth Funds and support for Enterprise Zones; future responsibility of European funds for skills training.
- Clinical Commissioning Groups: increasing interest in work and health with some funding for related projects.
- Voluntary sector: often contracts to central and local government but provides some independent local projects and services, for example, funded through Trust funds and Big Lottery.
In addition, there are specialist services commissioned by central and local government that aim to improve employability of specific groups, for example, ex-offenders, drug and alcohol misusers. It adds up to a complex mix of funding. A new LGA report has identified annual expenditure of almost £13 billion on skills and employment support going through 28 different programmes and budgets.
The view from local government
As part of the research for this report, the LGA surveyed local authorities to get their views on how national agencies and programmes are working in their areas. This was the first survey of its kind, so there was no benchmark for the results. The intention was to understand the extent to which local authorities felt that national agencies were responsive to local needs.
Delivering outcomes?
Overall, 59% thought national commissioning by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP), Skills Funding Agency (SFA) and Education Funding Agency (EFA) delivered 'good outcomes' to a 'small extent' (48%) or 'not at all' (11%). 39% thought that national commissioning delivered good outcomes to a 'moderate extent', but none thought that it delivered good outcomes to 'a great extent'.
Adults (25+) were felt to get less effective support. 54% thought that support for those aged 50+ was less effective than for other age groups, and this was 41% for 25-49 year olds. However, only 15% thought that support for 16/17 year olds was less effective.
Those groups that were thought to lose out the most from employment and skills support were claimants with complex needs, and those who are already in employment but want to progress (presumably reflecting an increased local concern about in-work poverty).
Responsive?
Overall 66% felt that national commissioning was insufficiently responsive to local needs and 75% felt that they had little or no influence in commissioning local employment and skills provision. When it came to views on local government's ability to influence commissioning to suit changing local needs, 79% said that it was 'very or fairly difficult'.
Infographic source: LGA 2014 and agencies. A new LGA report\\textsuperscript{13} has identified annual expenditure of almost £13 billion on skills and employment support going through 28 different programmes and budgets.
The view from local government
As part of the research for this report, the LGA surveyed local authorities\\textsuperscript{14} to get their views on how national agencies and programmes are working in their areas. This was the first survey of its kind, so there was no benchmark for the results. The intention was to understand the extent to which local authorities felt that national agencies were responsive to local needs.
Delivering outcomes?
Overall, 59% thought national commissioning by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP), Skills Funding Agency (SFA) and Education Funding Agency (EFA) delivered ‘good outcomes’ to a ‘small extent’ (48%) or ‘not at all’ (11%). 39% thought that national commissioning delivered good outcomes to a ‘moderate extent’, but none thought that it delivered good outcomes to ‘a great extent’.
Adults (25+) were felt to get less effective support. 54% thought that support for those aged 50+ was less effective than for other age groups, and this was 41% for 25-49 year olds. However, only 15% thought that support for 16/17 year olds was less effective.
Those groups that were thought to lose out the most from employment and skills support were claimants with complex needs, and those who are already in employment but want to progress (presumably reflecting an increased local concern about in-work poverty).
Responsive?
Overall 66% felt that national commissioning was insufficiently responsive to local needs and 75% felt that they had little or no influence in commissioning local employment and skills provision. When it came to views on local government’s ability to influence commissioning to suit changing local needs, 79% said that it was ‘very or fairly difficult’.
\\textsuperscript{13} Fragmented Funding, Shared Intelligence, commissioned by the Local Government Association, June 2014 \\textsuperscript{14} LGA Supply chain for skills and employment survey 2014 (due to be published at summer 2014 www.local.gov.uk). Data are based on responses from 56 out of 353 local authorities in England (16 per cent). 84% were critical of the local responsiveness of DWP programmes – 39% thought they were responsive ‘to a small extent’ and 45% ‘not at all’. Whilst still critical, local authorities were relatively more positive about the Skills Funding Agency (66%) and the Education Funding Agency (53%).
However, local authorities were more balanced in their views of their local Jobcentre Plus. 48% thought they were responsive to a ‘great or moderate extent’, whilst 51% thought they were responsive to a ‘small extent or not at all’.
Local authorities thought that employment and skills providers were more locally responsive, with almost two-thirds (61%) saying they were responsive to a ‘moderate or great’ extent.
**The right match?**
82% thought there was a mismatch between local SFA funded provision and local employer demand. Whilst 33% thought that the SFA were responding ‘moderately’ to employer needs generally, 45% thought they were only responding to a ‘small extent or not at all’.
**The Work Programme**
33% were fairly satisfied or very satisfied with the support provided by the Work Programme and 47% were either fairly or very dissatisfied. There was a strong view that prime contractors and their sub-contractors did not engage sufficiently with local government – 67% thought they did not.
**Information Advice and Guidance in schools**
There was a high level of dissatisfaction with the level of careers advice provided in schools – 88% were dissatisfied or very dissatisfied.
**Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs)**
Local authorities were asked if they thought that LEPs and cross-authority working was leading to improvements? 49% thought they were and 29% thought they were not, with the rest (22%) saying they didn’t know.
**Devolving funds**
87% felt they had insufficient oversight or ability to hold providers to account and 84% wanted to see funding devolved to LEPs and/or groups of local authorities to integrate employment and skills provision. However, 31% also supported national commissioning combined with consultation with local authorities.
**Why local government should be concerned**
Local authorities are persistently attempting to ensure they are creating the conditions for a healthy local economy – one which enables local businesses to grow and to attract new inward investment. Most local authorities recognise that the well-being of their citizens is directly related to not just levels of employment, but also to the nature and quality of jobs available locally.
High levels of adult unemployment puts more pressure on local government services as well as other services, such as health. Adult unemployment is more likely to be related to high levels of child poverty with the pressures this brings on schools and Children Services. However, as highlighted recently by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, the majority of people in poverty are now in work rather than out of work. This reinforces the need to help adults increase their earnings whilst in work and not only helping jobseekers.
There will be a greater incidence of workless households in high adult unemployment areas and these families often have multiple problems leading to high levels of public expenditure. The DCLG Troubled Families and the DWP ESF Families programmes are primarily targeted on these families.
Local authorities can have a strong influence through their planning and economic development powers to increase the attractiveness of their areas to business. However, local government is constrained in their influence on the labour market because:
- their boundaries often to do not reflect local economies; and
- they have little or no influence over employment and skills budgets.
This is why new ways of working through Combined Authorities and Local Enterprise Partnerships will begin to break down these constraints – they are more likely to reflect functioning local economies and Community Budgets and City Deals demonstrate the extent of ambition and enthusiasm by local government to do more. LEPs are now being used to increase the local influence over skills funding and channel funds to the local level:
- European Social Fund (ESF) spending will be prioritised by LEPs from 2015 Realising Talent
- skills capital spending will also go through LEPs
- some LEPs are the vehicle for some City Deals which include skills and support for unemployed
- the £2 billion Local Growth Fund is delivered through LEPs in response to local plans.
Whilst LEPs remain a fragile infra-structure with significant variation in quality, they will also be adopting new responsibilities that will have a direct bearing on adult employability.
**Implications and questions for local government**
The future challenges that local economies will face are:
1. an **ageing workforce**, it will primarily be adults’ skills and capabilities that will either deliver or constrain growth
2. re-claiming the **lost generation of young people** by providing better skills, improved guidance and new pathways to employment
3. achieving a **better local skills match** between publicly funded training and employer demand
4. further **improving the efficiency of the local labour market** by increasing information on jobs, education and training
5. making sure that **long-term unemployed people** and disadvantaged groups are not left behind
6. **integrating provision** at the local level – more effective and more efficient.
Meeting the challenges of the future will require a more robust and clearer partnership between central and local government. It will need clarity of the responsibilities and set out a national framework within which central and local government can work. This is why Local Labour Market and Skills Agreements, as being explored in the North Eastern LEP/NECA, could potentially provide a new way of working. The re-contracting of the Work Programme in 2016 also provides a good opportunity to explore how a more localised programme could work.
To take this forward there will need to be a wide acceptance within local government that the effectiveness of employment and skills support is critical to their local economies and reducing the social costs of unemployment and poverty. Many local authorities have already demonstrated their willingness to meet the challenges and want new responsibilities, but this willingness and capability will need to work everywhere.
The government has established LEPs to bring business and local government together to decide priorities for local investment in both physical and human capital. Government now needs to reinforce their capacity to take further responsibilities both in policy and commissioning.
Finally, both local and central government need to be working together to shape how a reformed system could better work for local economies and people. Relevant government departments need an active dialogue with local government over the coming period – one which moves beyond the current phase of initiatives and considers wider and more extensive devolution. For its part, local government will need to develop its vision for the future – a task which the next reports in this series will turn to.
Centre for Economic & Social Inclusion
July 2014 Annex 1: Calculating the skills gap and impact on growth
Calculating the skills gap
The UK Commission on Employment and Skills (UKCES) commissioned the Institute for Employment Research at Warwick University (IER) and Cambridge Econometrics to produce forecasts of employment demand in 2022 as the Working Futures 2012-2022 project. This is the fifth of a series of forecasts carried out every 2-3 years since 2002.
Working Futures 2012-22 produces estimates of employment numbers in 2022 by, among other analyses, qualification at national level, regional level and, by special licence, LEP level.
We estimated the 2022 employment by skills in the case study areas by taking the current case study area proportion of LEP employment and applying that percentage to the Working Futures LEP forecasts. For most case study areas, the local authority is a large proportion of the LEP area.
We estimated the skills distribution of the population in 2022 by 'bringing forward' the 2011 census pattern of qualifications to 2021. Those over 25 in 2011 were assumed to have reached their qualification level that applied in 2021, when they would be over 35. Those over 55 in 2011 were assumed to have retired in 2021. The qualification distribution of those under 35 in 2021 was assumed to be the qualification pattern of under-35s in 2013 (the latest figures) to apply to 2021.
As our source data for Census and 2013 data (Annual Population Survey) uses qualifications up to 'Level 4 and above', we have summed the Working Futures estimates for NQF Levels 4 to 8 to give a Level 4 and above figure. We have presented the charts as 'low skilled' - qualifications under Level 2 or none, 'intermediate skills' - qualifications from Level 2 to Level 3 including trade apprenticeships (which here are those with no equivalence level known), and 'high skilled - Level 4 and above.
This produces Census based population estimates for 2021 (assumed similar to 2022) and Working Futures based employment estimates for 2022. For the skills distribution charts, we have presented these as percentages of the respective totals, and the skills gap as the difference between the percentages in the categories. Estimating the impact of the Skills Gap on Gross Value Added
We reviewed the economics literature that explores a relationship between skills and productivity. However, the models discussed in these academic papers also required information on capital employed per worker, information on which we do not have at local level. Our alternative method uses the following information:
- Qualifications distribution of the population and of those employed at NUTS3 geographical level.
- Productivity estimates per hour worked and per filled job at NUTS3 geographical level.
The NUTS3 geography is a statistical geography used by the EU to determine eligibility for structural funds. It normally covers historic counties and similar sized portions of cities.
We estimate a summary 'average qualifications' measure, treating qualification levels as numbers.
We estimated two models relating the average qualifications level to the productivity per filled job estimates, based on the latest ONS figures. The best fit was a polynomial fit of cubic form. This reflects the same pattern that employment and pay show, with very low levels for low qualifications, a central portion where employment and pay rise slowly with rising intermediate qualifications, and high qualifications have high employment rates and earnings. We also tested a linear relationship, which was not as good a fit.
We applied the models (based on 134 NUTS3 areas) to the 2022 forecast population skills and employment skills patterns for the case study areas to generate a productivity per filled job estimate for each area. These were converted into GVA estimates by using the Working Futures based employment 2022 numbers.
The model used is a relatively simple one and the relationships identified are not perfect. Therefore, the estimates are indicative of the consequences of the skills gaps identified rather than fully verified.
## Annex 2: Changing Composition of Employment by Occupation
| Employment Levels (000s) | 1992 | 2012 | 2022 | Net Job Change | Replacement Demand | Total | % share of total jobs | Cumulative total | |-------------------------|------|------|------|----------------|-------------------|-------|----------------------|-----------------| | 1. Managers, directors and senior officials | 1,882 | 2,889 | 3,401 | 512 | 1,204 | 1,716 | 14% | 14% | | 2. Professional occupations | 3,352 | 5,346 | 6,340 | 994 | 2,157 | 3,150 | 26% | 40% | | 3. Associate professional and technical | 2,560 | 3,624 | 4,130 | 506 | 1,339 | 1,845 | 15% | 55% | | 4. Administrative and secretarial | 3,778 | 3,163 | 2,737 | -426 | 1,354 | 927 | 8% | 62% | | 5. Skilled trades occupations | 3,371 | 2,917 | 2,662 | -256 | 985 | 730 | 6% | 68% | | 6. Caring, leisure and other service | 1,287 | 2,436 | 2,990 | 554 | 1,129 | 1,683 | 14% | 82% | | 7. Sales and customer service | 1,871 | 2,278 | 2,229 | -48 | 804 | 756 | 6% | 88% | | 8. Process, plant and machine operatives | 1,999 | 1,671 | 1,497 | -173 | 618 | 445 | 4% | 92% | | 9. Elementary occupations | 2,810 | 2,790 | 2,739 | -51 | 1,030 | 980 | 8% | 100% | | **Total** | **22,909** | **27,113** | **28,726** | **1,613** | **10,620** | **12,233** | | | Annex 3: Qualifications Framework
Low = Entry to Level 1; Intermediate = Level 3; High = 4 and above
| Level | QCF Qualifications examples | NQF Qualifications examples | Framework for Higher Education examples | |-------|-----------------------------|-----------------------------|----------------------------------------| | Entry | • Entry level VQs: | • Entry level certificates | | | | • Entry level awards, | • Skills for Life at Entry | | | | certificates and | level | | | | diplomas | | | | | • Foundation Learning | | | | | Tier pathways | | | | | • Functional Skills at | | | | | Entry level | | | | 1 | • Level 1 VQs: | • GCSEs graded D-G | | | | • BTEC awards, | • NVQs at level 1 | | | | certificates and | • Key Skills level 1 | | | | diplomas at level 1 | • Skills for Life | | | | • Functional Skills level | • Foundation Diploma | | | | 1 | | | | 2 | • Level 2 VQs: | • GCSEs graded A\*-C | | | | • BTEC awards, | • NVQs at level 2 | | | | certificates and | • Level 2 VQs | | | | diplomas at level 2 | • Key Skills level 2 | | | | • Functional Skills level | • Skills for Life | | | | 2 | • Higher Diploma | | | 3 | • Level 3 VQs: | • AS/A levels | | | | • BTEC awards, | • Advanced Extension | | | | certificates and | Awards | | | | diplomas at level 3 | • International Baccalaureate | | | | • BTEC Nationals | • Key Skills level 3 | | | | • OCR Nationals | • NVQs at level 3 | | | | | • Cambridge International | | | | | Awards | | | | | • Advanced and Progression Diploma | | | 4 | • Level 4 VQs: | • NVQs at level 4 | Certificates of higher education | | | • BTEC Professional | • Key Skills level 4 | | | | Diplomas, Certificates and | • Certificates of higher | | | | Awards | education | | | 5 | • Original NQF Level 4\* | • Higher national diplomas | Diplomas of higher education and further education, foundation degrees and higher national diplomas | | | • Level 5 VQs: | • Other higher diplomas | | | | • HNCs and HNDs | • NVQs at level 4 | | | | • BTEC Professional | | | | | Diplomas, Certificates and | | | | | Awards | | | | 6 | • Level 6 VQs: | • National Diploma in | Bachelor degrees, graduate certificates | | | • BTEC Advanced | Professional Production | and diplomas | | | Professional Diplomas, | Skills | | | | Certificates and Awards | • NVQs at level 4\* | | | 7 | • Original NQF Level 5\* | • Postgraduate certificates | Masters degrees, postgraduate certificates and diplomas | | | • Level 7 VQs: | and diplomas | | | | • Advanced professional | • BTEC advanced professional awards, certificates and diplomas | | | | awards, certificates and | • Fellowships and | | | | diplomas | fellowship diplomas | | | | | • Diploma in Translation | | | | | • NVQs at level 5\* | | | 8 | • Level 8 VQs: | • NVQs at level 5 | Doctorates | | | • Award, certificate and | | | | | diploma in strategic | | | | | direction | | |
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/4978-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 47,
"total-input-tokens": 124222,
"total-output-tokens": 18857,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
113,
1
],
[
113,
113,
2
],
[
113,
2529,
3
],
[
2529,
4598,
4
],
[
4598,
6865,
5
],
[
6865,
8972,
6
],
[
8972,
11073,
7
],
[
11073,
12687,
8
],
[
12687,
14240,
9
],
[
14240,
15932,
10
],
[
15932,
17562,
11
],
[
17562,
19538,
12
],
[
19538,
21426,
13
],
[
21426,
23012,
14
],
[
23012,
24124,
15
],
[
24124,
25210,
16
],
[
25210,
26307,
17
],
[
26307,
27015,
18
],
[
27015,
28281,
19
],
[
28281,
29643,
20
],
[
29643,
31219,
21
],
[
31219,
33638,
22
],
[
33638,
35944,
23
],
[
35944,
36539,
24
],
[
36539,
39013,
25
],
[
39013,
41592,
26
],
[
41592,
44128,
27
],
[
44128,
44591,
28
],
[
44591,
45312,
29
],
[
45312,
47300,
30
],
[
47300,
48614,
31
],
[
48614,
49909,
32
],
[
49909,
51066,
33
],
[
51066,
53048,
34
],
[
53048,
54499,
35
],
[
54499,
56565,
36
],
[
56565,
58458,
37
],
[
58458,
60730,
38
],
[
60730,
62667,
39
],
[
62667,
64960,
40
],
[
64960,
66968,
41
],
[
66968,
67987,
42
],
[
67987,
70182,
43
],
[
70182,
72087,
44
],
[
72087,
73369,
45
],
[
73369,
79760,
46
],
[
79760,
79760,
47
]
]
} |
7ef638c3b3dd32b1e7f7f6a50c180c9d161f82a1 | Unable to file using SA online
Claim for reasonable excuse under the provisions of TMA 1970 s118(2)
1 Name of taxpayer
2 UTR of taxpayer
Reason for claiming reasonable excuse: 3 Failure to file online due to an IT issue (S118(2) TMA 70 refers) Yes No
4 Failure to file online due to a non-IT issue (S93 or S93(A) TMA 70 refers) Yes No
Reason for filing on paper: 5 Is a copy of any error message attached? Yes No - If no, question 6 needs to be completed
6 Please explain why a return could not be filed online.
7 What was the date when you tried to file the particular return online or realised that it could not be filed online
8 Which software package you are using?
9 Date of claim
10 Agent name
11 Agent contact details and address
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/4979-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 1,
"total-input-tokens": 1663,
"total-output-tokens": 259,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
766,
1
]
]
} |
6b76a9f7f69fece8357a7270db2eeb739ada55ad | Local Welfare Provision Update
Having announced the ending of dedicated funding for local welfare provision, the government has made £74 million available to councils in the local government finance settlement for 2015/16 in part to help fund local welfare provision schemes. Of this, London boroughs receive £14 million. This briefing explains the background to local welfare schemes and describes the representations that London boroughs made – through London Councils – to ensure that an element of funding for local schemes was retained.
Overview
There has been some element of one-off emergency assistance provided for within the welfare state since its inception in 1945, be it through exceptional grants, single payments, exceptional additions, special needs payments or, more recently, budgeting loans, community care grants and crisis loans.
In April 2013, discretionary elements of the Social Fund – a Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) scheme that provides financial support for needs that can be difficult to meet from regular income – were abolished. While the regulated elements such as cold weather payments and Sure Start maternity grants still exist, funding for community care grants and crisis loans was transferred to upper-tier local authorities who were asked to set up local welfare provision schemes.
All London boroughs were successfully operating such schemes as of 1 April 2013, when the transfer took place.
Nine months after these schemes began operating, the government revealed in the 2013 Autumn Statement that the dedicated funding stream for local welfare provision – which amounted to £178 million a year – would be abolished from 2015/16.
Response to abolition of funding
London Councils called on the Departments for Work and Pensions and Communities and Local Government to reconsider the decision to abolish the local welfare provision grant and to learn from councils’ experiences of running local schemes and awarding Discretionary Housing Payments to influence the design of Universal Credit.
In the summer of 2014, a judicial review was brought against the government’s decision to withdraw funding by a disabled resident from Cheshire with the Child Poverty Action Group acting as an ‘intervener’. The London Borough of Islington acted as an ‘interested party’. The review was brought on the grounds that the decision to cut the funding had been made:
- Without replacing the funding elsewhere
- Without performing an equality impact assessment
- Without proper consultation; and
- Without awaiting the outcome of a detailed review of the first year’s operation of the scheme that the DWP had committed to undertake
In September 2014, a month before the judicial review was due to be heard, the government signed a consent order in which it undertook to revisit the decision, complete the review, consult with stakeholders and carry out an equalities impact assessment.
The consultation invited views on how local welfare schemes should be funded in 2015/16, with the government outlining four options: 1) to simply leave upper-tier local authorities to fund provision from existing budgets; 2) to identify an amount of each upper-tier local authority’s grant which would notionally relate to local welfare provision based on previous trends; 3) to topslice Revenue Support Grant to fund a section 31 grant which would be ringfenced for local welfare provision; or 4) any other potential options which, if they were to call for additional funding over and above what had already been provided, would need to be supported by robust evidence showing the need for such extra funding.
London Councils submitted a response to this consultation which collected spending figures from boroughs to show the real and growing demand there was for local welfare assistance.
The response highlighted how local schemes were better targeting support at those most in need and were providing value for money. It called for funding to be maintained. The danger of cutting funding for local welfare provision ahead of the roll-out of Universal Credit – where the potential for the introduction of direct, monthly payments, seven day waiting periods and the fact that sanctions will apply to the whole of a claim, rather than just the employment component to increase demand for emergency support – was especially stressed.
London Councils’ response also addressed the perception that local authorities – London boroughs included – had failed to spend the money that had been allocated to them for local welfare provision. Reasons for this included:
- Low initial awareness of local schemes and available funding
- The replacement of straight cash awards with awards that were often of an ‘in-kind’ nature or through vouchers/store cards leading to lower demand than anticipated
- Caution in scheme design as a result of potential funding withdrawal
- A lack of in-depth data from DWP on previous expenditure also causing boroughs to adopt cautious approaches to scheme design
- Boroughs simply being more effective in targeting their local schemes compared to the centralised predecessor schemes upon which initial allocations were based.
The draft local government finance settlement published in late December contained the government’s response to the consultation. This was to pursue ‘Option 2’, whereby a notional amount of almost £130 million would be identified in upper-tier local authorities’ general grants relating to local welfare provision. It should be emphasised that this option did not amount to additional funding for local schemes.
London Councils’ response to the draft settlement included an appendix criticising the government’s proposed approach to funding local welfare provision and reinforcing the case for maintaining separate, additional funding. This sought to demonstrate how investment in local schemes had saved money for or reduced demand on other government departments of public agencies – for instance through helping to free up bed spaces in the NHS by funding the refurbishment of vulnerable patients’ accommodation so doctors could be confident in discharging them.
The response was based on real life case studies submitted by London boroughs and which were also used to form the basis of direct lobbying of ministers.
**Announcement of final settlement decision**
The final settlement was published on 3 February and included an extra £74 million for upper-tier authorities “to recognise that councils have asked for additional support, including to help them respond to local welfare needs and to improve social care provision”. Analysis of individual authorities’ allocations shows that almost £14 million of this extra funding will be received by London boroughs, making London the single biggest recipient of all the English regions of this extra funding.
While extra funding has been made available, individual local authorities’ allocations still include a notional amount linked to local welfare provision. But this does not include the extra funding that has been made available.
**Commentary**
The government’s decision to make extra funding available is welcome recognition of the real and growing demand for local welfare assistance.
However, the government’s approach to funding local welfare provision remains confusing and is unlikely to satisfy authorities that are seeking stability. By identifying a notional amount in each upper-tier local authority’s general grant, it creates the impression that the government is fully funding local welfare provision, which is not the case. To add to the confusion, the extra funding that has been made available is not included within this notional amount.
Perhaps more fundamentally, there is no guarantee that the extra funding that has been made available will be repeated in future years and, as such, is not a long-term solution. Boroughs that are providing local welfare schemes will need to continue to demonstrate the demand for such provision and the value in its remaining fully funded by government.
**Author:** Dan Drillsma-Milgrom, Principal Policy and Projects Officer (T: 020 7934 9572)
**Click here to send a comment or query to the author**
**Links:**
Final Local Government Finance Settlement 2015/16
This member briefing has been circulated to:
Portfolio holders and those members who requested policy briefings in the following categories: Housing; Localism, Devolution and Democracy; Local Government Finance
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/3746-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 3,
"total-input-tokens": 6244,
"total-output-tokens": 1755,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
2323,
1
],
[
2323,
6046,
2
],
[
6046,
8489,
3
]
]
} |
45018f61d4dbc86d5f92714693bf1495a0df7556 | Maelor Foods Limited permit application decision document Bespoke permit
The application number is: PAN-001271 The Applicant / Operator is: Maelor Foods Limited The Installation is located at: Maelor Poultry Processing Plant, Pickhill Lane
We have decided to grant the permit for Maelor Poultry Processing Plant operated by Maelor Foods Limited. We consider in reaching that decision we have taken into account all relevant considerations and legal requirements and that the permit will ensure that the appropriate level of environmental protection is provided. Purpose of this document
This decision document:
- explains how the application has been determined
- provides a record of the decision-making process
- shows how all relevant factors have been taken into account
- justifies the specific conditions in the permit other than those in our generic permit template.
Unless the decision document specifies otherwise we have accepted the applicant’s proposals.
Structure of this document
- Table of contents
- Key issues
- Annex 2 the consultation and web publicising Table of Contents
Contents Natural Resources Wales permitting decisions .............................................. 1 Bespoke permit/Variation .............................................................................. 1 The application number is: ........................................................................ 2 The Applicant / Operator is: ....................................................................... 2 The Installation is located at: ...................................................................... 2 Purpose of this document .......................................................................... 3 Structure of this document ......................................................................... 3 Table of Contents ....................................................................................... 4 Key issues of the decision ........................................................................... 6 1 Our decision ............................................................................................. 6 2 How we reached our decision .................................................................. 7 2.1 Receipt of Application ......................................................................... 7 2.2 Consultation on the Application .......................................................... 7 2.3 Requests for Further Information ......................................................... 7 3 The Legal Framework ............................................................................... 9 4 The Installation ........................................................................................ 9 4.1 Description of the Installation and related issues .................................. 10 4.2 The site and its protection .................................................................... 11 4.3 Operation of the Installation – general issues ...................................... 12 5 Minimising the Installation’s environmental impact .................................. 14 5.1 Assessment of Impact on Air Quality .................................................. 14 5.2 Assessment of odour impact ................................................................. 15 5.3 Assessment of impact to surface and ground water ............................ 15 5.4 Emissions to sewer ............................................................................. 16 5.5 Fugitive emissions .............................................................................. 16 5.6 Noise Assessment ............................................................................... 16 5.7 Global warming potential .................................................................... 16 5.8 Impact on Habitats sites, SSSIs, non-statutory conservation sites etc.... 16 6 Setting ELVs and other Permit conditions .............................................. 17 6.1 Translating BAT into Permit conditions .............................................. 17 6.2 Monitoring .......................................................................................... 17 6.3 Reporting ............................................................................................ 17 ANNEX 1: Pre-Operational Conditions ....................................................... 18 ANNEX 2: Improvement Conditions ................................................................. 19
ANNEX 3: Consultation Responses ................................................................. 19
A) Advertising and Consultation on the Application ........................................ 19
1. Consultation Responses from Statutory and Non-Statutory Bodies ............. 19
2. Consultation Responses from Members of the Public and Community Organisations ........................................................................................................ 19
a) Representations from Local MP, Assembly Member (AM), Councillors and Parish / Town / Community Councils ......................................................... 20
b) Representations from Community and Other Organisations ..................... 21
c) Representations from Individual Members of the Public .......................... 21
Annex 1: decision checklist .............................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
Aspect considered ......................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
Justification / Detail ...................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
Responses to consultation, web publicising and newspaper advertising (delete as appropriate) ................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
Financial provision ....................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
Annex 2: Consultation, web publicising and newspaper advertising responses (delete as appropriate) ................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
Conditions where the consent of another person is required Error! Bookmark not defined. Key issues of the decision
1 Our decision
Based on the information currently available to us we are currently minded to issue a permit to the Applicant. This would, if issued, allow it to operate the Installation, subject to the conditions in the Permit.
We consider that, in reaching that decision, we have taken into account all relevant considerations and legal requirements and that the permit will ensure that a high level of protection is provided for the environment and human health.
This Application is to operate an installation which is subject principally to the Industrial Emissions Directive (IED).
The permit contains many conditions taken from our standard Environmental Permit template including the relevant Annexes. We developed these conditions in consultation with industry, having regard to the legal requirements of the Environmental Permitting Regulations and other relevant legislation. This document does not therefore include an explanation for these standard conditions. Where they are included in the permit, we have considered the Application and accepted the details are sufficient and satisfactory to make the standard conditions appropriate. 2 How we reached our decision
2.1 Receipt of Application
The Application was accepted as duly made on 7 February 2017. This means we considered it was in the correct form and contained sufficient information for us to begin our determination, but not that it necessarily contained all the information we would need to complete that determination.
The Applicant made no claim for commercial confidentiality. We have not received information in relation to the Application that appears to be confidential in relation to any party.
2.2 Consultation on the Application
We carried out consultation on the Application in accordance with the EPR, our statutory Public Participation Statement (PPS) and our Regulatory Guidance.
Furthermore we have also considered the Well-Being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015 and the Environment (Wales) Act 2016 during our assessment process.
We advertised the Application by a notice placed on our website, which contained all the information required by the IED, including telling people where and when they could see a copy of the Application. Details placed on the website on 3/3/17 until 31/3/17.
A copy of the Application and all other documents relevant to our determination (see below) are available for the public to view. Anyone wishing to see these documents could arrange for copies to be made.
We sent copies of the Application to the following bodies, which includes those with whom we have “Working Together Agreements”:
- Wrexham County Borough Council Planning Department
- Wrexham County Borough Council Environmental Protection Department
- Food Standards Agency
- Health and Safety Executive
- Health Protection Agency
- Public Health Wales
- Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board
These are bodies whose expertise, democratic accountability and/or local knowledge make it appropriate for us to seek their views directly.
Further details along with a summary of consultation comments and our response to the representations we received can be found in Annex 3. We have taken all relevant representations into consideration in reaching our determination.
We are now carrying out a consultation on our draft decision. 2.3 Requests for Further Information
Further information was requested by way of two Schedule 5 Notice requiring further information on odour modelling, odour emissions, the Effluent Treatment Plant, Bird numbers to be stored and effluent containment. The first Schedule 5 Notice was sent on 20/03/17 with a response date of 20/5/17. The second Schedule 5 Notice was sent on 7/04/17 with a response date of 7/5/17. The Applicants response to both Schedule 5 Notices was provided on 19/04/17. The additional information supplied satisfied the requirements of the Schedule 5 notices.
A copy of the information notice and e-mails requesting further information were placed on our public register as were the responses when received.
3 The Legal Framework
The Permit will be granted, under Regulation 13 of the EPR. The Environmental Permitting regime is a legal vehicle which delivers most of the relevant legal requirements for activities falling within its scope. In particular, the regulated facility is:
- an installation as described by the IED;
- subject to aspects of the Well-Being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015 and the Environment (Wales) Act 2016 which also have to be addressed.
We address the legal requirements directly where relevant in the body of this document. NRW is satisfied that this decision is consistent with its general purpose of pursuing the sustainable management of natural resources in relation to Wales, and applying the principles of sustainable management of natural resources. In particular, NRW acknowledges that it is a principle of sustainable management to take action to prevent significant damage to ecosystems. We consider that, in granting the Permit a high level of protection will be delivered for the environment and human health through the operation of the Installation in accordance with the permit conditions.
4 The Installation 4.1 Description of the Installation and related issues
4.1.1 The permitted activities
The Installation is subject to the EPR because it carries out an activity listed in Part 1 of Schedule 1 of the EPR:
- Slaughtering of animals at a plant with a carcass production capacity of more than 50 tonnes per day
- Treating and processing of animal raw materials intended for the production of food with a finished product production capacity of more than 75 tonnes per day.
- Disposal of non hazardous waste in a facility with a capacity of more than 50 tonnes per day by biological treatment.
An installation may also comprise “directly associated activities”, which at this Installation includes:
- Chemical scrubber treating air extracted from odorous parts of the S6.8 A1 (b) process.
- Storage of chemicals for use on site.
- Chilling of carcasses and processed meats.
- Burning fuel in a combustion plant to heat water.
- Temporary storage of wastes on site prior to removal.
Together, these listed and directly associated activities comprise the Installation.
4.1.2 The Site
The site is constructed on the site of a previous factory about 4km south east from Wrexham. It has good vehicular access and is situated away from any densely populated areas in an agricultural area. The full extent of the site is shown in Schedule 7 of the permit.
4.1.3 What the Installation does
The installation receives live chickens and slaughters them, processes them and exports the products. The site also treats the effluent produced, before discharging the treated effluent to the river Dee. 4.1.4 Key Issues in the Determination
The control of odours emitted from the site and the potential for these to impact nearby sensitive receptors. Discussed in more detail below.
The impact of emissions from the site to impact the river Dee. Discussed in more detail below.
The potential for accidental escapes of liquids stored on site to reach the river Dee.
4.2 The site and its protection
4.2.1 Proposed site design: potentially polluting substances and prevention measures
The containment of potentially polluting substances was also given scrutiny. The applicant has provided details of the containment of liquids, including specification of the physical containment and of monitoring and control systems. In addition additional measures were provided to monitor containment at the effluent treatment plant and to contain any leakages. 4.2.2 Closure and decommissioning
Permit condition 1.1.1 requires the Operator to have a written management system in place which identifies and minimises risks of pollution including those arising from closure.
At the definitive cessation of activities, the Operator has to satisfy us that the necessary measures have been taken so that the site ceases to pose a risk to soil or groundwater, taking into account both the baseline conditions and the site’s current or approved future use. To do this, the Operator has to apply to us for surrender, which we will not grant unless and until we are satisfied that these requirements have been met.
4.3 Operation of the Installation – general issues
4.3.1 Administrative issues The Applicant is the sole Operator of the Installation. We are satisfied that the Applicant is the person who will have control over the operation of the Installation if the Permit were to be granted; and that the Applicant will be able to operate the Installation so as to comply with the conditions included in the Permit, if issued.
We are satisfied that the Applicant’s submitted OPRA profile is accurate. The OPRA score will be used as the basis for subsistence and other charging, in accordance with our Charging Scheme. OPRA is Natural Resources Wales method of ensuring application and subsistence fees are appropriate and proportionate for the level of regulation required.
4.3.2 Management The Applicant has stated in the Application that they will implement an Environmental Management System (EMS) that will meet the requirements for an EMS in our “How to comply with your environmental permit guidance”. The Applicant submitted a summary of the EMS with their application.
We are satisfied that appropriate management systems and management structures will be in place for this Installation, and that sufficient resources are available to the Operator to ensure compliance with all the Permit conditions. A pre-operational condition has been included in the permit to require a report on the implementation of the EMS.
4.3.4 Accident management
An Emergency response plan is being incorporated into the EMS. In addition the operator has included additional measures to prevent and to detect escapes of potentially polluting liquids from storage tanks within the site (specifically in the Effluent Treatment Plant).
4.3.3 Site security
Having considered the information submitted in the Application, we are satisfied that appropriate infrastructure and procedures will be in place prior to start up to ensure that the site remains secure.
4.3.5 Off-site conditions
No Off site conditions were required.
4.3.6 Operating techniques
The operator has provided comprehensive details of operating techniques and compared these with the relevant BAT standards. This shows that the proposed operating techniques meet or exceed the BAT standards.
4.3.7 Energy efficiency
We are satisfied that the Applicant will ensure that energy is used in the most efficient way possible.
The Operator is required to report energy usage under condition 4.2 and Schedule 4. The following parameters are required to be reported: Energy usage per bird. This will enable Natural Resources Wales to monitor energy recovery efficiency at the Installation.
4.3.8 Avoidance, recovery or disposal of wastes produced by the activities This requirement addresses wastes produced at the facility. The animal by-products element of the “waste” production is managed to efficiently collect these materials, blood, feathers and offal. Edible offal, heart, lungs, necks, gizzards and feet is recovered and sold. Non edible offal is removed to a licensed facility.
The operator has identified all other waste arisings into individual waste streams and ensured suitable re-use and recycling as appropriate.
Having considered the information submitted in the Application, we are satisfied that the waste hierarchy referred to in Article 4 of the WFD will be applied to the generation of waste and that any waste generated will be treated in accordance with this Article.
We are satisfied that waste from the Installation that cannot be recovered will be disposed of offsite using a method that minimises any impact on the environment. Permit condition 1.4.1 will ensure that this position is maintained.
5 Minimising the Installation’s environmental impact
Regulated activities can present different types of risk to the environment, these include odour, noise and vibration; accidents, fugitive emissions to air and water; as well as point source releases to air, discharges to ground or groundwater, global warming potential and generation of waste. All these factors are discussed in this and other sections of this document.
For an installation of this kind, the principal emissions are: emissions of odour to atmosphere and emission of treated effluent to the river.
The next sections of this document explain how we have approached the critical issue of assessing the likely impact of emissions from the Installation on human health and the environment and what measures we are requiring to ensure a high level of protection.
5.1 Assessment of Impact on Air Quality This section of the decision document deals primarily with the dispersion modelling of emissions to air from the stack and its impact on local air quality.
The Applicant has assessed the Installation’s potential emissions to air against the relevant air quality standards, and the potential impact upon human health. These assessments predict the potential effects on local air quality from the Installation’s stack emission.
The air impact assessment has been based on the Installation operating continuously at the relevant long-term or short-term emission limit values, i.e. the maximum permitted emission rate.
The air emissions are very low, as the principal issue with emissions is odour rather than specific contaminants. The four on-site boilers are small and are gas fired, with a combined capacity of 3.68 MW (including standby boiler). The applicant carried out an H1 risk assessment and the emissions screened out from the need for modelling.
5.2 Assessment of odour impact
As part of the application, the applicant supplied an odour impact assessment. This was produced by specialist consultants and included odour dispersion modelling. We scrutinised this modelling and requested further information. The further information was sought to substantiate both the intensity of the odour and the offensiveness of the odour.
These details were considered in detail and reviewed in house by specialist modelling team. We were satisfied with the details provided and that the odours will not result in unacceptable off site odours. However as a precaution we have included within the permit an improvement condition to require monitoring of odours and re-modelling of the impacts, as well as further improvements should this prove necessary. In addition the standard odour condition is included in the permit.
5.3 Assessment of impact to surface and ground water Based upon the information in the application we are satisfied that the appropriate measures will be in place to prevent pollution of ground and surface water. The applicant submitted detailed modelling to show the proposed emissions to the river Dee. These were reviewed by specialist modellers within NRW. The emissions were found to be satisfactory and not of concern for water quality in the Dee. The permit has been conditioned with limits on the quality and quantity of effluent that can be discharged.
5.4 Emissions to sewer
None.
5.5 Fugitive emissions
Fugitive emissions were scrutinised in detail due to the potential for odours to be carried off site. The operator has proposed measures to contain emissions and pass the to a few specified emission points.
Based upon the information in the application we are satisfied that the appropriate measures will be in place to prevent or where that is not practicable to minimise fugitive emissions and to prevent pollution from fugitive emissions.
5.6 Noise Assessment
The applicant has carried out a noise impact assessment and noise management plan as part of the planning application and provided details of these with the permit application. No noise or vibration concerns were identified. As a precautionary measure the standard noise and vibration permit conditions have been included in the permit.
5.7 Impact on Habitats sites, SSSIs, non-statutory conservation sites etc
A form 1 was completed to record and assess potential impacts on two SAC sites and one Ramsar site. This proceeded to demonstrate that the proposed installation, when considered in combination with other potential sources did not present any likely significant effect. 6 Setting ELVs and other Permit conditions
6.1 Translating BAT into Permit conditions
Article 14(3) of IED states that BAT conclusions shall be the reference for permit conditions. Article 15(3) further requires that under normal operating conditions; emissions do not exceed the emission levels associated with the best available techniques as laid down in the decisions on BAT conclusions.
6.2 Monitoring
We have decided that monitoring should be carried out for the parameters listed in Schedule 3 using the methods and to the frequencies specified in those tables. These monitoring requirements have been imposed in order to demonstrate that the Effluent treatment plant is working in accordance with assumptions.
Based on the information in the Application and the requirements set in the conditions of the permit we are satisfied that the monitoring techniques, personnel and equipment employed by the Operator will have either MCERTS certification or MCERTS accreditation as appropriate.
6.3 Reporting
We have specified the reporting requirements in Schedule 4 of the Permit to ensure data is reported to enable timely review by Natural Resources Wales to ensure compliance with permit conditions and to monitor the efficiency of material use and waste recovery at the installation. ANNEX 1: Pre-Operational Conditions
Two Pre-operational conditions have been included in the permit. These require the operator to submit a written report on their Environmental Management Systems and an updated site drainage plan before the site becomes operational. The operator is already in the process of drawing up these documents and must supply them before the site is operational. ANNEX 2: Improvement Conditions
The permit includes three improvement conditions. These relate to odour emissions from the facility. They require the operator to carry out a survey of odours once the facility is fully operational so that modelled odour predictions can be verified. They also require further improvements to reduce odour (should the monitoring show potential problems).
ANNEX 3: Consultation Responses
A) Advertising and Consultation on the Application
The Application has been advertised and consulted upon in accordance with Natural Resources Wales Public Participation Statement. The way in which this has been carried out along with the results of our consultation and how we have taken consultation responses into account in reaching our draft decision is summarised in this Annex. Copies of all consultation responses have been placed on Natural Resources Wales public register.
1. Consultation Responses from Statutory and Non-Statutory Bodies
| Response Received from | Brief summary of issues raised: | Summary of action taken / how this has been covered | |------------------------|--------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------|
2. Consultation Responses from Members of the Public and Community Organisations
A number of the issues raised during the consultation process are outside Natural Resources Wales remit in reaching its permitting decisions. Specifically questions were raised which fall within the jurisdiction of the planning system, both on the development of planning policy and the grant of planning permission. Specific planning issues raised related to the location of the site, the location of the stack, traffic movements and emissions from off-site traffic movements. Guidance on the interaction between planning and pollution control is given in PPS23 / Planning Policy Wales. It says that the planning and pollution control systems are separate but complementary. We are only able to take into account those issues, which fall within regulatory scope of the Environmental Permitting Regulations. a) Representations from Local MP, Assembly Member (AM), Councillors and Parish / Town / Community Councils
| No Responses Received | Brief summary of issues raised: | Summary of action taken / how this has been covered | |-----------------------|--------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------| | | | | b) Representations from Community and Other Organisations
| No Response Received | Summary of action taken / how this has been covered | |----------------------|-----------------------------------------------------| | Brief summary of issues raised: | |
No Response Received
| Brief summary of issues raised: | Summary of action taken / how this has been covered | |--------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------|
c) Representations from Individual Members of the Public
| No Response Received | Summary of action taken / how this has been covered | |----------------------|-----------------------------------------------------| | Brief summary of issues raised: | |
No Response Received
| Brief summary of issues raised: | Summary of action taken / how this has been covered | |--------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------|
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/3747-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 21,
"total-input-tokens": 38040,
"total-output-tokens": 5884,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
58,
1
],
[
58,
564,
2
],
[
564,
1081,
3
],
[
1081,
4447,
4
],
[
4447,
6387,
5
],
[
6387,
7567,
6
],
[
7567,
9170,
7
],
[
9170,
9752,
8
],
[
9752,
11643,
9
],
[
11643,
13233,
10
],
[
13233,
14082,
11
],
[
14082,
15969,
12
],
[
15969,
17439,
13
],
[
17439,
19275,
14
],
[
19275,
21152,
15
],
[
21152,
22865,
16
],
[
22865,
24162,
17
],
[
24162,
24553,
18
],
[
24553,
26644,
19
],
[
26644,
27088,
20
],
[
27088,
28001,
21
]
]
} |
bfa2b8d4a49a4fcc87717b6cacce8c94b77deab3 | | NO | DESCRIPTION | ACTION | |----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | 1. | All papers before 1888 | Permanent preservation. To be transferred to the local record office. | | 2. | Court Registers including Juvenile/Youth Courts and those which are kept separately, but are deemed to form part of the Register such as those in respect of Road Traffic matters. | Permanent preservation. To be transferred to the local record office no later than thirty years after their creation by virtue of Section 3(4) of the Public Records Act 1958. Subject to agreement between individual magistrates’ courts and their local record office, these registers may be microfilmed to the standards described in the guidance notes not earlier than two years after the date of the last entry, following which the original paper documents should then be appropriately destroyed. | | 3. | All Licensing Registers (nb some licensing functions pass to local authorities with effect from 2005) | Permanent preservation. To be transferred to the local record office no later than thirty years after their creation by virtue of Section 3(4) of the Public Records Act 1958. | | 4. | Licensing Files including those in respect of licensing permits and occasional licenses. (nb some licensing functions pass to local authorities with effect from 2005) | Permanent preservation. To be transferred to the local record office no later than thirty years after their creation of virtue of Section 3(4) of the Public Records Act 1958. An exception is where either licensed premises cease to be licensed or a permit holder ceases to hold one, in which case destroy 6 years after, subject to the local record office not seeking to retain them by virtue of Section 3(6) of | | | Licensing Occasional Permissions (nb some licensing functions pass to local authorities with effect from 2005) | the Public Records Act 1958. Destroy 3 years after the expiry of the last permission granted to an organisation or branch. | |---|---|---| | 6. | Pardons | Permanent preservation. To be transferred to the local record office no later than thirty years after their creation by virtue of Section 3(4) of the Public Records Act 1958. | | 7. | Notes of Evidence in summary jurisdiction cases, with exhibits and other related documents. | Kept in case files. Destroy these after 3 years subject to the local record office not seeking to retain them by virtue of Section 3(6) of the Public Records Act 1958. | | 8. | Committals to Crown Court. | Destroy 3 years after date of committal. | | 9. | Appeals to Crown Court Appeals to High Court. | Destroy 3 years after result of appeal. | | 10. | Committals for sentence to Crown Court. | Destroy 3 years after date of committal. | | 11. | Summons including information and complaints (also including community charge documentation). | Destroy after 3 years, unless adjourned indefinitely, subject to the local record office not seeking to retain them by virtue of Section 3(6) of the Public Records Act 1958. | | 12. | Information for Warrants / Warrants for arrest / Search Warrants either returned to the court following execution OR unexecuted at the expiry of the time provided for execution. | Destroy after 3 years. | | 13. | Action Plan Order Anti-social Behaviour Order Attendance Centre Order Community Punishment Order [formerly Community Service Order] Community Punishment and Rehabilitation Order [formerly Combination Order] Community Rehabilitation Order (formerly Probation Order) Conditional Discharges Curfew Order Derogatory Assertion Order Drug Abstinence Order Drug Treatment and Testing Order Forfeiture and Destruction Order Licensed Premises Exclusion Order Money Payment Supervision Order | Destroy 3 years after the date the Order was made or 12 months after the Order ceases to be operative, whichever is the latter. | | | | | |---|---|---| | Parenting Order | | | | Referral Order | | | | Removal of Disqualification Order | | | | Reparation Order | | | | Restraining Order | | | | Sex Offenders Order | | | | Supervision Order and any other such Order not specifically named herein | | | | 14. Non Payment Warrants and Warrants of Commitment either returned to the court following execution OR returned unexecuted at the expiry of the time provided for execution. | Destroy 12 months after execution or return, subject to the local record office not seeking to retain them by virtue of Section 3(6) of the Public Records Act 1958. | | | 15. Bail Registers. | Permanent preservation of any register kept separate from the Court Register to record the decision about bail or the reasons for any such decision. To be transferred to the local record office no later than thirty years after their creation by virtue of Section 3(4) of the Public Records Act 1958. Where additionally decisions in respect of bail are kept with the case files, destroy those copies as at 7 (ie after 3 years, subject to the proviso). | | | 16. Legal Aid / Representation Order documentation | In case files destroy as at 7 (ie after 3 years, subject to the proviso). | | | 17. Hospital and Deportation Order. | In case files destroy as at 7 (ie after 3 years, subject to the proviso). | | | 18. Crown Court Order. | Destroy after 3 years. | | | 19. Recognisances. | In case files destroy as at 7 (ie after 3 years, subject to the proviso). | | | 20. Declaration of Parentage Orders and where still appropriate, Affiliation Orders (the latter obsolete after 1989). | Destroy when child reaches 25 years of age, subject to the local record office not seeking to retain them by virtue of Section 3(6) of the Public Records Act 1958. | | | 21. Guardianship papers (Obsolete after 1989). | Destroy when child reaches 25 years of age, subject to the local record office not seeking to retain them by virtue of Section 3(6) of the Public Records Act 1958. | | | 22. Children Act cases (and by analogy, where still extant, Care Order cases). | Destroy when child reaches 25 years of age, subject to the local record office not seeking to retain them by virtue of Section 3(6) of the Public Records Act 1958. | | | 23. Adoption cases (including minute books). | Destroy 75 years from 18th birthday of the adoptee, subject to the local | | | | | | |---|---|---| | 24. | Matrimonial cases/orders. | Destroy 25 years after cessation of order, subject to the local record office not seeking to retain them by virtue of Section 3(6) of the Public Records Act 1958. | | 25. | List of Transactions (Maintenance) | Keep for duration of Order and destroy 3 years after cessation. | | 26. | Original Orders and Variations (Maintenance) including International Reciprocal Maintenance and Enforcement and Child Support Agency Orders. | Keep for duration of Order then destroy 3 years after cessation. | | 27. | Write-Off List (Maintenance) | Destroy after 6 years. | | 28. | Transfer Register (Maintenance) | Retain for 25 years then local record office to assess retention by virtue of Section 3(6) of the Public Records Act 1958. | | 29. | Variations List (Maintenance) | Destroy after 3 years. | | 30. | Amendments List (Maintenance) | Destroy after 3 years. | | 31. | Court List. | Destroy at user’s discretion. | | 32. | Case Entry Check List. | Destroy at user’s discretion. | | 33. | Defendant Index. | Destroy at user’s discretion. | | 34. | List Paid Fines. | Destroy after 6 years. | | 35. | Transfer Fine Orders. | Destroy after 6 years. | | 36. | Vehicle Fixed Penalty accounting records. | Destroy after 6 years. | | 37. | Write-Off List. | Destroy after 6 years. | | 38. | Fine Default Court Summons. | Destroy after 6 years. | | 39. | Amendments List. | Destroy after 6 years. | | 40. | Suspense List. | Destroy after 6 years. | | 41. | Cancelled Cheques: ie those returned to and retained by the court and replacement cheques issued to the same or a new payee | Destroy after 6 years. | | 42. | Dishonoured Cheques List. | Destroy after 6 years. | | 43. | Cash List (Reports of payments in) | Destroy after 6 years. | | 44. | Till Receipts. | Where kept separately destroy after 6 years. | | 45. | Paying-in Books. | Destroy after 6 years. | | 46. | Bank Statements. | Destroy after 6 years. | | 47. | Presented Cheques List. | Destroy after 6 years. | | 48. | Cheques Printed List. | Destroy after 6 years. | | 49. | Unpresented Cheques List. | Destroy after 6 years. | | 50. | Bank List. | Destroy after 6 years. | | 51. | Records of payments by credit card | Destroy after 6 years. | | 52. | Daily balance documents | Destroy after 6 years. | | 53. | Printout from the credit Card payment terminal | Destroy after 6 years. | | 54. | Cumulative Accounts | Destroy after 6 years those used for | | | Summary/Movements/Control Totals | end of day/weekly/monthly/quarterly balancing procedures | |---|---------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------| | 55 | DAR (Debt Analysis Return) certificate of Assurance | Destroy after 6 years | | 56 | Payments to Witness List. | Destroy after 6 years. | | 57 | List of Payments to Creditors. | Destroy after 6 years. | | 58 | Warrants List/Register. | Destroy after 6 years. | | 59 | Post Opening Record. | Destroy after 6 years. | | 60 | Recorded Delivery Record. | Destroy after 6 years. |
**NB** In respect to those items which are financial in nature, it is a requirement that the supporting documentation is retained for the same length of period as the item itself.
This schedule was drawn up (and subsequently amended) by the DCA Departmental Record Officer in consultation with various interested parties and approved by the National Archives. Please retain for future reference.
*Any enquiries should be directed to the DCA Departmental Record Officer.*
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/3748-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 5,
"total-input-tokens": 5345,
"total-output-tokens": 2709,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
2419,
1
],
[
2419,
4526,
2
],
[
4526,
6969,
3
],
[
6969,
9437,
4
],
[
9437,
10492,
5
]
]
} |
66df45cde28fbf861b7bfa8b1c430c1cb2aed6ed | Aims
This lesson provides pupils with a general introduction to Magna Carta and why it is considered of historical importance.
By the end of the lesson pupils will have gathered information that can be used to write a short piece on what makes something of historical importance, and why Magna Carta is such an important document.
Objective
- To ask questions of a source as a starting point for historical enquiry
- To understand why something has historical value.
Learning outcomes
By completing this lesson pupils will:
- Increase their knowledge and understanding of Magna Carta as a historical document
- Develop an understanding of the importance of Magna Carta today
Connections to the curriculum
Key stage 3, the National Curriculum in England for history
The development of Church, state and society in Medieval Britain 1066-1509:
- Magna Carta and the emergence of Parliament Method
The lesson asks pupils to share their current knowledge and understanding through a series of questions – before providing model answers from a range of sources.
Using the whiteboard resource
We recommend you familiarise yourself with the resource before using with pupils. We have provided a breakdown of each slide, with further notes to support your teaching.
SLIDE 1
This displays The National Archives logo.
(We have deliberately not referenced Magna Carta to not ‘give the game away’ for the first activity.) Title Slide – Magna Carta
**Bullet points build on click.** This slide provides instructions for the activity on the next few slides.
______________________________________________________________________
**Activity 1 (a)**
A countdown from 5 to 1 appears on screen – followed by a 1 second glimpse of: an oil painting by Charles H Sims, showing ‘Pictures of English history, from the earliest times to the present period’. King John giving his assent to Magna Carta in 1215. Painted between 1925 and 1927, WOA 2602 © Palace of Westminster Collection. Activity 1 (b) A blank slide for you to record what pupils observed.
Activity 1 (c) Looking at the painting in more detail. Pupils are asked to identify what else they see in the picture, given more time to look at it. Activity 1 (d) A blank slide for you to record what else pupils observed
Activity 1 (e) A blank slide for you to record what questions pupils want to ask based on their observation. *What mood is the artist trying to convey? What story is the artist telling? Who is represented in the image?* Title Slide (Reveal) A title slide to announce that the lesson is about Magna Carta.
Activity 2 (a) A slide for you to record what pupils already know about Magna Carta. Activity 2 (b)
Some key facts about Magna Carta:
1. It is a document
2. An agreement between King John (1199 – 1216) and a group of “barons” (wealthy landowners)
3. Sealed on 15 June 1215 at Runnymede, near Windsor
4. Limited the powers of the King
5. Gave “rights” to the barons and other “freemen” and to the City of London
Activity 3 (a)
The man who bought Magna Carta
A slide with some facts about David Rubenstein – the man who bought Magna Carta.
Prepares pupils for watching the video on the next screen with purpose. Ask them to consider how much he paid for Magna Carta when it was auctioned in 2007. Video of David Rubenstein recalling how he made a successful bid on Magna Carta when a copy came up for sale in 2007.
SOURCE: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NgwSyPUJV0 David Rubenstein on the Magna Carta & "Patriotic Philanthropy" (Aspen Institute)
VIDEO TRANSCRIPT (SLIDE 12):
“So I decided right then and there that I would go back the next night and buy it. And I didn’t want to tell anybody, because it sounds presumptuous to say to your wife: ‘I’m going to buy the Magna Carta tomorrow.’ And I would say I didn’t want to tell my children because they would say ‘How much less money does this mean for us?’ So I didn’t do it. I just rearranged my schedule, I got back there the next night. I go there on time. They put me in a little room. I thought you’d go down and wave your hand or something… but they didn’t – they say ‘go into this little room’. Go in the room, they lock the door, telephone – maybe some of you have done this. And they start bidding and you get carried away. Any of you been in an auction and you get carried away and you bid a little more than you thought you going to bid. Has that ever happened to anybody? So I’m bidding and bidding and I’m feeling good about it and all of a sudden the guy says ‘Sold!’ So okay - and It was me. So the Head of Sotheby’s who was the auctioneer comes in and say ‘Who are you? We’ve never seen you before.’ I said who I was. He said: ‘You can afford this, right?’ Yeah I can okay. Then it's yours and you can slip out the side door and nobody will ever know - we don't tell people. But there are 100 reporters there who want to know where it's going to go. So I said I'll talk to them, I'll tell them why. And I went out and said look I wanted to give this a permanent loan, upon my death will go to the National Archives, as a small down payment on my obligation to this country because I came from very modest circumstances and I rose up to have much more wealth than I really need and I want to give back to the country made a possible.” Activity 3 (b)
Multiple choice quiz – How much do pupils think David Rubenstein paid for Magna Carta? Ask pupils to make a guess and justify their decision. To help contextualize the amount of money, the slide offers comparisons:
- $22,000 buys a very expensive, designer mobile phone.
- $2.2m buys one of the most expensive sports cars in the world.
- $22m buys Rihanna’s house.
- $22bn puts a man on the moon.
Activity 3 (Reveal answer)
David Rubenstein paid as much as Rihanna’s home – for an 800-year-old bit of parchment.
Observe that Magna Carta must be important to be worth that much. Raise the question: What makes something important? Activity 4 (a)
What makes something important? Ask pupils to consider this question (what makes something important to them – not necessarily of historical importance). Record answers on this slide.
Activity 4 (b)
What makes something important in History? Ask pupils to consider this question (what makes something important to them – not necessarily of historical importance). Record answers on this slide. Activity 4 (Model answer)
What makes something important in History? This slide builds with 6 statements about historical importance (Source: The Idea of Historical Education, published 1980; Geoffrey Partington)
What does Magna Carta represent?
Ask pupils to watch the video in the context of ‘historical importance’ – Why is Magna Carta considered so important? What has it come to represent? 1215 and Magna Carta limits the power of the king for the first time, as the Barons lay down the law with King John... In 1258 Simon de Montfort's Great Council and the Provisions of Oxford gave a small group of 'Commoners' a wider hand in governing the realm. Like father like son, Henry tried to back out of the agreement, prompting a civil war. De Montfort won, and at his 1265 Parliament called representatives from towns and cities together - another first. Then the 'Model' Parliament of 1295 gave boroughs and shires two representatives each. 1430 and the vote was given to freeholders of land worth 40 shillings or more. And the Putney Debates of 1647 saw the 'Levellers' argue for voting rights for all. It was nearly 200 years before the Great Reform Act of 1832 swept away 'rotten boroughs' extending the vote to the new industrial cities. Reforms followed reforms... followed reforms - and the electorate grew... And in 1918 universal suffrage was finally achieved for men over 21 and women over 30 - a decade later matched at 21. Today every eligible UK citizen over 18 has the right to vote for their representative in Parliament.
What have you learned?
Ask pupils to reflect on everything they have learned so far about Magna Carta.
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/3749-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 12,
"total-input-tokens": 18217,
"total-output-tokens": 2379,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
898,
1
],
[
898,
1426,
2
],
[
1426,
1915,
3
],
[
1915,
2135,
4
],
[
2135,
2429,
5
],
[
2429,
2600,
6
],
[
2600,
3216,
7
],
[
3216,
5224,
8
],
[
5224,
5874,
9
],
[
5874,
6286,
10
],
[
6286,
6684,
11
],
[
6684,
7933,
12
]
]
} |
ba4bff9d514d8321240c54973831d7d0185dab8f | ROUND 1: Who’s who in medieval England?
1. I am a middle-class citizen, I have a trade and I live in town.
ANSWER: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
2. I am a farmer and live off the land. I have no money.
ANSWER: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
3. I like a good fight, and I am loyal to my Lord. I live in a manor house.
ANSWER: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
4. I own land, collect taxes and run the local law courts.
ANSWER: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ ROUND 2: Anagram Act
In the envelope, you will find ten lines from a mystery document. You have as long as your teacher decides to rearrange the lines into the correct order and answer as many of the questions as possible.
5. Who wrote this document?
ANSWER: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
6. When was it written?
ANSWER: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
7. Why was it written?
8. Make two observations about Magna Carta based on this document.
i.
ii.
BONUS: Can you work out why this round is called ‘Anagram Act’? ROUND 2: Magna Carta or Havna Laugha
The 1216 Magna Carta was made up of 63 clauses. Here are 16 clauses.
*Which of these are from Magna Carta and which have been made-up (or come from a different historical document)?*
| CLAUSE | MAGNA CARTA | HAVNA LAUGHA | |------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------|--------------| | The English Church shall be free to choose its own bishops and archbishop | | | | The heir of a baron has to pay £100 to the king inherit their father’s land | | | | Widows do not have to marry a new husband if they do not wish to | | | | Tax can only be collected with the agreement of the barons and bishops | | | | Barons can ask their peasants to pay for their eldest daughter’s wedding | | | | Nobody except the king can wear the colour purple | | | | Royal officials can take a horse or cart without a person’s agreement | | | | Fishing nets must be removed from all rivers | | | | A bottle of wine and a jug of beer can be any size. | | | | No one can be imprisoned or have their property taken without a fair trial. And everyone will have free and fast access to a court of law. | | | | People may leave and enter the country freely except on Thursdays | | | | Nobody can play football on a Sunday | | | | Women cannot accuse a someone of killing another person, unless it is her husband who has been killed | | | | People in Wales will be given back anything that people from England have taken from them unfairly | | | | Scotland will be an independent country | | | | It is lawful to rebel if the king does not respond to a complaint within 40 days | | |
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/3750-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 3,
"total-input-tokens": 5916,
"total-output-tokens": 825,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
531,
1
],
[
531,
1085,
2
],
[
1085,
3332,
3
]
]
} |
cac3032defcc713c95848cc592d150a1e4f48ef4 | You will have seen and heard of our charter which we made, and we order that this charter is kept firmly throughout the land according to the law. We strictly order that you make everyone under your jurisdiction swear an oath to the 25 barons mentioned in the charter. We also order that 12 knights from your county will investigate and put a stop to certain evil customs both relating to sheriffs and their officers as it is contained in the charter itself.
We order that, just as you love us and our honour, and the peace of Our Lord, you should observe everything contained in the charter without exceptions, and you should make the charter be observed by all, in case, God forbid, the peace of our realm should be disturbed once again.
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/3751-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 1,
"total-input-tokens": 1591,
"total-output-tokens": 187,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
740,
1
]
]
} |
a6ca8ed7c02b98b5f6229221dd1ee18fbb48bd1b | our realm should be disturbed once again.
this charter is kept firmly throughout the land according to the law. We strictly
barons mentioned in the charter. We also order that 12 knights from your county
You will have seen and heard of our charter which we made, and we order that
order that you make everyone under your jurisdiction swear an oath to the 25
will investigate and put a stop to certain evil customs both relating to sheriffs
you should make the charter be observed by all, in case, God forbid, the peace of
you should observe everything contained in the charter without exceptions, and
and their officers as it is contained in the charter itself.
We order that, just as you love us and our honour, and the peace of Our Lord,
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/3752-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 1,
"total-input-tokens": 1590,
"total-output-tokens": 203,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
748,
1
]
]
} |
c2b0e8a5fb6cf4a110f9c6f62e0a2b553570b657 | THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES - MAGNA CARTA – THE GREAT FEUDAL FEUD FOR ALL! MAGNA CARTA – Lesson 2 Teacher’s Notes
Aims
This lesson provides pupils with knowledge of the different classes of people in the medieval England (King, Barons, Knights, Burghers, Peasants) and asks them to consider how Magna Carta may have affected each of them.
At the end of the lesson pupils will have gathered information that can be used to write a short piece on who benefitted from Magna Carta in 1215.
Objectives
- To understand the societal context of medieval England at the time of Magna Carta
- To consider the importance of Magna Carta at the time for the different classes of society
Learning outcomes
By completing this lesson, pupils will:
- Increase their knowledge and understanding of the hierarchy of society in Medieval England
- Increase their knowledge and understanding of Magna Carta as a historical document
- Develop an understanding of the importance of Magna Carta in 1215
Connections to the curriculum
Key stage 3, the National Curriculum in England for history
The development of Church, state and society in Medieval Britain 1066-1509:
- Magna Carta and the emergence of Parliament Method
This lesson is presented as a quiz show ‘The Great Feudal Feud-For-All’. Each round tests pupils’ current knowledge and offers opportunity for discussion to address misconceptions and deepen understanding.
Using the whiteboard resource
We recommend you familiarise yourself with the resource before using with pupils. We have provided a breakdown of each slide, with further notes to support your teaching. This lesson requires some preparation of printed materials (referenced in these notes).
SLIDE 1
This displays The National Archives logo. SLIDE 3: What is Magna Carta? (Video)
A short video introduction to Magna Carta
VIDEO TRANSCRIPT (SLIDE 3):
This is Magna Carta… and this… and this… and this.
The first thing you’ve noticed is there are 4 versions and not just the famous one from 1215 that most people know about. Why is this? It’s because Magna Carta was an attempt to solve the key questions of the 13th Century… and beyond.
The questions were: • Is the King above the law or is he bound by the law? • Who decides whether the king has broken the law? • Who makes the law anyway?
Have no doubt about how seriously people took these questions. Kings and barons were prepared to go to war over them. So who were these barons who sometimes dared to challenge the king?
In medieval England, land gave people wealth and power. Those who owned the most land were known as barons (these also included important churchmen like bishops). Usually the relationship between the king and the barons worked well. The barons owned their land on the condition that they swore an oath of loyalty and promised to fight for the king if he called upon them. Barons also kept order, collected taxes and ran the law courts on his behalf.
Sometimes this relationship broke down but to go against the king was a huge risk. It could mean a baron was disowned by the church and his soul was lost. It could also mean financial ruin, imprisonment or death.
Each time it was issued, both sides promised to keep to the terms.
Each version of Magna Carta allowed for a council of barons who would make sure that the king followed the law. In addition, during the 13th Century a larger assembly of all barons regularly met to approve laws and taxes. As the century progressed they were also joined by others, including knights who served the barons, and burghers, who were representatives from the major towns. By the end of the century these representatives were being elected. This was the beginning of our present day Parliament.
But let’s go back to the 13th century and investigate how Magna Carta came about, what it meant for the king, for the barons and for other people. And decide for yourself: why was Magna Carta important in 1215? What is Magna Carta?
Some key facts about Magna Carta.
1. It is a document
2. An agreement between King John (1199 – 1216) and a group of “barons” (wealthy landowners)
3. Sealed on 15 June 1215 at Runnymede, near Windsor
4. Limited the powers of the King
5. Gave “rights” to the barons and other “freemen” and to the City of London
Let’s play…
An introduction to ‘The Great Feudal Feud-For-All’. This is like the ‘theme tune’ to a Game Show – but it also provides pupils with some key facts about Medieval society. At the end of the video, King John is introduced as the Quiz Master. You might like to make a joke that ‘King John could not be with us today, so I will be acting as Quiz Master on his behalf.’
TRANSCRIPT (SLIDE 5)
Ladies and Gentlemen, let’s play… The Great Feudal Feud For All… Meet the teams…
- At the bottom of society numbering a huge one and a half to two million people. Living in the worst houses, doing the hardest jobs and getting paid absolutely nothing. In the fields, doing all the work while everyone else has the fun it’s the filthy peasants…
- They live in the towns, they’re tradesman, the artisans, they’re doctors, lawyers… butcher, baker, candlestick maker… tht run the markets, living it large but without the fries… burgers… No! Not those kind of burgers… these kind of Burghrs…
- 5000 strong and always up for a good fight… They live in the manor houses… giving their service to the Lords and the King… and some are the King’s Sheriffs… they are… The Knights of the shire…
- Numbering 2000. They live in the castles lording it up over everyone else… They own the land … they collect the taxes and they run the courts. Friends of the king – except when they’re not… They are the Barons…
He controls all the lands, he makes all the laws, he spends all the taxes… so call him Lackland, some call him Soft Sword… but you’d better call him ‘my lord and my king’ so give a big a hand to your ruler… The Lord with the sword, the King with the ring, the Crown with the Frown…. Heeeere’s Johnny…
The Teams
Use this slide to allocate pupils into teams. There should be a minimum of four teams – each representing a different layer of society (Baron, Knight, Burgher, Peasant) Round 1 (Who’s Who in Medieval England?)
A short video ‘sting’ to introduce Round 1: Who’s Who in Medieval England?
Who am I?
1. I am a middle-class citizen, I have a trade and I live in town.
2. I am a farmer and live off the land. I have no money.
3. I like a good fight, and I am loyal to my Lord. I live in a manor house.
4. I own land, collect taxes and run the local law courts.
Round 1 (Who’s Who in Medieval England?)
You need to print the Answer sheet.doc – each team should be supplied with one of these. Provide a short time limit, and ask each team to identify who is describing themselves in each statement. Round 2 (Anagram Act)
A short video ‘sting’ to introduce Round 2: Anagram Act
You need to print the document ‘Mystery Document.doc’ and cut along the lines. The resulting strips of paper need to placed in an envelope with ‘Mystery Document’ printed on the outside.
Instruct pupils: In the envelope in front of you, you will find ten lines from a mystery document. You have as long as your teacher decides to rearrange the lines into the correct order and answer as many of the questions as possible.
Anagram Act
a. Who wrote this document? b. When was it written c. Why was it written? d. Make two observations about Magna Carta based on this document.
BONUS: Can you work out why this round is called ‘Anagram Act’? Round 2 (Anagram Act)
The jumbled up lines of the document.
Round 3 (Magna Carta or Havna Laugha)
A short video ‘sting’ to introduce Round 3: Magna Carta or Havna Laugha Round 3 (Magna Carta or Havna Laugha)
Prompts for Magna Carta or Havna Laugha (also printed on Answer sheet.doc)
Swap answer sheets.
Holding slide to give teams the opportunity to swap answer sheets. Round 1 - Answers.
Answers to Round 1, for pupils to mark.
Round 2 - Answers.
Answers to Round 2, for pupils to mark.
Encourage discussion about why the document was written and the observations made. Use your own discretion about scoring these questions.
ANAGRAM ACT is an anagram of MAGNA CARTA CORRECT ORDER OF MYSTERY DOCUMENT:
You will have seen and heard of our charter which we made, and we order that this charter is kept firmly throughout the land according to the law. We strictly order that you make everyone under your jurisdiction swear an oath to the 25 barons mentioned in the charter. We also order that 12 knights from your county will investigate and put a stop to certain evil customs both relating to sheriffs and their officers as it is contained in the charter itself. We order that, just as you love us and our honour, and the peace of Our Lord, you should observe everything contained in the charter without exceptions, and you should make the charter be observed by all, in case, God forbid, the peace of our realm should be disturbed once again.
Extract 1 from letters and grants of King John June 1215 C 66/14 The National Archives
SLIDE 17
Anagram Act (Answers)
a. Who wrote this document? (King John) b. When was it written? (1215) c. Why was it written? d. Make two observations about Magna Carta based on this document.
BONUS: Can you work out why this round is called 'Anagram Act'?
Round 2 - Answers.
Answers to Round 2, for pupils to mark. Answers to Magna Cart of Havna Laugha. The correct clauses will be used to support discussion in ‘Who were the real winners?’ (Slide 22) Answers to Magna Cart of Havna Laugha. The correct clauses will be used to support discussion in ‘Who were the real winners?’ (Slide 22)
And the winners are... A short video ‘sting’. Following this, add up the each team’s score and announce a ‘winning team’ Who were the real winners…?
Look at the clauses from Magna Carta again and facilitate a whole group discussion on who really gained from Magna Carta.
Who were the real winners…?
Reflect on everything you have learned so far about Magna Carta:
List 5 bullet points on who the real winners were and write these up in a paragraph
or
Create a 30 second video explaining your views
List 5 bullet points on who the real winners were and write these up in a paragraph
or
Create a 30 second video explaining your views
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/3753-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 15,
"total-input-tokens": 22201,
"total-output-tokens": 3116,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
1196,
1
],
[
1196,
1753,
2
],
[
1753,
2172,
3
],
[
2172,
3944,
4
],
[
3944,
5138,
5
],
[
5138,
6161,
6
],
[
6161,
6787,
7
],
[
6787,
7510,
8
],
[
7510,
7683,
9
],
[
7683,
7886,
10
],
[
7886,
8188,
11
],
[
8188,
9373,
12
],
[
9373,
9510,
13
],
[
9510,
9769,
14
],
[
9769,
10288,
15
]
]
} |
eb5e9a6a68b865fab2b853d94ee33324760b1a12 | English translation
Clauses marked (+) are still valid under the charter of 1225, but with a few minor amendments. Clauses marked (\*) were omitted in all later reissues of the charter. In the charter itself the clauses are not numbered, and the text reads continuously. The translation sets out to convey the sense rather than the precise wording of the original Latin.
JOHN, by the grace of God King of England, Lord of Ireland, Duke of Normandy and Aquitaine, and Count of Anjou, to his archbishops, bishops, abbots, earls, barons, justices, foresters, sheriffs, stewards, servants, and to all his officials and loyal subjects, Greeting.
KNOW THAT BEFORE GOD, for the health of our soul and those of our ancestors and heirs, to the honour of God, the exaltation of the holy Church, and the better ordering of our kingdom, at the advice of our reverend fathers Stephen, archbishop of Canterbury, primate of all England, and cardinal of the holy Roman Church, Henry archbishop of Dublin, William bishop of London, Peter bishop of Winchester, Jocelin bishop of Bath and Glastonbury, Hugh bishop of Lincoln, Walter Bishop of Worcester, William bishop of Coventry, Benedict bishop of Rochester, Master Pandulf subdeacon and member of the papal household, Brother Aymeric master of the knighthood of the Temple in England, William Marshal earl of Pembroke, William earl of Salisbury, William earl of Warren, William earl of Arundel, Alan de Galloway constable of Scotland, Warin Fitz Gerald, Peter Fitz Herbert, Hubert de Burgh seneschal of Poitou, Hugh de Neville, Matthew Fitz Herbert, Thomas Basset, Alan Basset, Philip Daubeney, Robert de Roppeley, John Marshal, John Fitz Hugh, and other loyal subjects:
- (1) FIRST, THAT WE HAVE GRANTED TO GOD, and by this present charter have confirmed for us and our heirs in perpetuity, that the English Church shall be free, and shall have its rights undiminished, and its liberties unimpaired. That we wish this so to be observed, appears from the fact that of our own free will, before the outbreak of the present dispute between us and our barons, we granted and confirmed by charter the freedom of the Church's elections - a right reckoned to be of the greatest necessity and importance to it - and caused this to be confirmed by Pope Innocent III. This freedom we shall observe ourselves, and desire to be observed in good faith by our heirs in perpetuity.
TO ALL FREE MEN OF OUR KINGDOM we have also granted, for us and our heirs for ever, all the liberties written out below, to have and to keep for them and their heirs, of us and our heirs:
(2) If any earl, baron, or other person that holds lands directly of the Crown, for military service, shall die, and at his death his heir shall be of full age and owe a 'relief', the heir shall have his inheritance on payment of the ancient scale of 'relief'. That is to say, the heir or heirs of an earl shall pay £100 for the entire earl's barony, the heir or heirs of a knight 100s. at most for the entire knight's 'fee', and any man that owes less shall pay less, in accordance with the ancient usage of 'fees'
(3) But if the heir of such a person is under age and a ward, when he comes of age he shall have his inheritance without 'relief' or fine.
(4) The guardian of the land of an heir who is under age shall take from it only reasonable revenues, customary dues, and feudal services. He shall do this without destruction or damage to men or property. If we have given the guardianship of the land to a sheriff, or to any person answerable to us for the revenues, and he commits destruction or damage, we will exact compensation from him, and the land shall be entrusted to two worthy and prudent men of the same 'fee', who shall be answerable to us for the revenues, or to the person to whom we have assigned them. If we have given or sold to anyone the guardianship of such land, and he causes destruction or damage, he shall lose the guardianship of it, and it shall be handed over to two worthy and prudent men of the same 'fee', who shall be similarly answerable to us.
(5) For so long as a guardian has guardianship of such land, he shall maintain the houses, parks, fish preserves, ponds, mills, and everything else pertaining to it, from the revenues of the land itself. When the heir comes of age, he shall restore the whole land to him, stocked with plough teams and such implements of husbandry as the season demands and the revenues from the land can reasonably bear. (6) Heirs may be given in marriage, but not to someone of lower social standing. Before a marriage takes place, it shall be made known to the heir's next-of-kin.
(7) At her husband's death, a widow may have her marriage portion and inheritance at once and without trouble. She shall pay nothing for her dower, marriage portion, or any inheritance that she and her husband held jointly on the day of his death. She may remain in her husband's house for forty days after his death, and within this period her dower shall be assigned to her.
(8) No widow shall be compelled to marry, so long as she wishes to remain without a husband. But she must give security that she will not marry without royal consent, if she holds her lands of the Crown, or without the consent of whatever other lord she may hold them of.
(9) Neither we nor our officials will seize any land or rent in payment of a debt, so long as the debtor has movable goods sufficient to discharge the debt. A debtor's sureties shall not be distrained upon so long as the debtor himself can discharge his debt. If, for lack of means, the debtor is unable to discharge his debt, his sureties shall be answerable for it. If they so desire, they may have the debtor's lands and rents until they have received satisfaction for the debt that they paid for him, unless the debtor can show that he has settled his obligations to them.
- (10) If anyone who has borrowed a sum of money from Jews dies before the debt has been repaid, his heir shall pay no interest on the debt for so long as he remains under age, irrespective of whom he holds his lands. If such a debt falls into the hands of the Crown, it will take nothing except the principal sum specified in the bond.
- (11) If a man dies owing money to Jews, his wife may have her dower and pay nothing towards the debt from it. If he leaves children that are under age, their needs may also be provided for on a scale appropriate to the size of his holding of lands. The debt is to be paid out of the residue, reserving the service due to his feudal lords. Debts owed to persons other than Jews are to be dealt with similarly.
- (12) No 'scutage' or 'aid' may be levied in our kingdom without its general consent, unless it is for the ransom of our person, to make our eldest son a knight, and (once) to marry our eldest daughter. For these purposes only a reasonable 'aid' may be levied. 'Aids' from the city of London are to be treated similarly.
* (13) The city of London shall enjoy all its ancient liberties and free customs, both by land and by water. We also will and grant that all other cities, boroughs, towns, and ports shall enjoy all their liberties and free customs.
- (14) To obtain the general consent of the realm for the assessment of an 'aid' - except in the three cases specified above - or a 'scutage', we will cause the archbishops, bishops, abbots, earls, and greater barons to be summoned individually by letter. To those who hold lands directly of us we will cause a general summons to be issued, through the sheriffs and other officials, to come together on a fixed day (of which at least forty days notice shall be given) and at a fixed place. In all letters of summons, the cause of the summons will be stated. When a summons has been issued, the business appointed for the day shall go forward in accordance with the resolution of those present, even if not all those who were summoned have appeared.
- (15) In future we will allow no one to levy an 'aid' from his free men, except to ransom his person, to make his eldest son a knight, and (once) to marry his eldest daughter. For these purposes only a reasonable 'aid' may be levied.
(16) No man shall be forced to perform more service for a knight's 'fee', or other free holding of land, than is due from it.
(17) Ordinary lawsuits shall not follow the royal court around, but shall be held in a fixed place. (18) Inquests of novel disseisin, mort d'ancestor, and darrein presentment shall be taken only in their proper county court. We ourselves, or in our absence abroad our chief justice, will send two justices to each county four times a year, and these justices, with four knights of the county elected by the county itself, shall hold the assizes in the county court, on the day and in the place where the court meets.
(19) If any assizes cannot be taken on the day of the county court, as many knights and freeholders shall afterwards remain behind, of those who have attended the court, as will suffice for the administration of justice, having regard to the volume of business to be done.
(20) For a trivial offence, a free man shall be fined only in proportion to the degree of his offence, and for a serious offence correspondingly, but not so heavily as to deprive him of his livelihood. In the same way, a merchant shall be spared his merchandise, and a villein the implements of his husbandry, if they fall upon the mercy of a royal court. None of these fines shall be imposed except by the assessment on oath of reputable men of the neighbourhood.
(21) Earls and barons shall be fined only by their equals, and in proportion to the gravity of their offence.
(22) A fine imposed upon the lay property of a clerk in holy orders shall be assessed upon the same principles, without reference to the value of his ecclesiastical benefice.
(23) No town or person shall be forced to build bridges over rivers except those with an ancient obligation to do so.
(24) No sheriff, constable, coroners, or other royal officials are to hold lawsuits that should be held by the royal justices.
- (25) Every county, hundred, wapentake, and riding shall remain at its ancient rent, without increase, except the royal demesne manors.
(26) If at the death of a man who holds a lay 'fee' of the Crown, a sheriff or royal official produces royal letters patent of summons for a debt due to the Crown, it shall be lawful for them to seize and list movable goods found in the lay 'fee' of the dead man to the value of the debt, as assessed by worthy men. Nothing shall be removed until the whole debt is paid, when the residue shall be given over to the executors to carry out the dead man's will. If no debt is due to the Crown, all the movable goods shall be regarded as the property of the dead man, except the reasonable shares of his wife and children.
- (27) If a free man dies intestate, his movable goods are to be distributed by his next-of-kin and friends, under the supervision of the Church. The rights of his debtors are to be preserved.
(28) No constable or other royal official shall take corn or other movable goods from any man without immediate payment, unless the seller voluntarily offers postponement of this.
(29) No constable may compel a knight to pay money for castle-guard if the knight is willing to undertake the guard in person, or with reasonable excuse to supply some other fit man to do it. A knight taken or sent on military service shall be excused from castle-guard for the period of this service.
(30) No sheriff, royal official, or other person shall take horses or carts for transport from any free man, without his consent.
(31) Neither we nor any royal official will take wood for our castle, or for any other purpose, without the consent of the owner.
(32) We will not keep the lands of people convicted of felony in our hand for longer than a year and a day, after which they shall be returned to the lords of the 'fees' concerned. (33) All fish-weirs shall be removed from the Thames, the Medway, and throughout the whole of England, except on the sea coast.
(34) The writ called precipe shall not in future be issued to anyone in respect of any holding of land, if a free man could thereby be deprived of the right of trial in his own lord's court.
(35) There shall be standard measures of wine, ale, and corn (the London quarter), throughout the kingdom. There shall also be a standard width of dyed cloth, russet, and haberject, namely two ells within the selvedges. Weights are to be standardised similarly.
(36) In future nothing shall be paid or accepted for the issue of a writ of inquisition of life or limbs. It shall be given gratis, and not refused.
(37) If a man holds land of the Crown by 'fee-farm', 'socage', or 'burgage', and also holds land of someone else for knight's service, we will not have guardianship of his heir, nor of the land that belongs to the other person's 'fee', by virtue of the 'fee-farm', 'socage', or 'burgage', unless the 'fee-farm' owes knight's service. We will not have the guardianship of a man's heir, or of land that he holds of someone else, by reason of any small property that he may hold of the Crown for a service of knives, arrows, or the like.
(38) In future no official shall place a man on trial upon his own unsupported statement, without producing credible witnesses to the truth of it.
- (39) No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the land.
- (40) To no one will we sell, to no one deny or delay right or justice.
(41) All merchants may enter or leave England unharmed and without fear, and may stay or travel within it, by land or water, for purposes of trade, free from all illegal exactions, in accordance with ancient and lawful customs. This, however, does not apply in time of war to merchants from a country that is at war with us. Any such merchants found in our country at the outbreak of war shall be detained without injury to their persons or property, until we or our chief justice have discovered how our own merchants are being treated in the country at war with us. If our own merchants are safe they shall be safe too.
- (42) In future it shall be lawful for any man to leave and return to our kingdom unharmed and without fear, by land or water, preserving his allegiance to us, except in time of war, for some short period, for the common benefit of the realm. People that have been imprisoned or outlawed in accordance with the law of the land, people from a country that is at war with us, and merchants - who shall be dealt with as stated above - are excepted from this provision.
(43) If a man holds lands of any 'escheat' such as the 'honour' of Wallingford, Nottingham, Boulogne, Lancaster, or of other 'escheats' in our hand that are baronies, at his death his heir shall give us only the 'relief' and service that he would have made to the baron, had the barony been in the baron's hand. We will hold the 'escheat' in the same manner as the baron held it.
(44) People who live outside the forest need not in future appear before the royal justices of the forest in answer to general summonses, unless they are actually involved in proceedings or are sureties for someone who has been seized for a forest offence.
- (45) We will appoint as justices, constables, sheriffs, or other officials, only men that know the law of the realm and are minded to keep it well.
(46) All barons who have founded abbeys, and have charters of English kings or ancient tenure as evidence of this, may have guardianship of them when there is no abbot, as is their due.
(47) All forests that have been created in our reign shall at once be disafforested. River-banks that have been enclosed in our reign shall be treated similarly. \*(48) All evil customs relating to forests and warrens, foresters, warreners, sheriffs and their servants, or river-banks and their wardens, are at once to be investigated in every county by twelve sworn knights of the county, and within forty days of their enquiry the evil customs are to be abolished completely and irrevocably. But we, or our chief justice if we are not in England, are first to be informed.
- (49) We will at once return all hostages and charters delivered up to us by Englishmen as security for peace or for loyal service.
- (50) We will remove completely from their offices the kinsmen of Gerard de Athée, and in future they shall hold no offices in England. The people in question are Engelard de Cigogné, Peter, Guy, and Andrew de Chanceaux, Guy de Cigogné, Geoffrey de Martigny and his brothers, Philip Marc and his brothers, with Geoffrey his nephew, and all their followers.
- (51) As soon as peace is restored, we will remove from the kingdom all the foreign knights, bowmen, their attendants, and the mercenaries that have come to it, to its harm, with horses and arms.
- (52) To any man whom we have deprived or dispossessed of lands, castles, liberties, or rights, without the lawful judgement of his equals, we will at once restore these. In cases of dispute the matter shall be resolved by the judgement of the twenty-five barons referred to below in the clause for securing the peace. In cases, however, where a man was deprived or dispossessed of something without the lawful judgement of his equals by our father King Henry or our brother King Richard, and it remains in our hands or is held by others under our warranty, we shall have respite for the period commonly allowed to Crusaders, unless a lawsuit had been begun, or an enquiry had been made at our order, before we took the Cross as a Crusader. On our return from the Crusade, or if we abandon it, we will at once render justice in full.
- (53) We shall have similar respite in rendering justice in connexion with forests that are to be disafforested, or to remain forests, when these were first afforested by our father Henry or our brother Richard; with the guardianship of lands in another person's 'fee', when we have hitherto had this by virtue of a 'fee' held of us for knight's service by a third party; and with abbeys founded in another person's 'fee', in which the lord of the 'fee' claims to own a right. On our return from the Crusade, or if we abandon it, we will at once do full justice to complaints about these matters.
(54) No one shall be arrested or imprisoned on the appeal of a woman for the death of any person except her husband.
- (55) All fines that have been given to us unjustly and against the law of the land, and all fines that we have exacted unjustly, shall be entirely remitted or the matter decided by a majority judgement of the twenty-five barons referred to below in the clause for securing the peace together with Stephen, archbishop of Canterbury, if he can be present, and such others as he wishes to bring with him. If the archbishop cannot be present, proceedings shall continue without him, provided that if any of the twenty-five barons has been involved in a similar suit himself, his judgement shall be set aside, and someone else chosen and sworn in his place, as a substitute for the single occasion, by the rest of the twenty-five.
(56) If we have deprived or dispossessed any Welshmen of lands, liberties, or anything else in England or in Wales, without the lawful judgement of their equals, these are at once to be returned to them. A dispute on this point shall be determined in the Marches by the judgement of equals. English law shall apply to holdings of land in England, Welsh law to those in Wales, and the law of the Marches to those in the Marches. The Welsh shall treat us and ours in the same way.
- (57) In cases where a Welshman was deprived or dispossessed of anything, without the lawful judgement of his equals, by our father King Henry or our brother King Richard, and it remains in our hands or is held by others under our warranty, we shall have respite for the period commonly allowed to Crusaders, unless a lawsuit had been begun, or an enquiry had been made at our order, before we took the Cross as a Crusader. But on our return from the Crusade, or if we abandon it, we will at once do full justice according to the laws of Wales and the said regions.
- (58) We will at once return the son of Llywelyn, all Welsh hostages, and the charters delivered to us as security for the peace.
- (59) With regard to the return of the sisters and hostages of Alexander, king of Scotland, his liberties and his rights, we will treat him in the same way as our other barons of England, unless it appears from the charters that we hold from his father William, formerly king of Scotland, that he should be treated otherwise. This matter shall be resolved by the judgement of his equals in our court.
(60) All these customs and liberties that we have granted shall be observed in our kingdom in so far as concerns our own relations with our subjects. Let all men of our kingdom, whether clergy or laymen, observe them similarly in their relations with their own men.
- (61) SINCE WE HAVE GRANTED ALL THESE THINGS for God, for the better ordering of our kingdom, and to allay the discord that has arisen between us and our barons, and since we desire that they shall be enjoyed in their entirety, with lasting strength, for ever, we give and grant to the barons the following security:
The barons shall elect twenty-five of their number to keep, and cause to be observed with all their might, the peace and liberties granted and confirmed to them by this charter.
If we, our chief justice, our officials, or any of our servants offend in any respect against any man, or transgress any of the articles of the peace or of this security, and the offence is made known to four of the said twenty-five barons, they shall come to us - or in our absence from the kingdom to the chief justice - to declare it and claim immediate redress. If we, or in our absence abroad the chief justice, make no redress within forty days, reckoning from the day on which the offence was declared to us or to him, the four barons shall refer the matter to the rest of the twenty-five barons, who may distrain upon and assail us in every way possible, with the support of the whole community of the land, by seizing our castles, lands, possessions, or anything else saving only our own person and those of the queen and our children, until they have secured such redress as they have determined upon. Having secured the redress, they may then resume their normal obedience to us.
Any man who so desires may take an oath to obey the commands of the twenty-five barons for the achievement of these ends, and to join with them in assailing us to the utmost of his power. We give public and free permission to take this oath to any man who so desires, and at no time will we prohibit any man from taking it. Indeed, we will compel any of our subjects who are unwilling to take it to swear it at our command.
If one of the twenty-five barons dies or leaves the country, or is prevented in any other way from discharging his duties, the rest of them shall choose another baron in his place, at their discretion, who shall be duly sworn in as they were.
In the event of disagreement among the twenty-five barons on any matter referred to them for decision, the verdict of the majority present shall have the same validity as a unanimous verdict of the whole twenty-five, whether these were all present or some of those summoned were unwilling or unable to appear.
The twenty-five barons shall swear to obey all the above articles faithfully, and shall cause them to be obeyed by others to the best of their power.
We will not seek to procure from anyone, either by our own efforts or those of a third party, anything by which any part of these concessions or liberties might be revoked or diminished. Should such a thing be procured, it shall be null and void and we will at no time make use of it, either ourselves or through a third party.
- (62) We have remitted and pardoned fully to all men any ill-will, hurt, or grudges that have arisen between us and our subjects, whether clergy or laymen, since the beginning of the dispute. We have in addition remitted fully, and for our own part have also pardoned, to all clergy and laymen any offences committed as a result of the said dispute between Easter in the sixteenth year of our reign (i.e. 1215) and the restoration of peace. In addition we have caused letters patent to be made for the barons, bearing witness to this security and to the concessions set out above, over the seals of Stephen archbishop of Canterbury, Henry archbishop of Dublin, the other bishops named above, and Master Pandulf.
- (63) IT IS ACCORDINGLY OUR WISH AND COMMAND that the English Church shall be free, and that men in our kingdom shall have and keep all these liberties, rights, and concessions, well and peaceably in their fullness and entirety for them and their heirs, of us and our heirs, in all things and all places for ever. Both we and the barons have sworn that all this shall be observed in good faith and without deceit. Witness the above-mentioned people and many others.
Given by our hand in the meadow that is called Runnymede, between Windsor and Staines, on the fifteenth day of June in the seventeenth year of our reign (i.e. 1215: the new regnal year began on 28 May).
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/3754-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 8,
"total-input-tokens": 18813,
"total-output-tokens": 6244,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
0,
1
],
[
0,
4488,
2
],
[
4488,
8399,
3
],
[
8399,
11970,
4
],
[
11970,
15995,
5
],
[
15995,
20428,
6
],
[
20428,
24622,
7
],
[
24622,
25564,
8
]
]
} |
1c0359ba9e8d757318e9304f27f1a9805a205acb | An arrangement between John and Geoffrey of Mandeville in relation to his marriage to Isabel Countess of Gloucester.
Transcript:
Geoffrey de Mandeville gave 20,000 marks so that he might marry Isabel Countess of Gloucester with all the lands and tenements and knights fees, which belong to Isabel herself. He is committed to pay 5,000 marks before the passage of the king in Poitou in the 25th year of the reign of the king and 5,000 marks at Easter of the same year and 5,000 marks at the feast of St John the Baptist in the 26th year and 5,000 marks at the feast of St Michael in the next year.
Notes:
This document is an example of a traditional tax and how John used it. The barons were used to paying fees to the king when they inherited land, or married, or their children got married. This was seen as a fair exchange because they held their lands from the king. However, John could use this to his advantage. When a baron stood to gain a lot of land by marriage, the king could charge a huge amount. At the time, 20,000 marks was seen as a huge sum to pay for marriage. The situation was complicated slightly because Mandeville became much richer and more powerful as a result of this marriage, so John may have seen him as a political threat as well as trying to get money out of him. Eventually Mandeville failed or refused (we don't know) to pay the money and John confiscated the lands of Isabel his wife). An arrangement for William FitzAlan to inherit his medium sized barony in 1214.
Transcript:
New Payments: William son of William son of Alan owes 10,000 marks for holding the land which belonged to the aforementioned William, his father, next to the land which the same William gave to his daughter Petronilla.
Notes:
An enormous sum is being charged to William FitzAlan to take possession of his lands. John’s father Henry II promised to set a reasonable rate and the customary amount for a small or medium sized estate was about £100. Orders from King John May 1214 C54/10 The National Archives
Transcript:
The King sends greetings to the Sheriff of Devon. We have granted to our faithful son, Earl Henry, all the lands which previously belonged to William de Mandeville. Therefore, we order you to give possession of these lands to Earl Henry without delay. Witness myself at Trowbridge, 14th day of May.
The King sends greetings to the Sheriff of Cornwall. We have given to Henry, our son, all the lands which previously belonged to Robert FitzWalter in your jurisdiction. Therefore, we order you to give full possession of these lands to Earl Henry without delay. Witness myself at Trowbridge, 24th day of May.
The King sends greetings to the Sheriff of Devon. We have granted to our well-beloved and faithful Reginald de Vautort, all the lands in your jurisdiction which previously belonged to Robert de Vere. Therefore, we order you to give full possession of the lands and all chattels [material wealth] without delay. Witness myself at Trowbridge, 14th day of May.
The King sends greetings to Geoffrey de Marteny. We order that as soon as you have seen these letters, you take into our hands all the lands of Henry de Braybrook, demolishing utterly his houses, and taking his chattels [material wealth] for your own advantage. Witness as above.
The King sends greetings to the Sheriff of Dorset and Somerset. We order that you give possession to our beloved and faithful Ralph de Raleigh, the manor of Gussage and all chattels [material wealth] found there, which previously belong to William de Mandeville. Witness as above.
The King sends greetings to the Sheriff of Gloucester. We order that you give possession to Henry, son of the Earl, all of the land of the bishop of Hereford in your jurisdiction. Witness myself at Trowbridge, 15th day of May.
The King sends greetings to the Sheriff of Somerset. We order that you give possession to Henry de Courtenay all of the lands in your jurisdiction which previously belonged to Joscei de Bayeux. Witness at Marlborough, 16th day of May.
Notes:
John is taking away the lands of rebel barons and giving them to his son Henry. If you are confused by the use of ‘we’ that is how rulers call themselves, it just means John. Message from King John to the barons of England July 1214 C66/12 The National Archives
Transcript:
The King sends greetings to his earls, barons, knights and other faithful men throughout the realm of England. Know that we are in good health and uninjured, and that everything is prosperous and joyous with us through the grace of God. We send thanks to those amongst you who have sent your knights to serve with us, for the protection and winning of our rights. We ask most attentively, as you value our honour, that those of you who have not crossed over with us to France, you should come to us without delay to the aid of our land which needs to be defended. We ask that you act from now on in such a way that we will forever owe you our gratitude. If any of you think that we hold hatred in our hearts against you, by coming to our aid this hatred will be removed. 9 July, 1214
Notes:
John is writing from a fortress in France. John's campaign in France has been a disastrous failure. The barons are furious and they are worried that John is going to ask for more taxes to pay for more wars. A.D. 1215. Sheriffs.: Andrew Nevelun,; John Travers, In this year landed Louis, son of Philip, King of France, whom the barons of England invited to their aid against the before-named King John; which Louis laid siege to the Castle of Dover. In the same year, William Hardel was made Mayor of London
Notes: This document documents the barons allying with Louis, son of the king of France, against John. SOURCE 6:
Illustration from a Church Chronicle 1280
British Library Cotton Vitellius A. XIII, f.5v
Transcript:
When John, brother of Richard, ruled in England, the king would not accept the appointment of Archbishop Langton by Pope Innocent, and he entered into a great war in England with his barons and Sir Louis, son of Philip of France.
Notes:
This image looks back on events earlier in the century. It shows the monks of Canterbury holding up a poisoned chalice to John. This is a comment on his dispute with the Church over who should become Archbishop of Canterbury. A letter issued by John in June 1215 to the sheriffs of England.
Transcript:
The King sends greeting to the sheriffs, the foresters, the warreners, the keepers of the rivers and to all his bailiffs. Know that peace has been restored between us and the barons and the freemen of our realm, through the grace of God.
You will have seen and heard of our charter which we made, and we order that this charter is kept firmly throughout the land according to the law. We strictly order that you make everyone under your jurisdiction swear an oath to the 25 barons mentioned in the charter. We also order that 12 knights from your county will investigate and put a stop to certain evil customs both relating to sheriffs and their officers as it is contained in the charter itself.
We order that, just as you love us and our honour, and the peace of Our Lord, you should observe everything contained in the charter without exceptions, and you should make the charter be observed by all, in case, God forbid, the peace of our realm should be disturbed once again.
You, our sheriffs, should proclaim our peace throughout our lands, and you should order that this peace should be firmly kept. And we send to you as a testimony to this business our letters patent. With me myself as a witness at Runnymede, on 19 June, in the 17th year of our reign.
Notes:
This extract reveals that John had made peace with his rebel barons. He is sending out orders to his sheriffs, who represent him in the country, to enforce Magna Carta. The peace was in the form of a document which he accepted and became known as Magna Carta, or Great Charter.
If you are confused by the use of ‘we’ that is how rulers call themselves, it just means John. SOURCE 8:
Extract 2 from letters and grants of King John June 1215 C 66/14 The National Archives
A land grant by John to William of Aumale June 1215
Transcript:
The King to William of Harcourt. Know that we have restored to our beloved and faithful count of Aumale the right which he has in the manor of Driffield and we receive thereupon his homage. And therefore we order you to cause him to have full possession of that manor without delay with all the things which pertain to it. With me myself as witness at Sandwich, on the 31st day of August.
Notes:
The dispute over Driffield goes back around 100 years, showing that many of the issues being fought over were not simply issues which arose in the last few years of John’s reign; they went much deeper.
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/3755-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 8,
"total-input-tokens": 12913,
"total-output-tokens": 2382,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
1423,
1
],
[
1423,
1964,
2
],
[
1964,
4216,
3
],
[
4216,
5317,
4
],
[
5317,
5721,
5
],
[
5721,
6301,
6
],
[
6301,
8027,
7
],
[
8027,
8791,
8
]
]
} |
aed3e8be2007f2e9f434c52638a364f411b53f32 | THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES - MAGNA CARTA- THE DEBATE! MAGNA CARTA – Lesson 3 Teacher’s Notes
Aims
This lesson provides pupils with an opportunity to question the historical importance of Magna Carta. It focuses on the 1215 version of Magna Carta and the political context of its creation.
At the end of the lesson pupils will have gathered information that can be used to write a short piece on whether they consider the 1215 version of Magna Carta to be either:
- A collection of complaints and grumbles by the barons which only had benefits for them?
or
- An important statement of key principles about how the king can rule and that had benefits for everyone in England?
Objectives
- To understand the societal context of medieval England at the time of Magna Carta
- To consider the importance of Magna Carta at the time for the different classes of society
Learning outcomes
By completing this lesson pupils will:
- Increase their knowledge and understanding of the political context of the sealing of Magna Carta in 1215
- Demonstrate their ability to interpret historical documents and sources
- Develop an understanding of the importance of Magna Carta in 1215 Connections to the curriculum
Key stage 3, the National Curriculum in England for history
The development of Church, state and society in Medieval Britain 1066-1509:
- Magna Carta and the emergence of Parliament
Method
This lesson is presented as ‘The Great Magna Carta Debate’. Part one is gathering evidence and deciding if Magna Carta was a collection of grumbles by the barons or a series of principles about how the King should rule for the benefit of everyone. Part two is a structured debate where the students will be required to do some written work and debate.
In groups, pupils examine source documents that show some of the context behind the 1215 Magna Carta and report on their findings. They are then given the full text of Magna Carta 1215 in modern English to review. As a whole group, they will explore and debate the importance of specific clauses.
Using the whiteboard resource
We recommend you familiarise yourself with the resource before using with pupils. The sources used in this resource are those found in Chapters 2 and 3 of the online resource: http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/medieval/magna-carta/
We have provided a break down of each slide, with further notes to support your teaching. This lesson requires some preparation of printed materials (referenced in these notes). SLIDE 1
This displays The National Archives logo.
SLIDE 2
You Decide (Video)
A short video introduction to the lesson.
VIDEO TRANSCRIPT (SLIDE 2):
The Great Magna Carta Debate. Is Magna Carta really as important as historians make out?
On June 15 1215 Magna Carta was sealed by King John. It is now considered one of the most important legal documents in the development of modern democracy. You decide… Was the 1215 Magna Carta simply a collection of complaints and grumbles by the barons which only had benefits for them? or Was it an important statement of key principles about how the King can rule that benefitted everyone in England? You decide.
You decide!
A summary of the key question for the debate
Was the 1215 Magna Carta:
- A collection of complaints and grumbles by the barons which only had benefits for them, or
- An important statement of key principles about how he king can rule and that had benefits for everyone in England?
Part 1: Gathering Evidence (1215 in context)
You will need to print and distribute the documents in the file:
Context documents for Lesson 3
There are two documents per group for 4 groups of 5 or 6. Or teachers may wish students to work in pairs. There should be one document per printed page.
Instruct pupils to examine each document, and prepare to report their findings back to the rest of the group.
Each group has two documents to look at. You will be called upon to share your observations with the rest of the class. Looking at each document, discuss:
- What is the document? (Who wrote it?) • When was it written? • Why was it written? • Make two observations about the time leading up to the sealing of Magna Carta based on this document: Does it suggest that the Barons were simply complaining about the King? Or Does it reflect a key principle about how he should rule?
Source 1:
Extract from the Pipe Rolls of King John 1214 An arrangement between John and Geoffrey of Mandeville in relation to his marriage to Isabel Countess of Gloucester.
Ask the pupils who prepared this document to report back on their findings. Source 2:
Extract from the Pipe Rolls of King John 1214 An arrangement for William FitzAlan to inherit his medium sized barony in 1214
Ask the pupils who prepared this document to report back on their findings.
Source 3:
Orders from King John May 1214
Ask the pupils who prepared this document to report back on their findings. Source 4 Message from King John to the barons of England July 1214
Ask the pupils who prepared this document to report back on their findings.
Source 5 Extract from the Chronicles of the Mayors of London
Ask the pupils who prepared this document to report back on their findings. Source 6
Extract from the Chronicles of the Mayors of London
Ask the pupils who prepared this document to report back on their findings.
Source 7
Extract 1 from letters and grants of King John June 1215
A letter issued by John in June 1215 to the sheriffs of England.
Ask the pupils who prepared this document to report back on their findings. Source 8
Extract 2 from letters and grants of King John June 1215
A land grant by John to William of Aumale June 1215.
Ask the pupils who prepared this document to report back on their findings.
Magna Carta (1215)
Print and provide each pupil with a copy of the English Translation of Magna Carta:
Magna Carta 1215
You may ask them to study the clauses and highlight those that they think are for the common good – and those that only really benefit the barons. Magna Carta (1215) Introduction
Ask and answer questions as a whole group about the wording of the introduction:
Which barons and churchmen were present when John accepted the Charter?
You will notice that the bishops and churchmen are listed before the earls and barons. What does this tell you about the importance of the Church and the need that both king and barons had for its support?
Magna Carta (1215) Clause 1
Ask and answer questions as a whole group about Clause 1:
Who benefits from this clause?
What does this tell you about the Church’s involvement in Magna Carta? Magna Carta (1215) Clause 2
Ask and answer questions as a whole group about Clause 2:
Who benefits from this clause?
This clause shows the barons are trying to re-establish old customs and pay the old fees to inherit land they used to pay rather than the higher charges which John introduced. What does this tell you about the beneficiaries of Magna Carta?
Magna Carta (1215) Clause 39, 40
Ask and answer questions as a whole group about Clauses 39 and 40:
Who benefits from these clauses?
These clauses establish the right to trial by jury. Magna Carta (1215) Clause 50, 51
Ask and answer questions as a whole group about Clauses 50 and 51:
Who benefits from these clauses?
This seems to be a case of the barons removing evil advisers who have led King John astray. Or is there some other possible explanation?
Magna Carta (1215) Clause 61
Ask and answer questions as a whole group about Clause 61:
Who benefits from this clause?
What does this Clause mean? How does it affect the power of the King?
Note: We have simplified the transcript. Part 2: The Magna Carta Debate
Remind pupils of the original question – and set them a task to write up a paragraph or two on their own conclusions. This will inform their stance on the debate.
Motion is: This House believes that...
Discuss with students how to frame a motion for debate – and type up or write the proposition on this slide.
Form a statement to the effect that Magna Carta is the foundation stone for modern democracy. Debate: Round 1
During the debate you (or nominated pupils) act as chairperson and timekeeper. It is important you keep events moving.
Select up to 6 pupils to represent different sides of the argument (with an equal number representing each side).
In turn, one pupil will present a case for the motion (the proposition) and then one pupil will present a case against the motion (the opposition).
In the first round, the pupil speaking for the motion will go first – the opposing pupil will respond to their argument, trying to persuade the rest of their class one way or the other. The "audience" should not be passive. There is an opportunity for them to question the speakers, and to give their own opinions from the floor.
Debate: Round 2
In the second round, the pupil speaking against the motion will go first – the opposing pupil will respond to their argument, trying to persuade the rest of their class one way or the other. The "audience" should not be passive. There is an opportunity for them to question the speakers, and to give their own opinions from the floor. Debate: Round 3
In the third and final round. The pupil speaking for the motion will go first – the opposing pupil will respond to their argument, trying to persuade the rest of their class one way or the other. The "audience" should not be passive. There is an opportunity for them to question the speakers, and to give their own opinions from the floor.
Discussion from the floor...
Here is an opportunity for any other pupil to raise an argument and for you to moderate any misconceptions heard through the debate. You decide!
Replay the short video introduction – and ask pupils to consider which way they intend to vote.
The Vote ...
Collect votes for and against the motion.
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/3756-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 16,
"total-input-tokens": 23774,
"total-output-tokens": 2940,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
1175,
1
],
[
1175,
2503,
2
],
[
2503,
2914,
3
],
[
2914,
4065,
4
],
[
4065,
4605,
5
],
[
4605,
4938,
6
],
[
4938,
5221,
7
],
[
5221,
5571,
8
],
[
5571,
6040,
9
],
[
6040,
6626,
10
],
[
6626,
7175,
11
],
[
7175,
7683,
12
],
[
7683,
8123,
13
],
[
8123,
9207,
14
],
[
9207,
9728,
15
],
[
9728,
9893,
16
]
]
} |
d4f52caf8ca2e427118826bb186afbce2de582d4 | The National Archives Education Service
Magna Carta Preparation materials for virtual classroom (KS 3) Contents
Teacher’s notes ........................................................................................................................................... 3
Document 1: DL 10/71 .................................................................................................................................. 4 Magna Carta, 1225
Transcript 1: DL 10/71 ................................................................................................................................. 5 Magna Carta, 1225
Document 2: C 66/81 .................................................................................................................................. 6 Written public announcement of the peace terms accepted by King Henry III and the community of the realm, 1264
Transcript 2: C 66/81 .................................................................................................................................. 7 Written public announcement of the peace terms accepted by King Henry III and the community of the realm, 1264
Document 3: C 53/86 .................................................................................................................................. 8 Charter confirming the rights set out in Magna Carta, 1300
Transcript 3: C 53/86 .................................................................................................................................. 9 Charter confirming the rights set out in Magna Carta, 1300
Document 4: C 65/62 .................................................................................................................................. 10 Charges against King Richard for which he was deposed, 1399
Transcript 4: C 65/62 .................................................................................................................................. 12 Charges against King Richard for which he was deposed, 1399
Historian’s notes ......................................................................................................................................... 13 Dr. Matt Phillips provides further background information on Magna Carta Teacher’s notes
Students do not need to do any work in preparation for this virtual classroom. Please do not show students copies of the following documents before the session. However, if there are students who have visual impairments and may have difficulty viewing the screen during the session, please enlarge copies of the documents for them to refer to.
This session introduces students to The National Archives and to the history of Magna Carta. They form their own conclusions about the lasting impact of Magna Carta in medieval England by using and interpreting evidence from a range of sources. These include a 1225 version of Magna Carta, a peace treaty, letters patent and a list of charges against the king.
Background information by Dr. Matt Phillips
Most of the issues dealt with in Magna Carta sought to address problems that had arisen not in King John’s reign alone, but over the past half-century under the rule of the Angevin kings. Although John’s bad reputation may have been exaggerated, he mercilessly exploited his barons and cruelly destroyed some baronial families in his attempts to raise sums to mount a military campaign in France and regain Normandy. Following the failure of a complex military operation in France, John returned to England in 1214 and provoked rebellion by imposing scutage – a form of taxation – on his barons in an attempt to pay for his thwarted war effort. In January 1215, thirty-nine barons rebelled against John and subsequently took control of London, forcing John to negotiate a peaceful resolution to the crisis and agree to Magna Carta on 15 June 1215. Based on similar existing documents, but unprecedented in its scope, Magna Carta forced the king to govern in accordance with established laws and sought to prevent the king from ignoring the advice of his barons when taking important political decisions. John refused to accept the restraints that Magna Carta placed upon kingship, and it was only in 1225, during the reign of John’s son, Henry III, that a revised version of Magna Carta came to be accepted as a piece of legislation.
More detailed background information on Magna Carta can be located in the historian’s notes section of this pack.
Useful links
Find out more about a surviving 1215 version of Magna Carta at The British Library http://www.bl.uk/treasures/magnacarta/index.html
Have a look at resources marking the 800th anniversary of Magna Carta http://magnacarta800th.com/schools/
The Magna Carta Project http://magnacarta.cmp.uea.ac.uk/ Document 1: DL 10/71
Magna Carta, 1225 Know that we have, because of our own spontaneous goodwill, given and granted to everyone in our realm the liberties which are written below to be held in our kingdom of England forever. Document 2: C 66/81
Written public announcement of the peace terms accepted by King Henry III and the community of the realm, 1264 The charter of general liberties [Magna Carta] shall be obeyed forever. So too will the recent law addressing people’s concerns about the king, which was publicly announced in all shire courts last year. From now on, these two legal documents, as well as the other long-established laws of the realm, will be better obeyed by the king and his government. Document 3: C 53/86
Charter confirming the rights set out in Magna Carta, 1300 We agree and confirm, for ourselves and our heirs, that Magna Carta and every single one of its articles shall be obeyed firmly and without exception forever, even though some of its articles have perhaps not been observed in the past. For this reason we have made this written public announcement. Witnessed by Prince Edward [the son of Edward I] at Westminster, on the twelfth day of October in the twenty-fifth year of our reign. Document 4: C 65/62
Charges against King Richard for which he was deposed, 1399 Charges against King Richard for which he was deposed, 1399 [Article 1] The following 40 charges are made against the king on account of his evil rule...
[Article 27] It is well established in a statute [Magna Carta] that no free man should be arrested unless it is by the lawful judgement of a jury. Yet, the king arrested and imprisoned many people by personal command alone, and without allowing them the lawful judgement of a jury. Part I: Causal Factors
Long-term factors: Angevin Kingship
**One-sentence summary:** Most of the issues dealt with in Magna Carta sought to address problems that had arisen not in King John’s reign alone, but over the past half-century under the rule of the Angevin kings.
**Detailed summary:** There were three Angevin kings of England: Henry II (reigned 1154-1189), and his two sons Richard I (r. 1189-1199) and John (r. 1199-1216). These kings are known as the Angevins because Henry II was also the count of Anjou – a territory in north-western France from which the royal dynasty took their name. Under the Angevins, the power of the English king was greatly expanded at the expense of the barons – the wealthiest and most powerful of the king’s subjects who held land from the king in return for military service. Magna Carta was, in large part, a baronial reaction to this new balance of power.
When Henry II came to the throne in 1154, England had suffered a prolonged civil war. During this time, the barons had grown powerful in the absence of a strong and stable monarchy. Henry II took it as his task to reverse this development. One important way the king did this was to expand the scope of royal justice. This meant taking power away from courts held by barons so that more legal cases were heard in royal courts. Not only did this weaken the ability of the barons to dominate local politics, but it also brought the king more income from fines imposed in court.
A key political problem facing the Angevin kings of England was that they also held lands in France as a vassal of the French king. In much the same way that the barons who rebelled against King John were his vassals, King John was a vassal of Philip II, king of France. Yet, because the Angevins held so much land in both England and France, they posed a direct challenge to the authority of the French king who was determined to curb Angevin power. This ultimately resulted in prolonged warfare with France under both Richard I and John, and caused the Angevin kings to demand exorbitant sums of money from their barons to meet the costs of war. In particular, Richard and John exploited the barons through the imposition of ‘feudal incidents’ – customary payments to the king, which often related to important life events such as inheritance and marriage. The barons resented the exploitative tendencies of Angevin kingship, and one purpose of Magna Carta was to restrict how much money the king could demand from his barons.
In summary, Magna Carta was a reaction to three important long-term factors: firstly, a strengthened monarchy under the Angevins reduced the power of the barons; secondly, the Angevin kings used their improved position to exploit the barons financially; and thirdly, this need to raise money in the first place was necessary to defend Angevin lands in France.
Short-term factors: the reign of King John
**One-sentence summary:** Although John’s bad reputation may have been exaggerated, he mercilessly exploited his barons and cruelly destroyed some baronial families in his attempts to raise sums to mount a military campaign in France and regain Normandy.
**Detailed summary:** Although many historians have characterised John as a bad king, in reality it is extremely difficult to assess John’s character and personality with any real certainty. Whilst it is clear that many of John’s subjects, not least the rebel barons, felt great animosity towards their king, John’s negative reputation has probably been greatly exaggerated. In searching for short-term causal factors that led to baronial rebellion and Magna Carta, we must look beyond negative depictions of John’s character. If John’s rule did seem more tyrannical than that of his father and brother, it was because of his residence in England. Richard I spent only six-months of his ten-year reign in England. By contrast, after the loss of Normandy in 1203, John was a resident ruler in England. Since Henry II and Richard I had ruled largely from their territories in France, ‘evil counsellors’ had taken the blame for the abuses of Angevin kingship and oppressive rule in England. For John, it was far more difficult to shift the blame onto others. Given this context, it was by sticking with the policies of his father and brother, rather than because of a fundamental departure from them, that John caused baronial rebel in 1215. Yet, the unprecedented funds required by the end of Richard I’s reign to meet the costs for the defence of Normandy and other Angevin territories in France made John’s task all the more difficult.
In August 1200, a year after his coronation, King John married Isabelle, heir to the strategically valuable county of Angoulême in France. However, John’s bride had been formerly betrothed to Hugh IX, lord of Lusignan, one of John’s most powerful subjects in the Angevin territory of Poitou. Adding insult to injury, John made no attempt to placate Hugh’s wounded pride with any form of compensation, causing outrage amongst the powerful Lusignan family and other important noble families in Poitou. In 1202, Hugh de Lusignan took his case to the French king, who summoned King John to appear before his court to defend his actions. When John refused to appear, King Philip II of France condemned John as a disobedient vassal, declared his French territories forfeit, and invaded Normandy. Following years of warfare under Richard I, many Norman nobles defected to the French king and the invasion proved unstoppable.
John fled to England and set about raising whatever sums of money were needed to regain Normandy. Aside from demanding unprecedented sums for scutage – a tax levied on barons and knights in place of military service – John ruthlessly exploited his barons through the imposition of ‘feudal incidents’ – customary payments owed to the king. In some cases this led to the personal ruin of baronial families. For example, William de Braose, a former confidant of John, was outlawed and his lands confiscated when he could not pay debts to the king amounting to £13,000 - a huge sum in the thirteenth century and equivalent to many millions of pounds today. William died in exile in Paris in 1211, and his wife and son were starved to death in King John’s prison. Unlike other stories of John’s cruelty which lack substance, this event was recorded in every chronicle at the time and can be reliably used to indicate John’s malevolence. John’s treatment of barons such as William de Braose, ultimately resulting from his drive to raise funds to regain Normandy, caused resentment amongst many of his barons and sowed the seeds of rebellion.
Trigger Factor: failed military campaign, 1214
One-sentence summary: Following the failure of a complex military operation in France, John returned to England and provoked rebellion by imposing a scutage on his barons in an attempt to pay for his thwarted war effort.
Detailed summary: Following the loss of Normandy 1203, it took over ten years for John to successfully prepare and launch a military operation to regain his lost duchy. In 1214, John sailed to Poitou and launched an invasion of France from the southwest. Meanwhile, John had constructed an alliance with princes in the Low Countries and the Rhineland who simultaneously invaded France from the northeast. The hope was to divide and outmanoeuvre the French army. The plan failed, and King Philip II’s army defeated John’s northern allies at the battle of Bouvines in July 1214. John returned to England, and insisted on imposing a scutage upon his barons to pay for his failed military campaign. This proved too much for many of John’s barons to swallow, and resulted in a baronial rebellion. Part II: The Making of Magna Carta
The Baronial Rebellion
One-sentence summary: In January 1215, thirty-nine barons rebelled against John and subsequently took control of London, thereby forcing John to negotiate a peaceful resolution to the crisis and consequently conceding Magna Carta on 15 June 1215.
Detailed summary: After returning from his failed military campaign in 1214, John summoned a great council to meet in London on 6 January 1215. By the time the council meeting opened, thirty-nine rebel barons had joined together to seek concessions from the king. The scale of this baronial rebellion was quite unlike that faced by any king since the Norman Conquest. Unlike earlier revolts, the rebels under John sought not only the amendment of personal complaints, but remedy for general charges of misgovernment. Negotiations between King John and the rebels continued throughout the spring but proved unsuccessful and on 5 May 1215 the rebel barons formally renounced their fealty – their allegiance and submission to John’s lordship – and chose Robert fitz Walter as their leader. By mid-May the citizens of London – by far the largest city in medieval England – joined the rebel cause. The loss of London was a crushing blow to John’s chances of a quick victory and, with many wavering barons now joining the rebel cause, King John arranged a meeting with the rebels to negotiate a peace.
Final negotiations got under way in June at Runnymede Meadow, lying between Windsor Castle and the rebel barons’ camp at Staines. The official text of Magna Carta is dated 15 June 1215, although a final agreement of its terms may not have been worked out until 19 June – the day that the rebel barons made a ‘firm peace’ with the king and renewed their oaths of homage. Once King John affixed his seal to Magna Carta, royal letters were sent to sheriffs and other royal officers around the country ordering that Magna Carta should be read out publicly throughout the land. Four of the copies sent to the shires in 1215 still survive, two in the British Library, one at Lincoln Cathedral, and another at Salisbury Cathedral.
What did Magna Carta try to achieve?
One-sentence summary: Based on similar documents, but unprecedented in its scope, Magna Carta forced the king to govern in accordance with established laws and sought to prevent the king from ignoring advice from his barons.
Detailed summary: In seeking to curb the power of King John and reduce his capacity to exploit his subjects, the rebel barons sought to turn back the clock on Angevin kingship. They looked to the reign of Henry I, which they believed was a time of less oppressive kingship, and copies of Henry I’s coronation charter (TNA E 164/2, f. 217v) convinced the rebels that they could impose a charter on King John and force him to moderate his tyrannical rule. Furthermore, charters of liberties – documents which outlined privileges and guaranteed them in law – were a familiar element of political life. London had won a large measure of self-government from the king in the twelfth century and this capacity for self-government was enshrined in a charter of liberties. The novelty of Magna Carta was in its general grant of liberties to all free men of the king rather than a specific community.
Magna Carta was based upon two basic principles: firstly that the king and his government must rule in accordance with established laws and judicial process, and secondly, that the king must govern by taking counsel with his barons. As such, the overriding aim of the charter was to prevent the king from being able to exploit his subject, and to prevent him from ruling tyrannically – according to his own personal wishes and desires. The scope of Magna Carta was extensively broad, and contained sixty-three chapters covering a wide range of topics regulating how government and the law should operate. One of the most important articles in terms of its lasting legal significance was chapter 39, which set out the principal that no free man should be arrested and imprisoned without trial and in accordance with the law. Essentially, this guaranteed free men what lawyer’s today call ‘due process of law’, and prevented the king from imprisoning his subjects unless there was a lawful reason to do so.
Although King John agreed to govern according to the terms set out in Magna Carta, the rebel barons did not believe that the king could be trusted to keep his promise. Therefore, the barons appointed a committee of twenty-five people who had the power to declare war against their king if the felt that he was not ruling in accordance with Magna Carta. This ‘security clause’ was an extreme measure, and King John would not accept it. In September 1215, King John gained the support of Pope, who sent agents to England excommunicating the rebel barons. This meant that the rebels were denied access to church services, thereby severely impairing their spiritual wellbeing. Civil war continued even after John’s death in October 1216, lasting until the rebel barons were defeated in September 1217 by barons loyal to John’s nine-year-old son, King Henry III.
Part III: The Legacy of Magna Carta
One-sentence summary: Magna Carta was reissued in 1216 and 1217, before the definitive version of Magna Carta was issued by King Henry III in 1225 and became an established piece of legislation.
Detailed summary: In the decade after 1215, Magna Carta was reissued on three separate occasions: 1216, 1217 and 1225. These reissues of Magna Carta sought to achieve a compromise that satisfied many of the rebel barons’ original demands, but in a manner that was also acceptable to the king. The ‘security clause’, which had given the barons licence to make war on their king if he refused to observe Magna Carta, was dropped and the size of the charter was reduced from 63 chapters in 1215 to only 37 chapters in 1225. In 1216 and 1217, the decision to reissue Magna Carta had been taken by William Marshal, who governed England as regent whilst Henry III was too young to rule himself. However, in February 1225 Henry III was 17-years old, and old enough to issue Magna Carta with his own seal. It was this version of Magna Carta issued in 1225 which had lasting legal importance and became an established piece of legislation.
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/3757-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 16,
"total-input-tokens": 27453,
"total-output-tokens": 5062,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
104,
1
],
[
104,
2244,
2
],
[
2244,
4774,
3
],
[
4774,
4814,
4
],
[
4814,
5001,
5
],
[
5001,
5133,
6
],
[
5133,
5488,
7
],
[
5488,
5568,
8
],
[
5568,
6001,
9
],
[
6001,
6082,
10
],
[
6082,
6142,
11
],
[
6142,
6519,
12
],
[
6519,
10220,
13
],
[
10220,
14248,
14
],
[
14248,
18289,
15
],
[
18289,
20563,
16
]
]
} |
997d2e3f2203cde5438c9cd2d1daa2901fc2ce1b | To holders of GB station licences and passenger SNRPs
Dear licence and SNRP holder,
Notice of changes to station licences, passenger licences and passenger SNRPs
The companies listed in the schedules to this notice have been granted licences and/or statements of national regulatory provisions (SNRPs) to operate railway assets under section 8 of the Railways Act 1993 (the Act) or regulation 10 and schedule 4 of the Railway (Licensing of Railway Undertakings) Regulations 2005 (the Regulations).
In accordance with section 12(2) of the Act and regulation 13(2) of the Regulations, on 1 December 2011(^1), the Office of Rail Regulation (ORR) gave notice of its proposal to modify certain licences and SNRPs.
The notice published by ORR set out the reasons for the modifications and their effect. It required any representations or objections to the modifications to be made on or before 30 January 2012.
ORR has considered the representations or objections which were received during the consultation period and which were not withdrawn.
The licence and SNRP holders listed in the schedules to this notice have consented to the modifications.
Under section 12(1) of the Act and regulation 13(1) of the Regulations, and with the consent of the licence holder, I therefore modify the licences and SNRPs listed in the schedules to this notice by:
(a) inserting a new condition 4 into the station licences as set out in schedule 1 to this notice; and
(^1) ORR’s 1 December 2011 consultation letter can be found at [http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/upload/pdf/passenger_information_consultation_dec2011.pdf](http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/upload/pdf/passenger_information_consultation_dec2011.pdf) (b) deleting condition 4 of the passenger licence or SNRP (as appropriate) in its entirety and replacing it with the new condition 4 as set out in the schedule 2 to this notice.
I am placing a copy of this letter on our website and on our public register. We will also update all relevant licences and SNRPs on our website.
Yours sincerely
Robert Plaskitt Schedule 1: Station licences
The station licences subject to this schedule 1, with date of issue and reference numbers, are:
| Station licence holder | Date and number | Station licence holder | Date and number | |------------------------|-----------------|------------------------|-----------------| | Arriva Trains Wales Ltd | 3 Dec 03 UK0320030016 | London Underground Limited | 31 March 1994 UK0320040009 | | c2c Rail Ltd | 14 Dec 94 UK0319940007 | London and South Eastern Railway Ltd | 28 Mar 06 UK0320060005 | | Chiltern Railway Company Ltd | 30 Apr 95 UK0319950015 | London Overground Rail Operations Ltd | 7 Nov 07 UK0320070026 | | DB Regio Tyne and Wear Ltd | 24 Mar 10 UK0320100002 | Merseyrail Electrics 2002 Ltd | 17 Jul 03 UK0320030013 | | East Coast Main Line Company Ltd | 26 Oct 09 UK0320090004 | Merseyrail Electrics 2002 Ltd (Liverpool Southpark way) | 23 Dec 2005 UK 03 2005 0086 | | East Midlands Trains Ltd | 6 Nov 07 UK0320070019 | Northern Rail Ltd | 26 Nov 04 UK0320040016 | | First Capital Connect Ltd | 29 Mar 06 UK0320060008 | Rail for London Ltd | 25 Oct 07 UK0320070017 | | First Greater Western Ltd | 28 Mar 06 UK0320060002 | Southern Railway Ltd | 11 Sep 09 UK03200901(02) | | First ScotRail Ltd | 11 Oct 04 UK0320040012 | Stagecoach South Western Trains Ltd | 26 Jan 07 UK0320070004 | | First/Keolis Transpennine Ltd | 28 Jan 04 UK0320040002 | Stobart Rail Ltd (Southend Airport) | 3 Feb 2011 UK0320110001 | | Glasgow Prestwick International Airport Ltd | 2 Sep 94 UK0319940006 | Tyne & Wear Passenger Transport Executive | 26 Mar 02 UK0320020003 | | London and Birmingham Railway Ltd | 7 Nov 07 UK0320070023 | West Coast Trains Ltd (Virgin Trains) | 28 Apr 95 UK031995 0013 |
The modifications are to insert a new condition 4:
**Condition 4: Information for passengers**
1. The licence holder shall cooperate with train operators so far as is reasonably necessary to enable them to meet their obligations to provide information to passengers. Schedule 2: Passenger licences and SNRPs
The statements of national regulatory provisions (SNRPs) and Railways Act 1993 passenger licences subject to this schedule 2, with date of issue and reference numbers, are:
| SNRP holder | Date and number | |--------------------------------------|-----------------------| | Arriva Trains Wales Ltd | 28 Nov 05 UK02 2005 0011 | | C2C Rail Ltd | 28 Nov 05 UK02 2005 0015 | | Chiltern Railway Company Ltd | 28 Nov 05 UK02 2005 0019 | | East Coast Main Line Company Ltd | 20 Sep 06 UK02 2006 0006 | | East Midlands Trains Ltd | 6 Nov 2007 UK02 2007 0009 | | First Capital Connect Ltd | 29 Mar 06 UK02 2006 0004 | | First Greater Western Ltd | 28 Mar 06 UK02 2006 0002 | | First ScotRail Ltd | 28 Nov 05 UK02 2005 0035 | | First/Keolis Transpennine Ltd | 28 Nov 05 UK02 2005 0039 | | Grand Central Railway Company Ltd | 4 Jun 07 UK02 2007 0003 | | Hull Trains Ltd | 28 Nov 05 UK02 2005 0055 | | London and Birmingham Railway Ltd | 7 Nov 2007 UK02 2007 0011 |
| Licence holder | Date and number | |--------------------------------------|-----------------------| | DB Regio Tyne and Wear Ltd | 24 Mar 2010 UK0320100001 | | Merseyrail Electrics (2002) Ltd | 17 July 2003 UK03 2003 0011 | | Tyne and Wear Passenger Transport Executive | 15 March 2002 UK03 2002 0002 |
| SNRP holder | Date and number | |--------------------------------------|-----------------------| | London and South Eastern Railway Ltd | 28 Mar 06 UK02 2006 0003 | | London Overground Rail Operations Ltd | 7 Nov 2007 UK02 2007 0012 | | Northern Rail Ltd | 28 Nov 05 UK02 2005 0067 | | Rail for London Ltd | 25 Oct 2007 UK02 2007 0008 | | SOLR1 Ltd | 10 Oct 2007 UK02 2007 0006 | | SOLR2 Ltd | 10 Oct 2007 UK02 2007 0007 | | Southern Railway Ltd | 11 Sep 09 UK02 2009 0002 | | Stagecoach South Western Trains Ltd | 26 Jan 07 UK02 2007 0001 | | West Coast Trains Ltd (Virgin Trains)| 28 Nov 05 UK02 2005 0083 | | XC Trains Ltd | 7 Nov 2007 UK02 2007 0010 |
The modifications are to delete Condition 4 Timetabling and insert new Condition 4: Condition 4: Information for passengers
Purpose
1 The purpose is to secure the provision of appropriate, accurate and timely information to enable railway passengers and prospective passengers to plan and make their journeys with a reasonable degree of assurance, including when there is disruption.
General duty
2 The licence holder shall achieve the purpose to the greatest extent reasonably practicable having regard to all relevant circumstances, including the funding available.
Specific obligations
3 The following obligations in this condition are without prejudice to the generality of the general duty in paragraph 2 and compliance with these obligations shall not be regarded as exhausting that general duty. In fulfilling these obligations the licence holder shall at all times comply with the general duty in paragraph 2.
Planning services
4 The licence holder shall cooperate, as necessary, with Network Rail and other train operators to enable Network Rail to undertake appropriate planning of train services and to establish or change appropriate timetables, including when there is disruption.
5 In particular, the licence holder shall:
(a) provide Network Rail with such information about the licence holder’s licensed activities as may be reasonably necessary for Network Rail to fulfil its obligations relating to timetabling in its network licence;
(b) participate constructively in any timetabling consultation carried out by Network Rail;
(c) use reasonable endeavours to resolve promptly any timetabling disputes; and
(d) respond expeditiously to any timetabling matter which Network Rail reasonably considers to be urgent. Code(s) of practice and improvement plan(s)
6 The licence holder shall, unless ORR otherwise consents, publish one or more code(s) of practice or other documents setting out the principles and processes by which it will comply with the general duty in paragraph 2.
7 Where the licence holder considers, or is directed by ORR, that improvements to its arrangements for the provision of information to railway passengers and prospective passengers are necessary or desirable to enable it better to fulfil the general duty in paragraph 2, it shall develop, publish and deliver a plan, which sets out the improvements it intends to make and the dates by which such improvements will be made.
8 The licence holder shall, from time to time and when so directed by ORR, review and, if necessary, revise, following consultation, anything published under paragraph 6 and any plan under paragraph 7 so that they may better fulfil the general duty in paragraph 2.
9 ORR shall not make any direction under paragraphs 7 or 8 without first consulting the licence holder.
Provision of information to intermediaries
10 The licence holder shall as soon as reasonably practicable:
(a) provide to the holders of passenger and station licences; and
(b) provide to all timetable information providers on request reasonable access to appropriate, accurate and timely information to enable each on request to provide passengers with all relevant information to plan their journeys including, so far as reasonably practicable, the fare or fares and any restrictions applicable.
11 In this condition:
“Network Rail” means Network Rail Infrastructure Limited (a company registered in England and Wales under number 02904587), and its successors and assigns.
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/4629-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 6,
"total-input-tokens": 13688,
"total-output-tokens": 3061,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
1698,
1
],
[
1698,
2057,
2
],
[
2057,
4039,
3
],
[
4039,
6459,
4
],
[
6459,
8119,
5
],
[
8119,
9860,
6
]
]
} |
61d8004177b721bcce99ed484ad296433a630a1e | 6 March 2012
Samantha Spence Head of Regulatory Affairs Eurostar International Ltd Times House Bravingtons Walk London N1 9AW
Dear Samantha,
**Notice of modifications to Eurostar’s station licence and passenger SNRP**
Eurostar International Limited was granted a station licence on 31 March 1994 and a statement of national regulatory provision (SNRP)(^1) on 28 November 2005 to operate railway assets under section 8 of the Railways Act 1993 (the Act) or regulation 10 and schedule 4 of the Railway (Licensing of Railway Undertakings) Regulations 2005 (the Regulations).
In accordance with section 12(2) of the Act and regulation 13(2) of the Regulations, on 1 December 2011, the Office of Rail Regulation (ORR) gave notice of its proposal to modify certain licences and SNRPs(^2).
The notice published by ORR set out the reasons for the modifications and their effect. It required any representations or objections to the modifications to be made on or before 30 January 2012.
ORR has considered the representations or objections which were received during the consultation period and which were not withdrawn.
(^1) Reference numbers UK0319940001 and UK0220050027 respectively.
(^2) ORR’s 1 December 2011 consultation letter can be found at [http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/upload/pdf/passenger_information_consultation_dec2011.pdf](http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/upload/pdf/passenger_information_consultation_dec2011.pdf) Eurostar International Limited has consented to all the modifications except the proposed paragraphs 4 and 5 of the SNRP relating to cooperation with Network Rail, because it operates almost exclusively on network that is not owned by Network Rail. We agree that this obligation is not necessary for Eurostar and Network Rail has stated that it is also content for these obligations to be omitted.
Under section 12(1) of the Act and regulation 13(1) of the Regulations, and with the consent of the licence holder, I therefore modify the station licence and the SNRP by:
(a) inserting a new condition 4 into your station licence, as set out in schedule 1 to this notice; and
(b) inserting a new condition 4 into your passenger SNRP, as set out in schedule 2 to this notice.
We note your comments on how widely paragraph 10 should be interpreted. This obligation requires you to provide reasonable access to timetabling information to third parties. The obligation permits you to develop your own policy on what you consider to be reasonable access in terms of who you provide information to, what format you provide it in and whether you charge for providing this information. This would be consistent with the approach adopted by others in the industry such as ATOC’s National Rail Enquiries Service. In respect of fares information in particular, we would consider this condition met if fare range information is limited to the static table of public fare range information that is published on your website.
Your policy should take into account your legal obligations on these issues. We would be happy to review your policy if you would find this helpful.
I am placing a copy of this letter on our website and on our public register. We will also update the licence and SNRP on our website.
Yours sincerely
Robert Plaskitt Schedule 1: Station Licence
**Condition 4: Information for passengers**
1. The licence holder shall cooperate with train operators so far as is reasonably necessary to enable them to meet their obligations to provide information to passengers. Schedule 2: SNRP
Condition 4: Information for passengers
Purpose
1 The purpose is to secure the provision of appropriate, accurate and timely information to enable railway passengers and prospective passengers to plan and make their journeys with a reasonable degree of assurance, including when there is disruption.
General duty
2 The licence holder shall achieve the purpose to the greatest extent reasonably practicable having regard to all relevant circumstances, including the funding available.
Specific obligations
3 The following obligations in this condition are without prejudice to the generality of the general duty in paragraph 2 and compliance with these obligations shall not be regarded as exhausting that general duty. In fulfilling these obligations the licence holder shall at all times comply with the general duty in paragraph 2.
Planning services
4 Not Used.
5 Not used.
Code(s) of practice and improvement plan(s)
6 The licence holder shall, unless ORR otherwise consents, publish one or more code(s) of practice or other documents setting out the principles and processes by which it will comply with the general duty in paragraph 2.
7 Where the licence holder considers, or is directed by ORR, that improvements to its arrangements for the provision of information to railway passengers and prospective passengers are necessary or desirable to enable it better to fulfil the general duty in paragraph 2, it shall develop, publish and deliver a plan, which sets out the improvements it intends to make and the dates by which such improvements will be made. 8 The licence holder shall, from time to time and when so directed by ORR, review and, if necessary, revise, following consultation, anything published under paragraph 6 and any plan under paragraph 7 so that they may better fulfil the general duty in paragraph 2.
9 ORR shall not make any direction under paragraphs 7 or 8 without first consulting the licence holder.
Provision of information to intermediaries
10 The licence holder shall as soon as reasonably practicable:
(a) provide to the holders of passenger and station licences; and
(b) provide to all timetable information providers on request reasonable access to appropriate, accurate and timely information to enable each on request to provide passengers with all relevant information to plan their journeys including, so far as reasonably practicable, the fare or fares and any restrictions applicable.
11 Not used.
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/4630-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 5,
"total-input-tokens": 9271,
"total-output-tokens": 1490,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
1433,
1
],
[
1433,
3267,
2
],
[
3267,
3513,
3
],
[
3513,
5107,
4
],
[
5107,
5991,
5
]
]
} |
83d739df8777947188aaea631c6090076222404b | Consent not to publish a code of practice
We consent to the holders of statements of national regulatory provisions (SNRPs) listed below not publishing a code of practice or other documents under paragraph 6 of condition 4 of the SNRPs, because these are dormant operators to be used only in the event that the Department needs to take over the operations of a franchised train operator.
| Name | Date and number | Name holder | Date and number | |--------------------|-----------------------|-------------------|-----------------------| | Broadway Rail Ltd | 20 Sep 06 UK02 2006 0007 | Orchard Rail Ltd | 20 Sep 06 UK02 2006 0011 | | Golding’s Rail Ltd | 28 Nov 05 UK02 2005 0015 | Strutton Rail Ltd | 20 Sep 06 UK02 2006 0012 | | Hay’s Rail Ltd | 20 Sep 06 UK02 2006 0006 | Westminster Rail Ltd | 20 Sep 06 UK02 2006 0013 | | OQS Rail Ltd | 20 Sep 06 UK02 2006 0010 | | |
In the event that any of these operators becomes active, this consent will expire for that operator’s SNRP.
Rob Plaskitt
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/4631-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 1,
"total-input-tokens": 2279,
"total-output-tokens": 372,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
1081,
1
]
]
} |
f722c809e5de6574c447f220ed55a8ee9a140447 | 6 March 2012
Mike Brown, Managing Director, London Underground and London Rail 55 Broadway, London SW1H 0BD
Consent not to publish a code of practice
We consent to Rail for London Ltd, as the holder of a statement of national regulatory provisions (SNRP) issued on 25 Oct 2007(^1) not publishing a code of practice or other documents under paragraph 6 of condition 4 of the SNRP, because this is a dormant operator to be used only in the event that Transport for London needs to take over the operations of a franchised train operator.
This consent will expire in the event that this operator becomes active.
[\\text{Signature}]
Rob Plaskitt
(^1) Reference number UK02 2007 0008
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/4632-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 1,
"total-input-tokens": 1883,
"total-output-tokens": 225,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
690,
1
]
]
} |
66fbfa37f82885f35218e496c7328001ecf2f65f | 6 March 2012 David Middleton, Chief Executive Transport Scotland Buchanan House 58 Port Dundas Road Glasgow G4 0HF
Consent not to publish a code of practice
We consent to the holders of statements of national regulatory provisions (SNRPs) listed below not publishing a code of practice or other documents under paragraph 6 of condition 4 of the SNRPs, because these are dormant operators to be used only in the event that Transport Scotland needs to take over the operations of a franchised train operator.
| Name | Date and number | Name holder | Date and number | |---------------|-----------------|-------------|-----------------| | SOLR 1 Ltd | 10 Oct 07 | SOLR 2 Ltd | 10 Oct 07 | | | UK02 2007 0006 | | UK02 2007 0007 |
In the event that either of these operators becomes active, this consent will expire for that operator’s SNRP.
Rob Plaskitt
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/4633-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 1,
"total-input-tokens": 1883,
"total-output-tokens": 283,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
907,
1
]
]
} |
3e60239dc15dfdce9d80452bad6ac66794d9ee63 | National Cataloguing Grants Scheme:
Five year review (2006 – 2011) From its foundation, in 1930, the Pilgrim Trust has supported the preservation of important archival material and its cataloguing. Such was the spending power of the first Trustees that, in 1932, they were able to purchase the North Papers, a record of English life from the time of Henry VIII to that of Victoria. These were then presented to the Bodleian Library together with a grant to enable the papers to be catalogued. Thus the Trust has always appreciated and understood that an archive is of no use unless it is properly catalogued.
Unfortunately, the Pilgrim Trust’s ability fully to fund the projects before it has diminished over time and in 2006 it decided that to achieve its aim of making important archival material accessible, it would have to take a more strategic approach and to join with other funders with similar aims. The National Cataloguing Scheme was born and, to date, more than £1,450,000 has been awarded to unlock the potential of 55 important archives.
The Pilgrim Trust is enormously grateful to its fellow funders and hopes that others might be persuaded to join. Trusts and Foundations are increasingly realising that they can have a bigger impact on a problem if they work together and this is even more important in times of economic difficulties. We will continue to seek new partners, both in the UK and abroad. The richness of the UK’s archival heritage is relevant way beyond these shores.
The Pilgrim Trustees are grateful to The National Archives for their expertise in running the Scheme on the Funders’ behalf. They are also indebted to the members of the Expert Panel who have given freely of their time to take the Scheme forward and to make it so successful. We look forward to the next five years and to unlocking yet more treasures from our outstanding archives.
Lady Jay of Ewelme CBE Chairman of the Pilgrim Trust Britain is almost uniquely fortunate in the survival of a rich and ancient archive inheritance, but this wealth of documentary heritage is all too often obscured by a backlog of uncatalogued collections that are mostly invisible to researchers. If you’ve ever tried to use a poorly catalogued archive you’ll know it is frustrating and can even be misleading when key descriptive information is missing. Good cataloguing is where access to archives begins; without it, a researcher’s journey to unlock history will be off on the wrong track.
Together the Pilgrim Trust and The National Archives created a new strategic funding stream that archives can apply to in order to catalogue the backlog. We know that without the National Cataloguing Grants Scheme’s vital funds during the last five years, many UK collections would have been left uncatalogued and undiscovered by researchers.
The programme began in 2006 with a two year pilot supported by the Esmée Fairbairn Foundation. Demand was and continues to be very high, and the competition is intense. The experience of the pilot demonstrated the Scheme’s potential, and from 2008 with the support of a greatly increased group of funders, a national programme was launched.
If you want to find out more about supporting the scheme please contact Georgina Nayler [email protected]
The positive outcomes of these projects for grant recipients and archive users go far beyond the cataloguing itself. This five year review of the National Cataloguing Grants Scheme celebrates just a few of the ways in which these relatively small grants have made an impact on the archive experiences of thousands... and gives six reasons why archive cataloguing brings wider benefits.
Did you know...
In 2002, it was estimated that the UK had a backlog of uncatalogued archives that would take an archivist many hundreds of years to clear? Cataloguing is the essence of archive discovery. Without it, an archive is often an uninviting mass of material, with no way in for researchers. Stacks of boxes, with contents unknown, offer no encouragement for researchers to open them and explore their riches. Collection managers who don’t know what’s in their collections can’t even begin to make the most of them. Even if an intrepid reader does try to get to grips with an uncatalogued archive, it is an intensely frustrating business without an overview of the collection, or a clear idea of how it is arranged and where its richest areas may be.
Cataloguing grants offered by this programme have opened dozens of collections for research and discovery. Along the way, many exciting and unusual items have been revealed. An East Riding gentry family, the Calverley-Rudstons (East Riding of Yorkshire Archives 2009), have in their archive the key sources for the construction of the seventeenth-century Mole of Tangiers. Perhaps more predictably, but no less exciting: the estate papers of the Coventry family (Worcestershire Record Office 2008) contain gems relating to the construction of Croome Court: a design project worked on by Robert Adam, James Wyatt and ‘Capability’ Brown. The archive provides fascinating evidence for the work of some of the greatest architects and garden designers of the eighteenth century. Case Study:
**Exeter University Special Collections** (2007)
Exeter University used a grant to support their strategy for overcoming a legacy of largely uncatalogued special collections, in a project focusing on their South West literary holdings. Among the project’s many benefits were new deposits of related material and fresh partnerships with academic departments to stimulate further research into regional literary collections. It allowed a fuller understanding of the interconnections between literary figures, linked by their locality. The project also discovered an unknown group of letters from Siegfried Sassoon to Charles Causley, in which the famous war poet called himself, “A cellist-poet, bowing away at [his] adagios.” Without cataloguing, the poet’s memorable words on his own work might never have come to light.
http://as.exeter.ac.uk/library/about/special/archives/archivesandmanuscripts
Case Study:
**National Portrait Gallery** (2009)
The cataloguing of the archive of Sir George Scharf, first director of the National Portrait Gallery, reveals the story of how the Gallery developed in its early years. It made available Scharf’s sketchbooks of prominent people and the paintings held in many country houses, alongside his private diaries that contrast life in a booming Victorian London with the country retreats and art collections of great Victorian families. Quite unexpectedly, however, the treasure of the collection was neither art nor high society, but the relics of a medieval king. Cataloguing enabled the project archivist to connect diary entries with sketches, and to identify the contents of a cigarette box as mementoes from the opening of Richard II’s tomb. Scharf made detailed, measured drawings of the king’s skull, which may allow a forensic reconstruction of his appearance. This happy discovery gave the project a great media boost.
http://www.npg.org.uk/research/archive/archive-journeys/sir-george-scharf.php Reason two:
Cataloguing grants....
...open up new opportunities
Cataloguing projects create new opportunities for archive services and the professionals working in them to make positive changes and form new partnerships that go way beyond the project.
Some of our projects have opened up new opportunities to second professionally-qualified members of staff into new, more senior posts, and to backfill posts to offer first job opportunities to newly-qualified archivists. In a small sector where permanent posts can be hard to find, such opportunities for job mobility are valuable in developing individuals’ skills and experience and enriching both the service and the sector.
An externally-funded project increases the profile of collections, as in the case of Dorset History Centre’s Poole Pottery project (2007). Publicity around the project inspired the deposit of further previously unknown sections of the firm’s archive and related collections.
Grants to catalogue thematic collections can also offer new areas for study, as is the intention of the University of Nottingham project (2010) to develop its water and drainage archives as a focus for research into environmental change. The project created a Water Archives Forum for stakeholder organisations and academic advisors. The Forum makes connections across sectors to harness expertise for the benefit of cataloguing and for future partnerships. Case Study: Archives and Records Council Wales, ‘Powering the World’ (2008)
This major collaborative cataloguing project to look at Welsh industry through archives is co-ordinated by Archives and Records Council Wales (ARCW), running from 2009 to 2011. In 2006, a report showed that archives across Wales held uncatalogued records of key Welsh companies which had through their exports and innovations played a role in the industrial development of Wales and the world beyond. Ten of the top-scoring collections in Catalog Cymru were chosen for the collaborative grant application to the Cataloguing Grants Scheme and CyMAL: Museums Archives and Libraries Wales.
The project involves eight partner repositories. Two of the partners (Richard Burton Archives, Swansea University and the National Library of Wales) have acted as hosts for the project staff. This approach addresses the capacity constraints of individual services - a common problem associated with short term projects.
When the project ends, ARCW plans to use the opportunities provided by the Archives Wales website, together with the new online resource of the People’s Collection Wales, to publicise the newly-catalogued collections in the context of Wales’ contribution to the modern industrial world. It is hoped that this further promotional work will increase the use and awareness of Welsh business archives and may lead to future deposits of archive material in ARCW’s member repositories.
http://walespoweringtheworld.blogspot.com
Case Study: Sheffield Archives (2008)
The benefits that grants projects have brought to local communities have extended far beyond just enhancing collections management. An example is the Sheffield’s Heartbeat project, which gave an opportunity to Lena Abdo-Samed, a young apprentice on Sheffield City Council’s scheme to work in the archives in support of the cataloguing project. Lena’s work led to her getting a level 2 NVQ in Business and Administration. Lena said, ‘Before working at Sheffield Archives I didn’t know what an archive was. I’ve learnt about the work they do to make documents and historical records available.’
http://www.sheffield.gov.uk/libraries/archives-and-local-studies Projects describing collections are the start of a process which allows a huge variety of audiences to connect with original material. Many cataloguing projects have attracted expert and local volunteers in support, offering their knowledge to expand archive descriptions and make the archive as open and accessible as possible. The project based at Reading University (2009) worked with existing student volunteering services to offer students of English a chance to engage directly with famous publishers’ archives. The students contributed to the vital indexing work on the Longman and Macmillan collections.
Many archives have a special resonance for the area in which they are kept. A locally important family and business, such as Bealey’s of Radcliffe (Bury Archives Service 2009) became a core part of the local community, with their name on every public building, their former employees scattered across the local area, and even their former home now a public park. Cataloguing their archive has already provided the springboard for exhibitions, blogs, reminiscence work and remembrance displays that connect local people with the history and development of their area.
Cataloguing is at the heart of better public access to archives and attracts and creates new opportunities for volunteers and users.
Cataloguing grants.... ...bring people and collections together Case Study:
Warwickshire County Record Office (2009)
With a strong record of working with volunteers to open up its archive collections, it was an obvious choice for Warwickshire County Record Office to create a project for volunteers to support the transcribing of the fascinating correspondence of the Willes family. The Willes were important landlords in Leamington Spa, with Edward Willes being instrumental in the expansion of the town’s architecture and development during the 1820-30s.
A partnership between the record office and the Leamington History group ensured volunteers committed to the collection were recruited. The volunteers had the flexibility of transcribing from copies at home, and the responsibility of checking each other’s work. Up to 1000 volunteer hours meant that hundreds of letters were transcribed and are now available to the public. In celebration and recognition of the team’s work, events and presentation evenings were held to share their success with the local community. Adult learning resource packs have been created to further extend awareness of the collection and keep it alive.
http://www.warwickshire.gov.uk/archivesunlocked
Case Study:
University of Bradford Special Collections (2008)
The PaxCat project described and made available many archives of the British peace movement. With the funding they received, the Special Collections staff were able to raise the collection’s profile and explore the potential for using online as an affordable but innovative marketing and communications tool. A reflective blog by the project archivist, contributions to the Special Collections twitter feed and a flickr showcase have all helped to increase audiences for the collection. On site events included a drop-in session and the catalogue launch helped the service to reach new readers, raise funds and add appropriate new material to their holdings.
http://commonwealarchives.wordpress.com Reason four:
Cataloguing grants.... ...drive scholarship and research
Cataloguing enables researchers to understand the full context of records and to identify items which support their area of study.
Inaccessible, uncatalogued collections are too often invisible to researchers, offering them only a limited view of the surviving sources, and sometimes presenting only a partial view of the past. Researchers need access to collections that have good descriptions and arrangements in order to make new advances in scholarship.
Many of the cataloguing projects we fund have directly inspired academic research. Published scholarly editions of catalogued records include those of William Temple (Lambeth Palace Library 2006) and of Manchester Cathedral (Manchester Cathedral Archives 2006). Cataloguing the correspondence of Masonic Lodges in the Americas (Library and Museum of Freemasonry 2006) was the springboard for a new history of ‘Prince Hall’ masonry, as well as an exhibition and continuing research about individuals such as Lovelace Overton, a Caribbean man who served in the King’s Dragoon Guards. The vast archive of the stained-glass restorers G King & Son (Norfolk Record Office 2008) supports international stained glass research efforts such as the Corpus Vitrearum Medii Aevi. The archive offers exceptional new insights into the stained glass of the parish churches of East Anglia and the cathedrals of York, Canterbury and Wells among many other medieval buildings. These are important scholarly developments of lasting benefit in our understanding of these subjects. The cataloguing of the Mary Hamilton papers opened a key source for understanding the bluestocking circle, and many leading court figures of the late eighteenth century. Hamilton was a great correspondent and an important diarist. Her diaries and letters are a mine of gossip and information: from balloon ascensions to some examples of Samuel Johnson’s unflattering opinions of Oliver Goldsmith (who, among much else “knew very little of any subject he ever wrote upon…”). The potential of the collection was celebrated in a conference on women’s life writing in January 2011, which placed Hamilton in the context of literary practice of the period and among contemporaries such as Fanny Burney, Hester Thrale Piozzi and Hannah More.
http://www.library.manchester.ac.uk/maryhamilton
In 2008 two separate projects together demonstrated the importance of the glass industry to the West Midlands. The collections involved were quite different in focus but the combination of projects inspired a study day at the University of Birmingham to highlight this powerful regional industry. The Chance Brothers archive is a record of major industrial process, producing glass for lighthouses and laboratories among much else, while John Hardman & Co, the company which brought many of Augustus Pugin’s designs to fruition, dealt with some of the outstanding artistic design of the Victorian period. Hardman’s archive proved popular with visitors to an exhibition at Birmingham Central Library. As one visitor commented, “it’s good to know that so much of the firm’s records remain.” Powerful evidence of the changes wrought by the decay of local industry can be seen in many of the business records catalogued under this programme. The decline of the aluminium trade at Dolgarrog (Conwy Archive Service 2009), the Cornish china clay industry (Cornwall Record Office 2007) and steel production at Whitehaven (Cumbria Record Office 2006) all profoundly influenced their local areas. Cataloguing these archives has enabled communities to engage with their past and connect with those whose memories of change are a vital part of local identity.
The cataloguing of the news collections of the Media Archive of Central England (2007) has given the local community easier access to its moving image heritage, while the cataloguing of the Stoddard-Templeton archive (University of Glasgow Archives Service 2009) reminds Glaswegians that luxury carpets from their city graced the 1867 Exposition Universelle, the Mausoleum of Shah Abbas II at Kum, and even the Titanic.
Reason five:
Cataloguing grants....
...enrich communities
Communities across the United Kingdom are enriched by engagement with their history. Archives document the experiences of communities in change, for better and for worse. Case Study:
**Tyne and Wear Archives** (2007)
Shipbuilding on the Tyne was one of the most famous of regional industries. The Jarrow Marchers of the 1930s left a strong imprint of their defiant image on social history. The impact of the industry, its rise and decline, affected the whole Tyneside community, and remains a raw memory for many. Cataloguing the records of Swan Hunter and related companies allowed Tyne and Wear Archives to work with former shipyard employees on a Revisiting Archive Collections project. Local people benefited from direct contact with company documents and photographs, which helped archivists to appreciate the meaning and the significance these records hold for the community.
http://www.twmuseums.org.uk/archives
Case Study:
**North Yorkshire County Record Office** (2009)
‘All Human Life’ is the name of the North Riding Quarter Sessions cataloguing project. The ambitious name gives a taste of the richness of the North Riding Quarter Sessions which dealt with not only crime but issues which affected the whole community, from bridges to riots, cattle plague, the militia and local recusants. To bring history to life the Record Office is working through its Archives Ambassadors groups to reach more people across the county.
Kathleen Bowe, one of the volunteers giving her time to the project said, “These manuscripts are of great interest to those researching local and family history because they reveal the lives of ordinary people: their assaults on their neighbours, the petty theft, the poaching. Opening the documents is like reading the storyline of a modern ‘soap’ and over the years the rogues of the community emerge.”
http://archives.northyorks.gov.uk/dserve Reason six:
Cataloguing grants.... ...release the potential of archives
Archive cataloguing opens collections to new uses through greater understanding and visibility of the records. By their nature, archives contain the unexpected, the authentic flavour of lives lived and decisions taken. The name we choose to give to a collection reveals much, but also conceals much of what it may offer to researchers.
The grants given in the 2010 round of the programme will catalogue a huge range of collections and illuminate many subjects. We already know that they will cast light on the financial and legal struggles of a Bath family caught on both sides of the Peninsular War; that they will illustrate the development of British advertising; that they will reopen the debate about the early development of railway engineering and the unique genius of Robert Stephenson; and that they will tell the story of children’s efforts to help their disabled peers through co-operative action. The letters of Robert Owen and the 14th Earl of Derby can hardly fail to illuminate the social reform and politics of the nineteenth century. Exploring the colourful history of Sadler’s Wells will be an exciting way in to archives for many, and the archive of the National Union of Women Teachers will tell stories of feminism and female empowerment. Local history in Bedfordshire, Wiltshire, the Black Country, Rutland and the Trent Valley will be enriched.
This much we know. But we do not know what else will be discovered as a result of these grants, as these archives are explored and their full potential is released. George Howell illustrates an important point about archives: it is not only the famous names who create fascinating collections. A man like Howell, who was an able administrator involved in many progressive causes in the nineteenth century, amassed an archive which documents the gamut of late Victorian radicalism.
Perhaps of the most extraordinary interest are his notes and cuttings relating to the First International and the early Trades Union Congress, but these are only the best known of the organisations he supported and whose records he accumulated. Howell’s fame, such as it was, has not lasted well. But by cataloguing his archive, the records of many of the fascinating causes he espoused are once again revealed for researchers.
http://www.bishopsgate.org.uk/content/1076/George-Howell-Archive-Cataloguing-Project
Case Study: Bishopsgate Institute (2006)
JW Haines is little known today, but was a key figure on the cultural scene of the early 20th century. Although he was a writer himself, his significance lies in his nickname, the “friend of many poets”. He supported the careers of writers from Robert Frost to Edward Thomas, and his archive reflects this wide literary engagement.
Cataloguing the Haines correspondence dovetailed with two other important literary cataloguing projects at Gloucestershire Archives: the papers of John Moore and Ivor Gurney, both of whom were also Haines’ contacts. This sustained campaign has allowed connections to be made across the three archives, including identifying unattributed manuscripts in the Haines archive. The outcome is a much richer, more connected, understanding of a thriving literary network.
http://www.gloucestershire.gov.uk/index.cfm?articleid=15434
Case Study: Gloucestershire Archives (2007) The National Cataloguing Grants Scheme for Archives has been an outstanding success in its first five years. Funded projects have been of high quality, very sustainable and virtually all delivered on schedule and within budget. The capacity of the archive sector to deliver successful projects opening up collections has been fully demonstrated, with benefits going far beyond the production of individual collection catalogues. The possibilities inherent in a group of funders working together, and harnessing the sector intelligence and expertise of The National Archives have delivered, as promised, a funding stream to address a clear strategic need within the archives sector. Despite the challenging fundraising environment, a strong collaboration of key funders has endured and increased over the lifetime of the programme so far.
The need for funding for archive cataloguing remains acute. Annual rounds of the fund have consistently been oversubscribed by six to eight times, and each year many strong, well-planned projects do not receive funding. The quality of applications has improved over the course of the past five years, as archives have adopted a more strategic, prioritised approach to cataloguing backlogs and learned from the benefits demonstrated by earlier cataloguing projects. The success of the first five years makes an undeniable case for continuing this vital strategic funding stream.
It remains the case however that external funding cannot currently address the full scope of the national cataloguing backlog. Many uncatalogued collections, particularly of core records of parent organisations, are unlikely to attract project funding. Certain archive services, with particular legacy problems, have historic backlogs far larger than a two year project can tackle. There is a real need for further, alternative approaches to funding cataloguing. Parent organisations must recognise that cataloguing is a necessary first step on the road to access and fulfilling the potential of collections, and prioritise it accordingly. There is also space for larger grants to catalogue the biggest collections, or to reduce backlogs by many ‘archivist years’ through the application of bigger grants than has so far been possible through the National Cataloguing Grants Scheme.
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/information-management/our-services/cataloguing-grants-programme.htm
The future of archive cataloguing
The Pilgrim Trust would be delighted to hear from potential new funding partners to support the scheme.
If you would like to discuss becoming a scheme funder, please contact:
Georgina Nayler, Director The Pilgrim Trust Email: [email protected] Tel: 020 7222 4723
For enquiries about applications to the scheme, please contact:
Melinda Haunton, Programmes Manager The National Archives Email: [email protected] Tel: 020 8392 5330 Appendix One
The following bodies have been supporters of the scheme and have enabled the projects outlined in this review to reach their full potential. Our thanks to them for all their contributions which have made this cataloguing possible.
The Pilgrim Trust The Esmée Fairbairn Foundation The Foyle Foundation The Wolfson Foundation The Mercers’ Company The Goldsmiths’ Company The Monument Trust The Gladys Krieble Delmas Foundation The Charlotte Bonham Carter Foundation The J Paul Getty Jnr Charitable Trust The National Archives Appendix Two projects funded 2006-2010
National Grants Programmes
2010
- Bath Record Office (£4,475.50): “The Langton Inheritance”
- Bedfordshire and Luton Archive Service (£38,702): “Paths to Crime,” Bedfordshire Quarter Sessions Rolls 1832-1900
- Church of England Children’s Society (£40,506): “Including the Excluded,” Disability, Children and The Children’s Society 1889 to 1979
- Co-operative Heritage Trust (£31,122): “Father of Co-operation,” the Robert Owen papers
- Dorset History Centre (£19,125): “Town on the Hill,” the Shaftesbury borough archive
- History of Advertising Trust (£28,364): “Communicating the Creative Industries”: JWT archives
- Islington Local History Centre (£32,723.85): Sadler’s Wells Theatre Collection
- London University: Institute of Education (£34,986): National Union of Women Teachers archive
- Liverpool Record Office (£43,708.87): Personal and political papers of the Stanley family, Earls of Derby
- National Railway Museum (£12,800): “The North East’s Other Railway Family,” Hackworth family papers
- University of Nottingham (£25,384): Rivers, drainage and water supply: the lower Trent water authorities
- Record Office for Leicestershire, Leicester and Rutland (£33,990): “Rutland Phoenix,” the Noel family archive
- Tyne and Wear Archives and Museums (£38,800): “We mak’em,” the Sunderland shipbuilding archives
- Wiltshire and Swindon History Centre (£22,702): “From Salisbury to Tobago,” the Pleydell-Bouverie family archive
- Wolverhampton Archives and Local Studies Service (£36,468): the Smith, Son & Wilkie, accountants, archive
2009
- Bury Archives Service (£15,782): “Close Relations,” the Bealey’s of Radcliffe archive
- Conwy Archive Service (£14,526): Dolgarrog Aluminium Works archive
- East Riding of Yorkshire Archives (£23,739): “Crowns, Colonies and Countrymen,” the Calverley-Rudston family archive
- Gloucestershire Archives (£37,074.74): “From the Cotswolds to Westminster,” the Hicks Beach family, Earls of St Aldwyn
- Hertfordshire Archives and Local Studies (£29,673): “Unlocking the past,” Hawkins & Co solicitors of Hitchin
- John Rylands Library, University of Manchester (£22,728): “The Female Pepys,” the Mary Hamilton papers
- National Portrait Gallery Archive (£17,909): the Sir George Scharf papers
- North Yorkshire County Record Office (£41,527): “All Human Life,” the North Riding Quarter Sessions
- Reading University Special Collections (£38,165): Macmillan and Longman publishers cataloguing project
- University of Glasgow Archives Service (£39,990): “Glasgow Green to Bendigo,” the Stoddard-Templeton archive
- Warwickshire County Record Office (£32,701): Willes family archive 2008 (including a ringfenced sum for Eastern England, South East England, West Midlands, Yorkshire and the Humber, and Wales)
- Archives and Records Council Wales consortium bid (£40,000): ‘Powering the World’ - Welsh Industry through Archives
- Birmingham Archives and Heritage (£24,140): ‘A Window onto the World’ - the archive of John Hardman & Co
- University of Bradford Special Collections (£35,400): ‘PaxCat’ - archives of the British peace movement
- Norfolk Record Office (£31,000): G King & Son, lead glaziers and stained glass conservators
- Nottinghamshire Archives (£38,256): Southwell Minster archives
- Sandwell Community History and Archive Centre (£27,709): ‘The Infinite Uses of Glass’ - Chance Bros Ltd archive
- Sheffield Archives (£35,000): ‘Sheffield’s Heartbeat: Steel’ - the archives of Firth Brown
- Staffordshire and Stoke on Trent Archive Service (£33,940): Staffordshire Quarter Sessions bundles
- West Yorkshire Archive Service (£37,487): ‘The Harewood family and estate archive
- Worcestershire Record Office (£27,732): ‘Croome and Capability’ - archives of the Earls of Coventry
- Gloucestershire Archives (£12,880): John Wilton Haines, ‘the friend of many poets’
- Media Archive of Central England (£26,000): ‘The Changing Midlands,’ 30 years of regional news
- Somerset Record Office (£22,500): ‘Society and Justice in Somerset,’ cataloguing Quarter Sessions 1660-1800
- Tyne and Wear Archives Service (£38,404): the ‘COAST’ project (Cataloguing of archives of shipbuilding on the Tyne)
- Waterways Trust (£21,000): Visual Waterways- a photographic history of Britain’s canals
2006 (Scotland, London, North West England)
- Ayrshire Archives (£15,000): Ayrshire burghs archives
- Bishopsgate Library, London (£25,000): George Howell archive
- Cumbria Record Office, Whitehaven (£18,880): British Steel archive
- Dundee University Archives (£12,600): hospital, asylum and medical school records
- East Dunbartonshire Archives (£22,379): Lion Foundry Co. Ltd.
- Glasgow Caledonian University (£20,000): Scottish TUC archive
- Lambeth Palace Library (£8,383): papers of Archbishop William Temple
- Lancashire Record Office, Preston (£21,000): Kenyon family papers
- Library & Museum of Freemasonry, London (£13,000): correspondence with masonic lodges in the Americas
- Manchester Cathedral Archives (£11,698): 19th century estate records
- St Bartholomew’s Hospital Archives (£26,000): City and Hackney hospital group records
Pilot Scheme: Esmee Fairbairn and Pilgrim Trust-funded 2007 (South West England, North East England, East Midlands)
- Cornwall Record Office (£24,500): Fortescue family of Boconnoc papers
- Dorset History Centre (£24,800): Poole Pottery archive
- Exeter University (£21,403): ‘Writing Lives,’ archives of literary craft and kinship
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/4634-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 20,
"total-input-tokens": 37530,
"total-output-tokens": 7755,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
68,
1
],
[
68,
1938,
2
],
[
1938,
3830,
3
],
[
3830,
5209,
4
],
[
5209,
7174,
5
],
[
7174,
8592,
6
],
[
8592,
10800,
7
],
[
10800,
12179,
8
],
[
12179,
14119,
9
],
[
14119,
15711,
10
],
[
15711,
17286,
11
],
[
17286,
18499,
12
],
[
18499,
20218,
13
],
[
20218,
21827,
14
],
[
21827,
23604,
15
],
[
23604,
26507,
16
],
[
26507,
27046,
17
],
[
27046,
29714,
18
],
[
29714,
32507,
19
],
[
32507,
32507,
20
]
]
} |
86221e1aabdb088ab772fd8add4d56230da75a8c | Placing a regulated product on the market
Pre-market approval procedure for food and animal feed products and processes requiring authorisation.
Certain food and feed products, called regulated products, require authorisation before they can be sold in the UK.
Authorisation is required for the following regulated product types:
- extraction solvents
- feed additives
- feed for particular nutritional uses (PARNUTS)
- feed detoxification processes
- flavourings
- food contact materials
- food additives
- food enzymes
- genetically modified organisms (GMOs) as food and feed
- irradiated food
- novel foods
- smoke flavourings
For most regulated product types, once products or processes are authorised, they are listed in relevant legislation, which also sets out how they can be used. These lists are referred to as positive lists.
The positive lists for the following substances or processes are not currently set out in legislation:
- food enzymes
- food contact materials - recycled processes
- food contact materials - active and intelligent materials
Until the positive lists are in place, these products may be placed on the market if they meet requirements of:
- the General Food Law
- any general criteria in the food enzyme and food contact material legislation
You can find more information on these requirements, including when you will need to apply for authorisation of these products in Great Britain (GB), in our guidance for regulated products applicants.
If you are not sure whether your product requires authorisation, contact us at [email protected] Placing your product on the market in Great Britain
The FSA with Food Standards Scotland (FSS) will carry out a risk analysis process for regulated products and provide advice to ministers, who will decide whether the product can be placed on the market in England, Wales and Scotland. When a decision is made to authorise a product, this will mean a change to the legislation. The legislation will set out how the product can be used and any associated conditions of use.
Authorisation process
Our risk assessment will be carried out in accordance with the requirements of retained EU law and the guidance previously developed by EFSA. For more details on what you’ll need to supply with your application for each product type, read our guidance for regulated product applicants.
After you submit your application, we will carry out initial checks to make sure it contains all the necessary information. We will then carry out an assessment to decide if the product or process is safe to be placed on the market in England, Wales and Scotland. This will involve risk assessment by one of our Joint Expert Groups and/or Scientific Advisory Committees and a consideration of other legitimate factors (for example, risks to the environment). These will be combined to form an evidence package.
Based on this evidence, we will consider possible risk management options and make a recommendation to ministers. The ministers will then decide whether the product should be authorised for use in Great Britain. There will be an opportunity to comment on the application by taking part in a consultation during the risk analysis process and before the final recommendation is made. If a decision is taken to support an authorisation, the legislation will be updated to reflect the change.
The timing of the full risk analysis process will depend on how complex the application is and on the type of product. It is likely to be at least a year. For some products the deadlines are set in legislation.
Throughout the process we will keep in touch to clarify any elements of the application or to seek additional information if needed. If more information is needed to complete the evaluation, we will be able ‘stop the clock’ on an assessment and start it again once we receive the required information.
New authorisations
To apply for a new regulated product authorisation, use our regulated products application service.
Ongoing applications
If you submitted your application to the EU before 1 January 2021 and the assessment process has not been completed, you will need to submit your application to us using our regulated products application service. It will be worth including your EFSA question number in your submission.
This applies both to new authorisations and re-authorisation applications.
We may take into account the published EFSA opinion and the outcome of any risk management discussions at the end of the transition period (31 December 2020), but in some cases we may still need to carry out a full risk assessment and consider risk management options.
**Existing authorisations**
If your product or process has been authorised by the European Commission (EC) before 1 January 2021 and the necessary legislation applies, that authorisation will remain valid in the UK.
**Re-authorisations**
Re-authorisations are required every ten years for the following product types:
- genetically modified (GM) food and feed
- feed additives
- smoke flavourings
You can find more details on how when to apply for these in our [regulated products guidance](#).
**Getting help**
If you have any questions about authorisations of regulated products, contact us at [[email protected]](mailto:[email protected])
**Placing your product on the Northern Ireland market**
The EU law that applies to Northern Ireland is specified in Annex II to the [Northern Ireland Protocol](#). This means that any business seeking a new authorisation for a regulated food and feed product marketed in Northern Ireland will have to continue to follow EU rules.
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/4635-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 3,
"total-input-tokens": 5193,
"total-output-tokens": 1252,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
1597,
1
],
[
1597,
4590,
2
],
[
4590,
5680,
3
]
]
} |
2f426509718490c4074042343fa2e49097edff0c | The Great Plague 1665-1666
How did London respond to it? The Great Plague 1665-1666
How did London respond?
Introduction
Lesson at a Glance
Suitable For: KS3
Time Period: Early Modern 1485-1750
Curriculum Link: The development of Church, state and society in Britain 1509-1745
➢ Society, economy and culture across the period
Learning Objective: To closely examine a document in order to discover information.
To consider what daily life was like under the threat of plague.
Resources needed: Printed sources and questions
The Plague
This was the worst outbreak of plague in England since the black death of 1348. London lost roughly 15% of its population. While 68,596 deaths were recorded in the city, the true number was probably over 100,000. Other parts of the country also suffered.
The earliest cases of disease occurred in the spring of 1665 in a parish outside the city walls called St Giles-in-the-Fields. The death rate began to rise during the hot summer months and peaked in September when 7,165 Londoners died in one week.
Rats carried the fleas that caused the plague. They were attracted by city streets filled with rubbish and waste, especially in the poorest areas.
Those who could, including most doctors, lawyers and merchants, fled the city. Charles II and his courtiers left in July for Hampton Court and then Oxford. Parliament was postponed and had to sit in October at Oxford, the increase of the plague being so dreadful. Court cases were also moved from Westminster to Oxford.
The Lord Mayor and aldermen (town councillors) remained to enforce the King’s orders to try and stop the spread of the disease. The poorest people remained in London with the rats and those people who had the plague. Watchmen locked and kept guard over infected houses. Parish officials provided food. Searchers looked for dead bodies and took them at night to plague pits for burial.
All trade with London and other plague towns was stopped. The Council of Scotland declared that the border with England would be closed. There were to be no fairs or trade with other countries. This meant many people lost their jobs – from servants to shoemakers to those who worked on the River Thames. How did Londoners react to this plague that devastated their lives?
Useful Links
A journal of the plague years Read the online version of Daniel Defoe’s thoroughly researched reconstruction of 1665.
Eyam Village The plague did not only affect London. This tells the famous story of the village of Eyam in Derbyshire that deliberately isolated itself to stop the spread of the disease to nearby villages.
This resource was produced using documents from the collections of The National Archives. It can be freely modified and reproduced for use in the classroom only. The Great Plague 1665-1666
How did London respond?
Teacher’s notes
Contents:
Teacher’s notes: ........................................... 3 Source One: .................................................. 4 Source Two: .................................................. 6 Source Three: ............................................... 9 Further Activities: ....................................... 11
This lesson can be used at Key stage 3 for the National Curriculum programme of study into how the lives, beliefs, ideas and attitudes of people in Britain have changed over time.
The lesson considers the measures taken by King Charles II in response to the plague and the reactions of some of the people to these restrictions, as well as providing contemporary comment on the situation.
Background
There are three types of plague. Most of the sick in 1665-1666 had bubonic plague. This created swellings (buboes) in the lymph nodes found in the armpits, groin and neck. Plague sufferers experienced headaches, vomiting and fever. They had a 30% chance of dying within two weeks. This type of plague spread from a bite caused by a black rat flea that carried the Yersinia pestis bacteria.
Worse still was pneumonic plague, which attacked the lungs and spread to other people through coughing and sneezing, and septicaemic plague, which occurred when the bacteria entered the blood. In these cases, there was little hope of survival.
Treatments and prevention at the time did not help. Sometimes, patients were bled with leeches. People thought impure air caused the disease and could be cleansed by smoke and heat. Children were encouraged to smoke to ward off bad air. Sniffing a sponge soaked in vinegar was also an option.
As the colder weather set in, the number of plague victims started to fall. This was not due to any remedies used. Nor was it due to the fire of London that had destroyed many of the houses within the walls of the city and by the River Thames. (Many plague deaths had occurred in the poorest parishes outside the city walls.)
Some scientists suggest that the black rat had started to develop a greater resistance to the disease. If the rats did not die, their fleas would not need to find a human host and fewer people would be infected. Probably, people started to develop a stronger immunity to the disease. Also, in plague scares after 1666, more effective quarantine methods were used for ships coming into the country. There was never an outbreak of plague in Britain on this scale again. This letter was written by Henry Muddiman, a journalist who published newsletters and also wrote for the newly founded ‘London Gazette’. The letter is to Joseph Williamson, an important politician in Charles II’s government, who was Under Secretary to the Secretary of State.
Can you work out how many people died from the plague in the previous week?
What is the total for other causes of death for this week?
Can we rely on the figures given in this source? Give reasons for your answer
What did the job of a searcher involve? Transcript
The totall of the burialls this week 8252 plague 6978 increase 756 parishes infected 118. This Bill had numbered one more but for a remarkable providence which was thus. A Butcher in Newgate Market being by the Searchers given out to be dead of the Plague and by the neglect of the Boarders not carried away the same night was laid out in an upper room wither his daughter going next day the father beckoned to her and bade her bring him ale for he was cold. The daughter called up her mother who giving him clothes, the man took a pipe of tabacco eat a rabbit and on Sunday went to Church to give God thanks for his preservation.
Glossary
Bill – the weekly mortality bill which was a printed list of the number buried in each parish who died of the plague and of other causes
providence – intervention from God
Searchers – officials appointed to view dead bodies and to make reports on the cause of death
wither – where
tabacco – tobacco
preservation – safety or protection These are the orders for the prevention of the plague, made by the King in 1666.
How do orders 6, 7 and 8 aim to prevent the plague?
How long were infected houses shut up for?
What plague symptoms are described in these orders?
Which order suggests that plague was not a new problem in the 17th century?
Do you think any of these orders would have helped to prevent plague? Give reasons for your answer
Which officials concerned with the plague are named in this source? Make a list
In what ways does the source suggest that people at the time saw the plague as a punishment from God?
These orders are very strict, yet most people followed them. Can you suggest why? The Great Plague 1665-1666
How did London respond?
Transcript
RULES AND ORDERS To be observed by all Justices of Peace, Mayors, Bayliffs, and other Officers, for prevention of the spreading of the Infection of the PLAGUE. Published by His Majesties Special Command. ..
[Orders 1-5 say that no stranger was allowed to enter a town unless they had a certificate of health. No furniture was to be removed from an infected house. There were to be no public gatherings such as funerals and all houses were to be kept clean.]
06. That Fires in moveable Pans, or otherwise, be made in all necessary publique [public] Meetings in Churches, &c. and convenient Fumes to correct the Air be burnt thereon.
07. That care be taken that no unwholsom Meats, stinking Fish, Flesh, musty Corn, or any other unwholesome Food be exposed to sale in any Shops or Markets.
08. That no Swine, Dogs, Cats or tame Pigeons be permitted to pass up and down in Streets, or from house to house, in places Infected.
09. That the Laws against Inn-Mates be forthwith put in strict execution, and that no more Alehouses be Licensed then are absolutely necessary in each City or place, especially during the continuance of this present Contagion.
10. That each City and Town forthwith provide some convenient place remote from the same, where a pest-house, huts, or sheds may be erected, to be in readiness in case any Infection should break out; which if it shall happen to do, That able and faithful Searchers and Examiners be forthwith provided and Sworn to Search all suspected bodies, for the usual signs of the plague, viz. Swellings or Risings under the Ears or Arm-pits, or upon the Groynes [groin]; Blains, Carbuncles, or little Spots, either on the Breast or back, commonly called Tokens.
11. That if any House be Infected, the sick person or persons be forthwith removed to the said pest-house, sheds, or huts, for the preservation of the rest of the Family: And that such house (though none be dead therein) be shut up for forty days, and have a Red Cross, and Lord have mercy upon us, in Capital Letters affixed on the door, and Warders appointed, as well to find them necessaries, as to keep them from conversing with the sound.
12. That at the opening of each Infected house (after the expiration of the said Fourty Days) a White Cross be affixed on the said door, there to remain Twenty days more; during which time, or at least before any stranger be suffered to lodge therein, That the said house be well Fumed, Washed and Whited all over within with Lime; And that no Clothes, or Householdstuff be removed out of the said house into any other house, for at least Three months after, unless the persons so Infected have occasion to change their habitation.
13. That none dying of the Plague be buried in Churches, or Church-yards (unless they be large, and then to have a place assigned for that use (where other bodies are not usually buried) Boarded or Paled in Ten foot high) but in some other convenient places, and that a good quantity of unslakt Lime be put into the Graves with such bodies, and that such Graves be not after opened within the space of a year or more, less they infect others.
14. That in case any City, Burrough, Town or Village be so visited and Infected, that it is not able to maintain its own poor, That then a Rate be forthwith made by the adjoining Justices of the Peace, and confirmed at the very next Quarter Sessions, for that use, upon the neighbouring Parishes, according to the Statute 1 Jacobi [James 1], so that such visited poor may have sufficient Relief; want and nastiness being great occasions of the Infection.
15. That you your selves use your utmost endeavours, not only to see these Directions punctually observed, and be in a readiness to render an Accomt [Account] as often as you shall be required, but that you strictly enjoyn all high Constables, petty Constables, Headburroughs and other Officers, to execute their respective Duties according to their places; and if any shall fail herein, to use the utmost severity against them according to Law. What relates to Physitians, Chysurgeons, and such other persons as are necessary for the preservation and help of such who shall be Infected, the same is left to your particular care and direction. Lastly, That you take special care, that not onely [only] the Monethly Fasts, but that the publique prayers on Wednesdays and Fridays also, be strictly and constantly observed according to his Majesties Proclamation; And that such Collections as shall be then made, be strictly applied to the relief and necessities of the poor in Infected places, by which means God may be inclined to remove his severe hand both from amongst you and us.
Glossary affixed – attached Alehouses – places where ale (beer) was sold Bayliffs – bailiffs, officials who could enforce written orders issued by a court and carry out arrests Blains – sores, blisters Boarded or Paled – fenced Burrough – any place larger than a village Carbuncles – harmful tumours, caused by inflammation of the skin Chysurgeons – surgeons Contagion – epidemic enjoyn – direct, order expiration – end of the time limit forthwith – immediately habitation – place where people live Headburroughs – officers with the same role as petty constables herein – in this high Constable – officer with duties and powers to keep the peace Fumed – treated with fumes Justice of the Peace – magistrate with the power to deal with lesser crimes, perform marriages and administer oaths large – wealthy, important pest-house – a plague hospital, there were five in London holding about 600 people petty Constable – officer whose task was to keep the peace Physitians – physicians, doctors Proclamation – public announcement Quarter Sessions – a local court of limited powers that sat every three months Relief – public assistance, aid render – give Searchers – officials appointed to view dead bodies and report on the cause of death unwholsom – unhealthy viz.- that is Warders – guards or watchers of the locked up houses Source Three (a) – Letter from Thomas Povey
What do sources 3a and 3b reveal about people’s attitudes to the authorities during the plague?
This letter was written by Thomas Povey, a civil servant in the Naval Office who knew Samuel Pepys. The letter is to Joseph Williamson, an important politician in Charles II’s government, who was Under Secretary to the Secretary of State.
Transcript
... there having dyed more than 300 in Brentford and Isleworth, and Death is now become so familiar, and the People soe insensible of danger, that they look upon such as provide for the publick safety, as Tyrants and Oppressors, whilst neither the richer sort, will be brought to contribut, nor the meaner to submitt, though to their own apparant good, and preservation.
Glossary
insensible – not caring about, having no regard for
Tyrants – people who exercise power in a cruel way
meaner – low in social status, poor
preservation – safety, protection Source Three (b) – A case discussed at court
Record of a case discussed at court at Whitehall in the presence of Charles II, 28 April 1665
Transcript
Order to Lord Chiefe Justice to enquire after the Ryott about the houses infected
Upon Information given unto this Board, that the house, the Signe of the ship in the New buildings in St.Giles in the fields, was shutt up as suspected to bee infected with the Plague, and a Cross and paper fixed, on the doore; And that the said Cross and paper were taken off, and the door opened, in a riotious manner, and the people of the house permitted, to goe abroad into the street promiscuously, with others; It is this day ordered (his Majesty present in Councell) that the Lord Chiefe Justice, of his Majesty’s Bench, and other his Majesty’s Justices of the peace, for the County of Middlesex, bee and are hereby desired, to make dilligent and strict enquiry, after the offendors in the said Ryott; And inflict upon them, for such of them as they shall find, the severest punishments, the Right of the Law, will allow, against offenders in [?], of soe dangerous a consequence; And soe much to the contempt of his Majesty’s orders as theirs;
Glossary
Ryott – riot riotious – disorderly goabroad – go about promiscuously – freely dilligent – diligent, a thorough effort Further Activities
Pupils could attempt a piece of extended writing on the great plague of London using evidence from the lesson, plus this extract and others from the Diary of Samuel Pepys:
“16 October 1665 But Lord, how empty the streets are, and melancholy, so many poor sick people in the streets, full of sores, and so many sad stories overheard as I walk, everybody talking of this dead, and that man sick, and so many in this place, and so many in that. And they tell me that in Westminster there is never a physitian, and but one apothecary left, all being dead – but that there are great hopes of a great decrease this week. God send it.”
Pupils could create their own role play or drama set at the time using these sources.
Pupils could read extracts from Daniel Defoe’s ‘A Journal of the Plague Year’, 1722, which is available online.
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/4636-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 11,
"total-input-tokens": 21337,
"total-output-tokens": 4298,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
58,
1
],
[
58,
2781,
2
],
[
2781,
5310,
3
],
[
5310,
5843,
4
],
[
5843,
6837,
5
],
[
6837,
7512,
6
],
[
7512,
11475,
7
],
[
11475,
13560,
8
],
[
13560,
14512,
9
],
[
14512,
15829,
10
],
[
15829,
16678,
11
]
]
} |
c5d496e5fa8cbffd4877a7cdf4dcef28aed8b4d9 | Statistical notice Inclusion of new data to 2010 edition of the statistical bulletin ‘Statistics on deaths reported to coroners, England and Wales’
Published March 2010 Planned additions to 2010 edition of the statistical bulletin ‘Statistics on deaths reported to coroners, England and Wales’
Introduction
1. This note is to advise users of planned additions to the next edition of the National Statistics bulletin ‘Statistics of deaths reported to coroners, England and Wales’, which is due to be published 20 May 2010 and will report on deaths reported to coroners during 2009.
Summary
2. The annual bulletin presents statistics on the work of coroners in England and Wales. Data are obtained from statistical returns submitted by all coroners under the requirements of the Coroners Act 1988. The release presents figures on deaths reported to coroners, inquests and post mortems held, and verdicts returned. The publication also includes data on finds reported to coroners, inquests and verdicts, under Treasure legislation.
3. The 2010 edition of the bulletin will include, for the first time, summary statistics on the timeliness of inquests. Information on the time taken to conduct inquests has been collected from coroners since around 1995 in order to facilitate the management of the coroner service. Although these data have not previously been included within the annual statistical bulletin, this information has always previously been made available upon request (for example, in response to Parliamentary Questions or Freedom of Information Act requests).
4. For the purpose of determining the timeliness of inquests in the statistics, the time taken to conduct an inquest is deemed to be from the day the death was reported to the coroner until either (a) the day the inquest is concluded by the delivery of a verdict or (b) the day the coroner certifies that an adjourned inquest will not be resumed.
5. The average time for an inquest to be conducted is calculated in the following way. Coroners are asked in their annual return to state how many inquests were concluded within certain time periods (1 to 3 months, 3 to 6 months, etc.) All the inquests falling within a time-band are then assumed to have been completed at or near the mid-point of the various time-bands for the purposes of calculating the average. Numbers are then aggregated and the average figure (in weeks) estimated in the normal way.
6. Timeliness information is only collected in relation to inquests into deaths occurring within England and Wales. Deaths occurring elsewhere can be significantly delayed for various reasons, for example due to the difficulty of obtaining reports from other countries.
7. All statistics which appeared in the 2009 edition of the bulletin will continue to be published in the 2010 edition.
Contact details and further information
For queries, comments or further information on the issues set out in this note, please contact:
Justice Statistics Analytical Services Division Ministry of Justice 7th floor 102 Petty France London SW1H 9AJ Tel: 020 3334 3737 Email: [email protected]
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/4637-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 4,
"total-input-tokens": 5560,
"total-output-tokens": 833,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
170,
1
],
[
170,
1926,
2
],
[
1926,
3142,
3
],
[
3142,
3142,
4
]
]
} |
008d5263a22fc63b363e9af201f3dd863566b087 | Planned additions to 2009 edition of the statistical bulletin ‘Statistics on deaths reported to coroners, England and Wales’
This note is to advise users of planned additions to the next edition of the National Statistics bulletin ‘Statistics of deaths reported to coroners, England and Wales’, which is due to be published in mid-2009 (date yet to be confirmed) and will report on deaths reported to coroners during 2008.
The annual bulletin presents statistics on the work of coroners in England and Wales. Data are obtained from manual statistical returns submitted by all coroners under the Coroners Act 1988. The release presents figures on deaths reported to coroners, inquests and postmortems held, and finds reported to coroners under treasure legislation.
It is planned that the 2009 edition of the bulletin will include, for the first time, new statistics on the age of the deceased at the time of death for those inquests where a verdict was returned by the coroner during the year. This age data will be collected in six bands:
- under 1 year
- 1 to 14 years
- 15 to 24 years
- 25 to 44 years
- 45 to 64 years
- 65 years and over.
There will also be an ‘age not known’ category to cover any remaining cases. The age bands have been chosen to tie in with those used elsewhere in official demographic statistics.
As brand new statistics, there may be some issues with regards the quality of data collected. Ministry of Justice statisticians will carefully review the quality and completeness of the data collected from coroners, with reference to the relevant codes of practice, before they are published as National Statistics.
The new data on the age of the deceased where an inquest verdict was returned will be collected in Section B of the statistical return. There will also be a new ‘corporate manslaughter’ category of inquest adjournment in Section C, following the coming into effect in April 2008 of the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007.
All statistics in the 2008 edition of the bulletin will continue to be published in the 2009 edition.
For any queries regarding these additions to the annual statistics, please contact the Economics and Statistics Division of the Ministry of Justice at [email protected].
Economics and Statistics Division Ministry of Justice December 2008
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/4638-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 1,
"total-input-tokens": 1977,
"total-output-tokens": 577,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
2352,
1
]
]
} |
faa7345c2c2d4dbfb6f0a1f3646d9766eb491adf | Planning on the doorstep
planning and the big issues: Rural Housing
Steve Barker
16th January 2014 What planning can do to deliver homes in rural areas?
Planning Advisory Service Workshop
Presented by: Lin Cousins - Three Dragons Jo.Lavis - Rural Housing Solutions First, YOUR thoughts.....?
Is planning for rural housing different?
• Is there anything different about the type of housing that we might want to provide in rural areas?
• Are there different circumstances/factors that affect what or how we deliver in rural areas? We will look at
• National policy and guidance for housing in rural areas
• What this looks like in practice
• Explore with you Viability - the key stone to delivery
• Offer ways you can ensure rural housing is part of your council’s planning approach NPPF: Foundation Stone
3 Ps
- positive
- plan-led
- proactive
R Responsive to different circumstances
E Explicit/specific requirements for rural areas NPPF: Development in Rural Areas
Support development in rural areas to create:
✓ prosperous rural economy – all types of businesses ✓ thriving communities
Requires responsiveness to rural circumstances:
EG: not applying sequential approach to location of small scale rural business
different approaches to sustainable transport – not rule out rural development on ‘use of the car’ grounds NPPF: HOUSING Wide choice – Quality Homes
• Must deliver to meet objectively assessed need • Must have 5 year deliverable site supply (+5% - 20%) • Identify size/tenure and type for particular locations • Policies for providing affordable housing – preferably on site NPPF: Rural housing
**Plan** to meet local needs for market and particularly affordable housing
Consider allowing market housing where will significantly increase affordable to meet local need
Locate development where it will enhance vitality of community – **hubs and clusters**
Avoid isolated dwellings in the countryside National Planning Guidance: Rural Housing
“Assessing housing need and allocating sites should be considered at a strategic level and through the Local Plan and/or neighbourhood plan process.
However, all settlements can play a role in delivering sustainable development – and so blanket policies restricting housing development in some settlements and preventing other settlements from expanding should be avoided unless their use can be supported by robust evidence.” Evidence Requirements
**Housing Need Assessments**
- Sub-market analysis
- Use of existing data over surveys
- Include:
- Population projections and structure
- Housing market signals
- prices/rents
- affordability
- turnover
**Land Availability Assessment**
- Building Evidence for your rural policies
- Housing Needs Assessments
- Use range of existing data
- Ward level data at a minimum
- ONS Neighbourhood Stats
- County Council research team(?)
- CBL/Waiting list data at settlement level
- level and type of need & turnover
- Land availability assessment
- ALL sites
- Call for land includes all sites/ landowners/local publicity Policy should address divergences between local conditions and comparator areas within and outside the LA. Community Led Housing
Needs supportive Local Plan Framework for: housing development – including affordable policies for community led development
LAs legal duty to support Neighbourhood Plans through:
- technical assistance – e.g. evidence/planning advice
- organising the independent examination
- responsible for organising the community referendum
Some LAs incorporating Community Plans into Local Plan Example
Shropshire Council – Development Strategy (Policy CS4)
– 35% of development to rural areas – Communities put themselves forward as possible ‘hub’ or ‘cluster’ – Intense community engagement in deciding type of development needed – Rewards for accepting development Example
Harrogate Borough Council
• Differential rural affordable housing policies – threshold = – Affordable housing requirement = on sites \<3 units 40% in rural – Allocates rural exception sites with • Affordable Rent/Shared Equity (50%) • Cross subsidy from local needs sale housing – Resale price pegged at affordable value Example
Cornwall Council Cross-subsidy on rural exception sites
- Must meet proven need and have community support
- Target 60% affordable housing
- Land price set at no more than £13k per plot
- Unfettered open market provides cross-subsidy ANY QUESTIONS? EXERCISE
Without discussion - please will each person at your table rank the four policies from 1 to 4 1 is for most effective in your area 4 is the least useful?
Then please add up the scores so your table can see the overall ranking of policies at your table.
Discussion points: • What are the strengths of the most 'popular' policy and why is this? • What would you change to improve the least well rated policy? • Policy Example 4 deals with Rural Exception Sites - does this cover everything you want to see in a RES policy Understanding viability helps you meet the challenges
• Cannot ignore........
• Informed assessments = mutual understanding/ transparency = saves time and resources = informs policies
• Evidence = Defensible plans, CIL and decisions
SECURES THE BEST DEAL AVAILABLE Viability
• A first mention in C6/98! – increasingly visible..! • NPPF – ‘sites and the scale of development ... should not be subject to such a scale of obligations and policy burdens that their ability to be developed viably is threatened’ and “provide a competitive returns to a willing land owner and willing developer” • Viability of whole plan (including SHLAA) + individual schemes • NPG – no single approach to assessing viability! Viability – rural dimension
An additional rural option for delivery........
Consider whether “...some market housing would facilitate the provision of significant additional affordable housing to meet local needs..”
(will look at the implications of this later...) Gives us 3 potential housing scheme types........
| Allocated sites in Local Plan | Residual valuation drives land price | |-------------------------------|-------------------------------------| | With affordable housing contribution | Market return for landowner | | (part of 5 yr land supply) | |
| Windfall site | Residual valuation drives land price | |--------------------------------|-------------------------------------| | With affordable housing contribution | Market return for landowner |
| Rural Exception site | Value reflects that this is not a site | |--------------------------------|----------------------------------------| | Primary function to provide | allocated for market development | | affordable housing | BUT landowner will want more than | | | agric value | Viability principles
“We recommend that the residual land value approach is taken when assessing the viability of plan-level policies....” Residual value – basic building blocks
Total development value
[ \\text{Minus} ]
Development costs (incl. build costs and return to developer)
= Gross residual value
[ \\text{Minus} ]
CIL + planning obligations (including AH)
= Net residual value (available to pay for land) But this is not just about AH......
Whole plan viability
- Affordable housing
- Quality - CfSH
- Dwelling type and sizes
- S106 and CIL Impact of recent changes to funding policy on viability
- Cut in HCA grant by 40%
- Cut in grant rates by 50%
- Higher cost of loans
- Affordable Rent – may help Impact of local needs and perpetuity policies on viability
• Too restrictive = risk to lenders (development and mortgage)
No lending = no funding = no delivery
• Keep local connection criteria realistic • Have wide final geography for cascade • Appropriate timescales within cascade REFRESHMENT BREAK BREAK BREAK Demonstration of ‘basic’ viability model Viability exercise
• What key trade-offs does the model highlight for you?
• What other factors might affect viability that are not covered in the basic model?
• What is the key information you need for decision making (plan or scheme specific)? Exercise Viability
• Looking back at the sample policies, does what you now understand about viability change your scores? Councillors are Leaders
- Within the community
- Within the Council
- Training/master classes – Cornwall
- Part of the Development Team - Test Valley
- Visits and feedback – Derbyshire Dales Exercise
• What do you think is the role of a councillor – In policy development – In scheme specific proposals
• What would help you/your councillors fulfill their role Key points What will YOU do?
• On the post card write down an action that you will take as a result of this event
• Put it somewhere safe (but don’t forget where)
• Do it! Thank You Come and see us
Sign up for newsletter.
@pas_team
Knowledge Hub email [email protected] web www.pas.gov.uk phone 020 7664 3000
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/4639-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 37,
"total-input-tokens": 43678,
"total-output-tokens": 3232,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
102,
1
],
[
102,
270,
2
],
[
270,
538,
3
],
[
538,
794,
4
],
[
794,
948,
5
],
[
948,
1342,
6
],
[
1342,
1611,
7
],
[
1611,
1939,
8
],
[
1939,
2410,
9
],
[
2410,
3079,
10
],
[
3079,
3186,
11
],
[
3186,
3597,
12
],
[
3597,
3872,
13
],
[
3872,
4226,
14
],
[
4226,
4471,
15
],
[
4471,
4486,
16
],
[
4486,
5022,
17
],
[
5022,
5299,
18
],
[
5299,
5740,
19
],
[
5740,
6008,
20
],
[
6008,
6946,
21
],
[
6946,
7086,
22
],
[
7086,
7370,
23
],
[
7370,
7508,
24
],
[
7508,
7671,
25
],
[
7671,
7957,
26
],
[
7957,
7987,
27
],
[
7987,
8028,
28
],
[
8028,
8277,
29
],
[
8277,
8401,
30
],
[
8401,
8594,
31
],
[
8594,
8770,
32
],
[
8770,
8781,
33
],
[
8781,
8945,
34
],
[
8945,
8955,
35
],
[
8955,
9022,
36
],
[
9022,
9088,
37
]
]
} |
d5594d06bbb1012bc60a0bcca2255618e1840640 | 1. WELCOME AND MINUTES OF LAST MEETING
1.1 The co-chairs welcomed members. Apologies were received from District Judge Karim Ezzat.
1.2 The minutes and actions arising from the last meeting were agreed.
2. NDIP ACTION PLAN
2.1 The majority of actions under NDIP had been completed with the remaining actions on track to be completed by June.
2.2 There was an update from the recent NPCC disclosure leads event which aimed to instil a culture change amongst officers and create a network for the leads.
2.3 Greg McGill was holding regular meetings with Chief Crown Prosecutors which emphasised good casework strategy in the approach to disclosure.
2.4 The members agreed that it would be useful if HMRC were represented in the Forum.
3. NATIONAL DISCLOSURE STANDARDS AND DISCLOSURE DOCUMENTS
3.1 There was an update on the DMD and MG3 insert which were now being used in a three month trial in RASSO and CCU cases.
3.2 Members were invited to comment on the following draft documents:
- National Disclosure Standards
- Joint Protocol on Third Party Material
- Index of Third Party Material • Template letters for Third Party material
The Forum agreed that the draft National Disclosure Standards should be amended to include a section on the Joint Protocol and a section on changing the culture in the approach to unused material.
3.3 There was a discussion about the test for relevant and non-relevant material and how material was reviewed and recorded during the life of a case. It was clarified that the schedules of unused material recorded relevant material and that there was no legal obligation to record non-relevant material.
4. PRESUMPTION OF DISCLOSURE
4.1 There was a discussion on the pros and cons of having a rebuttable presumption of disclosure for certain classes of document which usually do turn out to satisfy the CPIA criteria for disclosure (e.g. CRIS.) Members had mixed views on this idea and were invited to provide the AGO with views from their organisations by the end of May.
5. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL’S DISCLOSURE REVIEW
5.1 Should the review make any recommendations requiring changes to the Attorney General’s Guidelines or Statutory Instruments there would be a process of consultation on the proposed changes.
6. AOB
6.1 There was no other business and the meeting closed.
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/0313-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 2,
"total-input-tokens": 3870,
"total-output-tokens": 590,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
1100,
1
],
[
1100,
2322,
2
]
]
} |
e2ff68d360cf4ab20a31391699dcd891df7a6914 | 2018 UK Provisional Greenhouse Gas Emissions
2018 UK greenhouse gas emissions are provisionally estimated to be lower than in 2017
- Total greenhouse gas emissions fell by 3%
- Temperature adjusted emissions fell by 4%
- Between 2017 and 2018
Total Greenhouse Gas emissions
- 449 MtCO₂e
Carbon dioxide emissions
- 364 MtCO₂e
Decrease in the use of coal for electricity generation led to reduced emissions
Adjusting emissions for external temperature does not change the long term trend
While actual emissions fell by 3%
- Temperature adjusted emissions fell by 4%
- Between 2017 and 2018
2018 annual average temperature warmer than long term average by
- 0.7°C
Temperature adjusted emissions estimates remove the estimated effect of external temperatures
- Emissions are calculated for each quarter, with the preceding four quarters summed to create a rolling annual total
The energy supply sector experienced the largest reduction in CO₂ emissions from 2017-2018
| Energy supply (including power sector) | 2017-2018 % change | 1990-2018 % change | |---------------------------------------|---------------------|---------------------| | Energy supply (including power sector) | 7% | 59% | | Business | 0% | 41% | | Transport | 3% | 3% | | Residential | 3% | 16% | | Public | 4% | 39% |
The reduction in power sector emissions has been driven by a shift away from using coal for electricity generation towards gas and renewables
For the sectors not included here, provisional CO₂ estimates for 2018 cannot be made as they cannot be derived from the energy statistics. Final 2018 estimates for all sectors will be published in February 2020, which will include total emissions by sector.
Further information: [www.gov.uk/government/collections/provisional-uk-greenhouse-gas-emissions-national-statistics](http://www.gov.uk/government/collections/provisional-uk-greenhouse-gas-emissions-national-statistics)
Enquiries: [[email protected]](mailto:[email protected])
Responsible statistician: Amanda Penistone Tel: 0300 068 8090
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/0314-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 1,
"total-input-tokens": 3016,
"total-output-tokens": 610,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
2358,
1
]
]
} |
cd555933be936dca182dd553bfbb3ed54285e268 | 2018 UK GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS, PROVISIONAL FIGURES
Statistical Release: National Statistics Executive Summary
This publication provides the latest estimates of 1990-2018 UK greenhouse gas emissions which are presented in carbon dioxide equivalent units throughout this statistical release.
Key findings
The provisional estimates suggest that in 2018, total UK greenhouse gas emissions were 43.5 per cent lower than in 1990 and 2.5 per cent lower than 2017.
The provisional emissions figures rely on provisional estimates of carbon dioxide emissions based on UK energy statistics. In 2018, UK net emissions of carbon dioxide were provisionally estimated to be 364.1 million tonnes (Mt), 2.4 per cent lower than the 2017 figure of 373.2 Mt. Carbon dioxide (CO₂) is the main greenhouse gas, accounting for 81 per cent of total UK greenhouse gas emissions.
The decrease in carbon dioxide emissions was driven by the continuing downward trend in emissions from power stations, with a 9.9 per cent decrease between 2017 and 2018. This is mainly as a result of changes in the fuel mix used for electricity generation, away from coal and towards renewables.
The sectoral breakdowns for provisional emissions are based on the source of the emissions. Emissions related to electricity generation are therefore attributed to power stations, the source of these emissions, rather than the households, public sector, businesses, etc. where the electricity is used. Figure 1: Summary of key findings
2018 UK greenhouse gas emissions are provisionally estimated to be lower than in 2017
- Actual emissions fell by 3%
- Temperature adjusted emissions fell by 4%
- Between 2017 and 2018
Decrease in the use of coal for electricity generation led to reduced emissions
- 2018 annual average temperature warmer than long term average by 0.7°C
Adjusting emissions for external temperature does not change the long term trend
The energy supply sector experienced the largest reduction in CO₂ emissions from 2017-2018
| Energy supply (including power sector) | 2017-2018 % change | 1990-2018 % change | |---------------------------------------|---------------------|---------------------| | Business | 0% | 41% | | Transport | 3% | 3% | | Residential | 3% | 16% | | Public | 4% | 39% |
The reduction in power sector emissions has been driven by a shift away from using coal for electricity generation towards gas and renewables
For the sectors not included here, provisional CO₂ estimates for 2018 cannot be made as they cannot be derived from the energy statistics. Final 2018 estimates for all sectors will be published in February 2020, which will include total emissions by sector. Introduction
This publication provides provisional annual and quarterly estimates of UK greenhouse gas emissions by source sector for 2018. It also provides an estimate of temperature adjusted emissions, which give an idea of overall trends in emissions without fluctuations due to changes in external temperature.
Data for 1990-2017 are consistent with the annual emissions presented in the National Statistics publication 2017 Final UK Greenhouse Gas Emissions statistics. Data for 2018 emissions are provisional and are calculated based on UK energy statistics.
The provisional estimates of carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions are based on provisional inland energy consumption statistics, which are being published at the same time by BEIS in the quarterly Energy Trends publication. Estimates of non-CO₂ gases are based on a simple approach which assumes that emissions of non-CO₂ gases in 2018 will change from the 2017 total in line with the percentage difference between the estimates for the 2017 and 2018 of non-CO₂ emissions in the 2018 Energy and Emissions Projections published by BEIS, and that these emissions will be spread evenly over the year.
Quarterly emissions estimates are presented as a moving annual total up to a particular quarter. For example when quarterly emissions are presented as up to quarter 4, 2018, this represents an annual total comprising the latest quarter (quarter 4 2018) and the preceding 3 quarters (quarters 1, 2 and 3 of 2018). Presenting the data in this way has some advantages over presenting data for single quarters, since seasonal fluctuations are smoothed out and long term trends highlighted. Data on emissions in individual quarters are available in the data tables published alongside this publication.
There are uncertainties associated with all estimates of greenhouse gas emissions. Although for any given year considerable uncertainties may surround the emissions estimates for a pollutant, it is important to note that trends over time are likely to be much more reliable. It is also important to note that the provisional 2018 estimates are subject to a greater range of uncertainty than the final figures for earlier years. For more information on uncertainties see the annex published alongside the 2017 Final UK Greenhouse Gas Emissions statistics. For the purposes of reporting, greenhouse gas emissions are allocated into sectors as follows:
- Energy supply
- Business
- Transport
- Public
- Residential
- Agriculture
- Industrial process
- Land use, land use change and forestry (LULUCF)
- Waste management
These high-level sectors are made up of a number of more detailed sectors, which follow the definitions set out by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)(^1) and which are used in international reporting tables which are submitted to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)(^2) every year. It is important to note that these figures are based on provisional energy data and are subject to change. The sectoral breakdown is given mainly for information, and is included in the publication for completeness, but sectoral estimates are more uncertain than the overall total.
The provisional estimates are not used for any formal reporting of how the UK is performing against its emissions reduction targets, as this requires final estimates based on the UK’s greenhouse gas inventory. However, these statistics give policy makers and other users an initial steer as to the trend in emissions between 2017 and 2018, which helps them to form an initial assessment of the extent to which the UK is on track to meet targets. For information on UK emissions targets and progress towards them, see the [2017 Final UK Greenhouse Gas Emissions statistics](https://unfccc.int/).
More information about the underlying methodology for the provisional emissions statistics can be found in the accompanying [methodology summary](https://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/).
Note that all 2018 greenhouse gas emissions and energy statistics figures in this statistics release are provisional and subject to change. The annual provisional emissions estimates will be subject to revision when the final estimates are published in February 2020; however, they provide an early indication of emissions for the most recent full calendar year. We recommend that users look at this trend rather than any absolute figures.
______________________________________________________________________
(^1) [https://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/](https://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/)
(^2) [https://unfccc.int/](https://unfccc.int/) 2018 annual provisional emissions results
In 2018, an estimated 33 per cent of carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions were from the transport sector, 27 per cent from energy supply, 18 per cent from business and 18 per cent from the residential sector.
Between 2017 and 2018, provisional estimates indicate that carbon dioxide emissions decreased by 2.4 per cent (9.1 million tonnes (Mt)).
Table 1: UK annual greenhouse gas emissions, 1990-2018, headline results
| | 1990 | 1995 | 2000 | 2005 | 2010 | 2015 | 2017 | 2018 (p) | |----------------------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|----------| | Energy supply | | | | | | | | | | from power stations | 242.1 | 210.3 | 204.0 | 219.1 | 197.3 | 137.6 | 106.0 | 98.3 | | other Energy supply | 203.0 | 163.0 | 158.7 | 173.1 | 157.3 | 104.1 | 72.4 | 65.2 | | Business | 111.9 | 108.9 | 108.7 | 96.9 | 78.2 | 69.5 | 66.1 | 65.9 | | Transport | 125.4 | 126.8 | 131.0 | 134.3 | 123.4 | 122.2 | 124.6 | 121.4 | | Public | 13.4 | 13.2 | 12.1 | 11.1 | 9.4 | 7.9 | 7.8 | 8.1 | | Residential | 78.3 | 79.6 | 85.6 | 82.5 | 84.5 | 64.5 | 64.1 | 65.9 | | Agriculture | 6.5 | 6.5 | 5.5 | 6.1 | 5.4 | 5.5 | 5.6 | 5.6 | | Industrial process | 19.4 | 17.7 | 16.9 | 16.3 | 10.6 | 12.1 | 10.2 | 10.0 | | Waste management | 1.3 | 1.0 | 0.5 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.3 | | LULUCF | -2.0 | -3.9 | -6.0 | -8.9 | -10.7 | -11.2 | -11.3 | -11.3 | | Total CO₂ | 596.3 | 560.1 | 558.3 | 557.9 | 498.3 | 408.3 | 373.2 | 364.1 | | Other greenhouse | 198.0 | 185.4 | 149.2 | 125.8 | 102.5 | 89.6 | 87.0 | 84.4 | | gases | | | | | | | | | | Total greenhouse | 794.4 | 745.6 | 707.5 | 683.7 | 600.9 | 498.0 | 460.2 | 448.5 |
Source: Table 1, Provisional UK greenhouse gas emissions national statistics 1990-2018 Excel data tables
Notes:
1. (p) 2018 estimates are provisional.
2. Provisional 2018 CO₂ emissions for the agriculture, waste and LULUCF sectors are assumed to be the same as 2017 estimates as unlike other CO₂ estimates these cannot be estimated from energy statistics.
3. The entire time series is revised each year to take account of methodological improvements in the UK emissions inventory.
4. Emissions are presented as carbon dioxide equivalent in line with international reporting and carbon trading. To convert carbon dioxide into carbon equivalents, divide figures by 44/12.
5. Figures shown do not include any adjustment for the effect of the EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETS), which was introduced in 2005.
6. Totals for CO₂ emissions, energy supply and total greenhouse gases may not sum due to rounding.
7. Estimates of non-CO₂ gases are based on a simple approach which assumes that emissions of non-CO₂ gases in 2018 will change from the 2017 total in line with the percentage difference between the estimates for the 2017 and 2018 of non-CO₂ emissions in the 2018 Energy and Emissions Projections published by BEIS. Carbon dioxide emissions in the energy supply sector decreased by 7.2 per cent (7.7 Mt), between 2017 and 2018 driven by a change in the fuel mix for electricity generation. There was also a fall of 2.6 per cent (3.2 Mt) in transport carbon dioxide emissions. Changes in transport emissions are usually as a result of traffic volumes or improvements in fuel efficiency.
These falls in emissions between 2017 and 2018 were partially offset by a 2.8 per cent (1.8 Mt) increase in residential carbon dioxide emissions owing to an increase in the amount of natural gas used for heating. This is likely to be due to a difference in weather conditions between the two years. Adjusting for temperatures suggests there would have been a 1.5 per cent decrease in residential carbon dioxide emissions without the effect of temperature changes.
Since 1990, UK carbon dioxide emissions have decreased by 39 per cent. This decrease has resulted mainly from changes in the mix of fuels being used for electricity generation, with a shift away from coal and growth in the use of renewable energy sources. This was combined with lower electricity demand, owing to greater efficiency resulting from improvements in technology and a decline in the relative importance of energy intensive industries.
Overall inland energy consumption is provisionally estimated to have decreased by 11 per cent since 1990, and if this figure is adjusted to allow for the effect of temperature, there was a 13 per cent decrease over this period.
**Figure 2: Actual and temperature adjusted greenhouse gas emissions, UK, Year ending Q1 2009 - Year ending Q4 2018 (MtCO₂e)**
Source: Tables 3 & 4, Provisional UK greenhouse gas emissions national statistics 1990-2018 Excel data tables
Note: 1. Figures are annual totals including the preceding 4 quarters. 2. From year ending Q1 2018 onwards, figures include provisional data. As shown in Figure 2 above, temperature adjusting greenhouse gas emissions show a similar overall trend to non-temperature adjusted emissions. On a temperature adjusted basis, greenhouse gas emissions decreased by 23 per cent between 2009 and 2018, similar to the fall in actual emissions over this period (24 per cent).
**Energy Supply**
The energy supply sector was the largest contributor to the decrease in carbon dioxide emissions between 2017 and 2018. Carbon dioxide emissions from this sector were provisionally estimated to be 98.3 Mt in 2018, a decrease of 7.2 per cent (7.7 Mt) compared to 2017.
This fall was mainly as a result of a 9.9 per cent (7.2 Mt) fall in carbon dioxide emissions from power stations. In 2018, carbon dioxide emissions from power stations, at 65.2 Mt, accounted for 18 per cent of all carbon dioxide emissions. Overall emissions from power stations were 68 per cent lower in 2018 than in 1990. This is despite consumption of electricity being provisionally estimated to be around 8 per cent higher in 2018 than in 1990 (although it peaked in 2005 and has decreased since then).
This decrease has mainly resulted from changes in the mix of fuels being used for electricity generation with a switch from coal to natural gas and growth in the use of renewable energy sources, combined with greater efficiency resulting from improvements in technology and a decline in the relative importance of energy intensive industries. In 2018 coal made up only 7 per cent of fuel used for electricity generation, down from 65 per cent in 1990. Nuclear and renewables, which are low carbon energy sources, accounted for 47 per cent of fuel used for electricity generation in 2018, up from 22 per cent in 1990. Figure 3: Fuel mix for UK electricity generation, 1990-2018 (Million tonnes of oil equivalent)
Source: Table 5.1.1, Digest of UK Energy Statistics (DUKES) 1970-2017 and Table 5.1 Energy Trends: March 2019 Excel data tables Note: (p) 2018 estimates are provisional.
Figure 4: Carbon dioxide emissions from electricity generation, UK, 1990-2018 (MtCO₂)
Source: Tables 1 & 2, Provisional UK greenhouse gas emissions national statistics 1990-2018 Excel data tables Note: (p) 2018 estimates are provisional. Residential and Public sectors
The main source of emissions in these sectors is the use of natural gas for heating (and for cooking in the case of the residential sector). It should be noted that emissions from these sectors do not include the emissions from the generation of the electricity consumed, as these emissions are included in the energy supply sector.
In 2018, the residential sector emitted 65.9 MtCO₂, accounting for 18 per cent of all carbon dioxide emissions. Emissions from the public sector were 8.1 MtCO₂ accounting for 2 per cent of all carbon dioxide emissions. Between 1990 and 2018 carbon dioxide emissions from the residential sector have fallen by 16 per cent.
Between 2017 and 2018:
- There was a 2.8 per cent (1.8 Mt) increase in residential emissions.
- There was 4.5 per cent (0.3 Mt) increase in emissions from the public sector
These increases can largely be explained by colder weather in Q1 2018 than the previous year. On a temperature adjusted basis between 2017 and 2018:
- There was a 1.5 per cent (1.1 Mt) decrease in residential emissions.
- There was a 1.6 per cent (0.1 Mt) increase in emissions from the public sector Transport sector
In 2018, carbon dioxide emissions from the transport sector were 121.4 Mt, 2.6 per cent (3.2 Mt) lower than in 2017, and 3.2 per cent lower than in 1990. In 2018 transport accounted for a third (33 per cent) of all carbon dioxide emissions. The large majority of emissions from transport are from road transport.
Driven by continual growth in vehicle kilometres travelled on roads(^3), transport carbon dioxide grew to a peak in 2007, 8.5 per cent higher than in 1990. Since then emissions from this sector have fallen back to around 1990 levels, driven mainly by improvements in new car fuel efficiency(^4), as well lower traffic growth than in previous years as a result of a dip following the 2008/2009 recession.
It should be noted that these estimates do not include emissions from international aviation and shipping. Domestic aviation and shipping, however, are included.
Business sector
Carbon dioxide emissions from the business sector were estimated to be 65.9 Mt in 2018 and accounted for around 18 per cent of all carbon dioxide emissions. This was similar to the emissions seen in 2017. There has been a 41 per cent decrease in business sector emissions since 1990. Most of this decrease came between 2001 and 2009, with a significant drop in 2009 likely to have been driven by economic factors.
Other sectors
For the *agriculture*, *waste management*, and *land use, land use change and forestry* (LULUCF) provisional CO(\_2) emissions cannot be derived based on energy statistics, so the carbon dioxide emissions from these sectors are assumed to be the same as they were in 2017(^5). This is also the case for most of the emissions from the *industrial processes* sector.
______________________________________________________________________
(^3) Transport Statistics Great Britain, Roads and traffic (TSGB07), Table TSGB0702 (TRA0201) Road traffic (vehicle kilometres) by vehicle type in Great Britain, annual from 1949 https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/tsgb07
(^4) Transport Statistics Great Britain, Energy and environment (TSGB03), Table TSGB0303 (ENV0103) Average new car fuel consumption: Great Britain from 1997 https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/tsgb03
(^5) Final UK greenhouse gas emissions national statistics https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/final-uk-greenhouse-gas-emissions-national-statistics Carbon dioxide emissions by fuel type
The combustion of fuels releases both energy and carbon dioxide. The amount of carbon dioxide released by the production of one unit of power depends on the type of fuel that is burned. For example, since coal has a higher carbon content than gas, more carbon dioxide emissions result from burning one tonne of coal to generate a unit of power than from one tonne of gas.
Emissions per unit of electricity supplied from fossil fuels are estimated to have been around 430 tonnes of carbon dioxide per gigawatt hour (GWh) overall in 2018. Within this, emissions from electricity generated from coal (870 tonnes of carbon dioxide per GWh electricity supplied) were almost twice as high as for electricity supplied by gas (340 tonnes of carbon dioxide per GWh). For all sources of electricity (including nuclear, renewables and autogeneration), the average amount of carbon dioxide emitted in 2018 amounted to 180 tonnes per GWh of electricity supplied.
In 2018, total carbon dioxide emissions from the use of fossil fuels, including fuel used for generating electricity, were estimated at 350.5 Mt. This was 2.5 per cent lower than the 2017 figure of 359.4 Mt. The biggest change in emissions was from the use of coal, down 5.1 Mt (20.4 per cent) from 25.2 Mt in 2017 to 20.1 Mt in 2018. This largely resulted from the increasing use of renewables for electricity generation.
Over the period 1990 to 2018, carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels decreased by 38 per cent. Over the same period, overall primary consumption of fossil fuels dropped by 22 per cent. This relatively high decrease in emissions can be attributed to an increase in the use of gas accompanied by a decrease in the use of coal.
Carbon dioxide emissions from gas as a proportion of all carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels has increased from 26 per cent in 1990 to 52 per cent in 2018, whilst emissions from coal as a proportion of all fossil fuel carbon dioxide emissions has decreased from 39 per cent to 6 per cent over the same period. The proportion of carbon dioxide emissions from oil as a proportion of all carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels has increased from 35 per cent in 1990 to 42 per cent in 2018.
### Table 2: UK carbon dioxide emissions by fuel type, 1990-2018
| | 1990 | 1995 | 2000 | 2005 | 2010 | 2015 | 2017 | 2018 (p) | |--------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------|----------| | Gas | 146.1| 188.5| 241.5| 235.3| 228.2| 173.1| 183.4| 183.1 | | Oil | 197.9| 187.2| 174.6| 175.7| 155.1| 148.5| 150.8| 147.3 | | Coal | 219.2| 152.2| 117.0| 124.9| 100.9| 72.6 | 25.2 | 20.1 | | Other fuels | 14.9 | 14.4 | 12.8 | 11.7 | 11.2 | 11.5 | 12.1 | 11.9 | | Non-fuel | 18.3 | 17.8 | 12.5 | 10.2 | 2.9 | 2.6 | 1.7 | 1.7 | | **Total** | **596.3** | **560.1** | **558.3** | **557.9** | **498.3** | **408.3** | **373.2** | **364.1** |
Source: Table 2, Provisional UK greenhouse gas emissions national statistics 1990-2018 Excel data tables
Note: (p) 2018 estimates are provisional.
A negative number indicates that this sector was a net sink, with the total removals of carbon dioxide by the land use, land use change and forestry sector larger than the emissions from other non-fuel activities.
### Figure 6: UK Carbon dioxide emissions by fuel type, 1990-2018 (MtCO₂)
Source: Table 2, Provisional UK greenhouse gas emissions national statistics 1990-2018 Excel data tables
Note: (p) 2018 estimates are provisional. 2018 temperature adjusted provisional emissions results by sector
A temperature adjustment has been applied to the quarterly CO₂ emissions, in order to estimate what the overall trend of emissions would have been without the impact of external temperatures. Table 3 compares temperature adjusted and unadjusted CO₂ emissions by sector in 2018.
Table 3: Percentage changes in carbon dioxide emissions by sector between 2017 and 2018 based on the temperature adjusted emissions and actual emissions
| Sector | Temperature adjusted emissions | Actual emissions | |--------------|--------------------------------|------------------| | | 2017 (MtCO₂) | 2018 (MtCO₂) | Percentage change | 2017 (MtCO₂) | 2018 (MtCO₂) | Percentage change | | Energy supply| 110.7 | 101.3 | -8.5% | 106.0 | 98.3 | -7.2% | | Business | 68.5 | 67.4 | -1.6% | 66.1 | 65.9 | -0.3% | | Transport | 124.6 | 121.4 | -2.6% | 124.6 | 121.4 | -2.6% | | Public | 8.4 | 8.5 | 1.6% | 7.8 | 8.1 | 4.5% | | Residential | 72.0 | 70.9 | -1.5% | 64.1 | 65.9 | 2.8% | | Other | 4.7 | 4.5 | -3.1% | 4.7 | 4.5 | -3.1% | | Total CO₂ | 388.9 | 374.1 | -3.8% | 373.2 | 364.1 | -2.4% |
Source: Tables 3 & 4, Provisional UK greenhouse gas emissions national statistics 1990-2018 Excel data tables
The sectors most affected by external temperatures are the residential sector and energy supply. When temperatures are lower there is greater use of natural gas and electricity for heating households. Residential emissions fluctuate from year to year owing to year on year variation in weather conditions. As shown in Figure 8, after we adjust the residential emissions figures to remove the effect of year on year variation in temperatures, we see a more consistent downward trend. Between 2009 and 2018 residential emissions fell by 12 per cent, but only fell by 9 per cent on a temperature adjusted basis.
The overall trend in temperature adjusted energy supply emissions is similar to the unadjusted trend, as the majority of electricity generated is used for other purposes rather than heating. Figure 7: Actual and temperature adjusted energy supply carbon dioxide emissions, UK, Year ending Q1 2009 - Year ending Q4 2018 (MtCO₂)
Source: Tables 3 & 4, Provisional UK greenhouse gas emissions national statistics 1990-2018 Excel data tables
Figure 8: Actual and temperature adjusted residential carbon dioxide emissions, UK, Year ending Q1 2009 - Year ending Q4 2018 (MtCO₂)
Source: Tables 3 & 4, Provisional UK greenhouse gas emissions national statistics 1990-2018 Excel data tables Additional Information
Coverage of emissions reporting
The basket of greenhouse gases covered by these statistics is based on that covered by the Kyoto Protocol, and consists of seven gases: carbon dioxide (CO₂), methane (CH₄), nitrous oxide (N₂O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFC), perfluorocarbons (PFC), sulphur hexafluoride (SF₆) and nitrogen trifluoride (NF₃). The last four gases are collectively referred to as fluorinated gases or F gases. In accordance with international reporting and carbon trading protocols, each of these gases is weighted by its global warming potential (GWP)⁷, so that total greenhouse gas emissions can be reported on a consistent basis. The GWP for each gas is defined as its warming influence relative to that of carbon dioxide. Greenhouse gas emissions are then presented in carbon dioxide equivalent units.
Carbon dioxide is reported in terms of net emissions, which means total emissions from burning fuel minus total removals of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere by carbon sinks. Carbon sinks are incorporated within the land use, land use change and forestry (LULUCF) sector, which covers afforestation, reforestation, deforestation and forest management. They are defined by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) as “any process, activity or mechanism which removes a greenhouse gas, an aerosol or a precursor of a greenhouse gas from the atmosphere”.
Unless otherwise stated, any figures included in this release represent emissions from within the UK and exclude its Crown Dependencies (Jersey, Guernsey, and the Isle of Man) and overseas territories. Figures are expressed in millions of tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (MtCO₂e).
Basis of the provisional emissions estimates
The estimates of carbon dioxide emissions have been produced based on provisional inland energy consumption statistics which are published in BEIS’s quarterly Energy Trends publication.
Carbon dioxide accounts for the majority of UK greenhouse gas emissions (81 per cent in 2017). However, in order to give an indication of what the latest provisional carbon dioxide emissions estimates imply for the total, we need to also produce an estimate of emissions of the remaining non-CO₂ gases. Estimates of non-CO₂ gases are based on a simple approach which assumes that emissions of non-CO₂ gases in 2018 will change from the 2017 total in line with the percentage difference between the estimates for the 2017 and 2018 non-CO₂ emissions in the 2018 Energy and Emissions Projections published by BEIS.
⁷ Transport Global warming potentials (GWP) of greenhouse gases used in UK emissions statistics: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/uk-greenhouse-gas-emissions-explanatory-notes Methodology change for non-CO₂ provisional emissions estimates
In the provisional statistics, estimates of carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions are produced based on provisional inland energy consumption statistics published in BEIS’s quarterly Energy Trends publications, while the smaller non-CO₂ emissions (19 per cent of the total in 2017) have previously been estimated based on an assumption that they will be the same as in the most recent year in the final statistics. However, in the 2018 estimates this approach to estimating non-CO₂ emissions has been changed.
The 2018 non-CO₂ emissions have been estimated by adjusting the 2017 non-CO₂ emissions total in the 1990-2017 greenhouse gas inventory in proportion to the percentage difference between the estimates for the 2017 and 2018 non-CO₂ emissions in the most recent Energy and Emissions Projections published by BEIS.
Using the projections means that the provisional statistics will take into account anticipated changes in emissions. In recent years, non-CO₂ emissions have steadily fallen year on year in the greenhouse gas inventory, meaning that the provisional statistics have overestimated non-CO₂ emissions each year, whereas they were projected to continue to fall. Based on the 1990-2016 inventory, using this new approach would have led to the provisional non-CO₂ emissions total having a difference of 2.0 per cent on average from the final figure over the most recent five years compared to a 3.0 per cent average difference under the previous approach.
Quarterly totals
In order to remove the seasonality in the data so that a trend in emissions over time can be observed, quarterly emissions are reported as annual totals, covering the stated quarter plus the preceding three quarters. When data becomes available for each new quarter, the estimates for the latest quarter are added to the total, while at the same time the estimates for the same quarter from the previous year are removed from the series. This procedure serves to smooth out short-term fluctuations and highlights long term trends, and can be used to show the underlying trend each quarter. Emissions estimates for each individual quarter are reported in the data tables accompanying this publication.
Temperature adjustment
Carbon dioxide emissions are indirectly influenced by external temperatures. During the winter months, emissions are generally higher than in summer months, due to higher demand for fuel for space heating. During a particularly cold winter for example, it is likely that more fuel will be burnt for domestic or commercial use than during an average winter, and therefore emissions will be higher due to the additional fuel consumption.
Temperature adjusted quarterly emissions estimates therefore remove the effect of external temperatures. In a particularly cold winter quarter, for example, this will result in temperature adjusted emissions being lower than actual emissions, reflecting the lower fuel consumption. which would have occurred if temperatures had been at average levels (based on the 30 year period 1981-2010). Temperature adjustment is determined by the average number of heating degree days in each quarter. This information can be found in Energy Trends.
Further details of how quarterly emissions have been estimated and of the methodology underlying the temperature adjusted estimates can be found alongside this statistical release in a separate methodology summary.
Revisions to the quarterly provisional emissions estimates
It should be noted that the quarterly emissions time series may be revised annually to reflect any revisions made to either the underlying energy data or to the UK greenhouse gas inventory. Emissions from 2009-2017 are consistent with final UK greenhouse gas emissions statistics from 1990-2017. Emissions estimates for 2018 are provisional and are based on UK energy statistics. More information on the timing of revisions to the underlying data can be found in the methodology summary.
Future updates to emissions estimates
On Thursday 27th June BEIS will publish estimates of carbon dioxide emissions by local authority for 2017.
Final estimates of UK greenhouse gas emissions for 2018 will be published as National Statistics on 4th February 2020. These estimates will be based on the UK’s Greenhouse Gas Inventory for 2018.
On Thursday 27th March 2020 the 1990-2018 UK emissions estimates will be updated to include estimates by end user and by fuel type, and provisional 2019 emissions estimates will be published.
Further information
Further information on UK greenhouse gas emissions statistics, including Excel tables with additional data on UK emissions, can be found on the Gov.uk website at:
https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/uk-greenhouse-gas-emissions-statistics
The latest UK energy statistics, including revisions to earlier years’ data, can be found in the Energy Trends quarterly bulletin produced by BEIS. Any enquiries about the Energy Trends report should be sent to [email protected]. National Statistics designation
National Statistics status means that our statistics meet the highest standards of trustworthiness, quality and public value, and it is our responsibility to maintain compliance with these standards.
The continued designation of these statistics as National Statistics was confirmed in September 2018 following a compliance check by the Office for Statistics Regulation. The statistics last underwent a full assessment against the Code of Practice for Statistics in 2014.
Since the latest review by the Office for Statistics Regulation, we have continued to comply with the Code of Practice for Statistics, and have made the following improvements:
- Improved the accuracy of the historic emissions estimates by continuing to make methodological changes to the UK’s Greenhouse Gas Inventory.
- Improved the accuracy of the provisional estimates by reviewing and changing the methodology for making provisional estimates of non-CO₂ emissions.
Background notes
1. A full set of data tables can be accessed via the provisional UK greenhouse gas emissions national statistics pages of the Gov.uk website.
2. The background quality report provides a summary of quality issues relating to statistics on UK greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
3. The latest UK energy statistics, including revisions to earlier years’ data, can be found in the Digest of UK Energy Statistics.
4. Detailed UK temperature data can be found on both the Met Office website and the weather statistics section of the Gov.uk website.
5. When emissions are measured on this basis, UK emissions account for less than 2 per cent of the global total, based on a range of estimates produced by the UN, the IEA, the World Resources Institute and the EIA, amongst others.
6. Some ministers and officials receive pre-release access to these statistics up to 24 hours before release. Details of the arrangements for doing this and a list of the ministers and officials that receive pre-release access to these statistics can be found in the BEIS statement of compliance with the Pre-Release Access to Official Statistics Order 2008.
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/0315-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 22,
"total-input-tokens": 40124,
"total-output-tokens": 9789,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
96,
1
],
[
96,
96,
2
],
[
96,
96,
3
],
[
96,
1462,
4
],
[
1462,
2929,
5
],
[
2929,
5244,
6
],
[
5244,
7482,
7
],
[
7482,
10728,
8
],
[
10728,
12623,
9
],
[
12623,
14358,
10
],
[
14358,
14864,
11
],
[
14864,
16030,
12
],
[
16030,
18372,
13
],
[
18372,
20615,
14
],
[
20615,
21883,
15
],
[
21883,
24391,
16
],
[
24391,
24884,
17
],
[
24884,
27621,
18
],
[
27621,
30613,
19
],
[
30613,
32687,
20
],
[
32687,
34813,
21
],
[
34813,
34813,
22
]
]
} |
5846a4c8846e3039b0511c930012d0ea93ae7370 | 1. **Welcomes and Introductions**
The co-chairs, Gregor McGill, Director of Legal Services and Chief Constable Nick Ephgrave welcomed members to the second National Disclosure forum. The Forum in turn introduced themselves and the agency/department they were representing.
2. **Minutes and Actions**
The Forum discussed the minutes and members provided action updates.
The CPS confirmed they are content to share their current disclosure eLearning training material.
The minutes were agreed.
3. **Update from NDIP Disclosure Board and upcoming Disclosure Seminar**
Gregor McGill reminded the Forum of the upcoming Disclosure Seminar on Wednesday 19 September. The Seminar was a follow up to the one held in January and would look back at what has been achieved through NDIP since.
Gregor McGill and CC Nick Ephgrave are on the Seminar agenda to discuss the NDIP National Disclosure Forum as they saw it as a positive way to raise and resolve issues collaboratively and something that could be replicated locally. Both welcomed views from the members on the group.
The Forum echoed their positive opinions on the Forum and wished for it to continue. It was noted NDIP Phase 2 would focus on national work being delivered at a local level and this Forum would be a way to achieve deliverables.
CC Nick Ephgrave provided a brief update on developments of NDIP Phase 2. It was acknowledged NDIP 1 was created to reactive to the disclosure issues then and looked at providing results quickly. Out of the 42 actions, 41 are complete with the final action not yet reaching its deadline.
The Forum will be shared a copy of NDIP Phase 2 when published. It was anticipated publication would take place following the AG’s review.
4. **Updates on AGO review**
Anthony Hill informed the Forum of the background to the AG’s review on disclosure which was due to be published later this year. It was not expected there would be wholesale changes to the previous draft shared. The review would still focus on practical solutions and adopting a more coordinated approach to disclosure.
5. **Digital Caselines System**
The Forum discussed the use of DCS which currently has no unused material tab. Development will commence to create an unused material tab which will be a useful space to log requests. At previous meetings the Forum discussed the issue of the communications log being limited to only prosecutors being able to update this.
The Forum explored how the unused material tab could work, and acknowledge previous pleas not to create a new system that could potentially be too burdensome.
Once initial enquiries are made it was agreed the defence and judiciary would be engaged. Alyson Sprawson agreed to assist in sharing proposals with the judiciary.
6. **Magistrates’ court disclosure**
It had been acknowledged the Criminal Bar Association (CBA) has recently schedule a working group to look at Magistrates’ court disclosure. The CBA were not able to attend the Forum and it was agreed this topic would be added to the next agenda as members wished to hear updates and contribute.
7. **AOB**
An issue was raised with disclosure and a Police force. The CPS agreed they could follow this up with relevant Area to check if they had experienced disclosure related issues too.
Nick Ephgrave informed the Forum of the new app allowing police to read guidelines, charging advice and other material on their phones. The app is currently at the prototype stage but is already appearing positive at how quickly it can deal with the volume of electronic material.
The Forum asked that during development it should be considered if the defence can have access to search history on the app as it would be of interest.
Meeting closed.
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/0316-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 2,
"total-input-tokens": 4190,
"total-output-tokens": 847,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
1158,
1
],
[
1158,
3741,
2
]
]
} |
9ae4f777d39519180da690a05d61887a1965baa5 | EventApp v4 Upgrade Items Covered
• Reasons for the upgrade • How to use the new system – Registration – Creating an application – Your home page – Using applications as templates Reasons for the Upgrade
• EventApp has to change to be compliant with the law – from 25 May 2018 version 3 will not be compliant.
• The General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR) will replace the current Data Protection Directive from 25 May 2018.
• GDPR is designed to make data protection laws across Europe consistent and protect and empower EU citizens.
• Changes include citizens have the ‘right to be forgotten’. Consent needs to be agreed to use specific information.
• Organisation who do not comply with the new regulations will be fined. Reasons for the Upgrade
• The changes to the system was an opportunity to improve the site for users.
• The application process is similar to how it was in version 3. (Most changes have been made to the administrators side rather than the users side.)
• Like with most systems EventApp will constantly be developed and improved over time. Whilst there may be shortcomings or things we don’t like – it will improve! Registration
• Version 4 has been built from scratch and is on a different website entirely so old applications and information cannot be transferred across. This means you will have open a new account: https://app.apply4.com/ Registration
Access to the Apply4 is restricted to account holders. Obtaining an account is free. To obtain an account simply fill in the form below. You will then receive an email from Apply4 asking you to confirm your email address. You will not be able to log in until you have confirmed your email address.
Once your email address is confirmed, you will be able to log in and start filing applications.
First name: Lisa Last name: Simpson Email: [email protected] Email confirmation: [email protected] Password: \*\*\*\*\*\*\*\* Password confirmation: \*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*
I'm not a robot
Create Registration
• Complete the fields and agree to Apply4’s terms and conditions. (To view the T&Cs click onto the link.)
• An activation email will be sent to the email address registered. New Applications
• The application process is similar to how it was in version 3.
• Your applications can be used as a templates for future ones.
• Complete your first application in as much detail as possible and upload all of your supporting documents onto it.
• The next time you submit an application you can base it on your initial one and just amend your event details. New Applications
Log on: https://app.apply4.com/eventapp/uk/islington. This link takes you straight to Islington’s Eventapp webpage. New Applications
Log in.
**APPLY4 LOGIN**
IMPORTANT NOTE for existing FilmApp and EventApp users FilmApp and EventApp have moved. Please create a new user and password to create an application and view your application dashboard. Thank You.
**LOGIN**
Email [email protected]
Password \*
______________________________________________________________________
I am not registered, open a new account Forgot your password? Resend your account activation email?
Login New Applications
- Complete the application – your details. New Applications
• Complete the application – your details.
Please enter your website address if you have one
Enter website
Previous event management experience
Add previous event management experience
Word limit is approximately 250 words.
Next: Insurance New Applications
- Complete the application – insurance. New Applications
- Complete the application – invoice. New Applications
- Complete the application - event New Applications
- Complete the application – event / locations New Applications
- Complete the application – event / schedule information New Applications
- You can drag and drop documents (or use the browser to upload) New Applications
- Once your form is complete submit your application.
- You need to agree to Islington’s terms and conditions and Apply 4’s (To view the T&Cs click onto the link.) New Applications
• You will receive an automated ‘confirmation of submission’ email to the registered email address.
• This will contain event details and will be a record of your application for your files.
• This email is not consent to hold your event in the park. My Applications
• To see drafts, submitted and approved applications log on and go to My Applications. My Applications
- You will be able to see your drafts, submitted and approved applications. My Applications
- Draft applications can be completed in My Application / select your application. Then continue your application.
- Remember to ‘Submit’ your application when complete! (See slide 19.) My Applications
- If an application is ‘current’ you will not be able to open it and amend the applications (as with v3) but you can add new documents by clicking on the document icon in the strip view. My Applications
- To view documents click on the below strip. My Applications
- If you realise you need to make a change to your application, as with v3, you need to make a request to the Event Team via the system. My Applications
- You can also view your current agreement document. My Applications
- This document outlines the council’s general Terms and Conditions for events but will also describe any specific conditions added by other teams such as Environmental Health or the Noise Team.
- Please ensure you check this document before we issue your final agreement as these will be the terms of our consent for your event. My Applications
- If you want to remove any applications that are no longer wanted you can archive them by clicking on the folder icon on the right hand side of the application.
- Archived applications can be viewed by clicking onto ‘Archive’ at the top of the screen.
- Items can be moved back into ‘My Applications’.
- Draft applications cannot be archived but they can be deleted. Successive Applications
• Start subsequent applications as you initially did: https://app.apply4.com/eventapp/uk/islington Successive Applications
Log in.
**APPLY4 LOGIN**
IMPORTANT NOTE for existing FilmApp and EventApp users FilmApp and EventApp have moved. Please create a new user and password to create an application and view your application dashboard. Thank You.
**LOGIN**
Email [email protected]
Password \*
______________________________________________________________________
I am not registered, open a new account Forgot your password? Resend your account activation email?
Login Successive Applications
- Select the below option to use a previous application. Successive Applications
- Select the previous application which you wish to use. Successive Applications
- You’ll be promoted to confirm you want information to be autofilled - click on ‘OK’
- You will need to complete the Event section again as that is specific to each event
- Some documents may be out of date so you will need to update them Additional Information
- On this presentation additional notes can be found by clicking on view / notes page.
Sometimes the drag and drop function does not work in Internet Explorer – but should work in Chrome. The alternative is to upload by using ‘Browse computer’ as you have always done in V3. Contact Details
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/0317-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 36,
"total-input-tokens": 43727,
"total-output-tokens": 2816,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
20,
1
],
[
20,
189,
2
],
[
189,
742,
3
],
[
742,
1160,
4
],
[
1160,
1388,
5
],
[
1388,
1997,
6
],
[
1997,
2186,
7
],
[
2186,
2566,
8
],
[
2566,
2700,
9
],
[
2700,
3120,
10
],
[
3120,
3181,
11
],
[
3181,
3445,
12
],
[
3445,
3503,
13
],
[
3503,
3559,
14
],
[
3559,
3612,
15
],
[
3612,
3677,
16
],
[
3677,
3753,
17
],
[
3753,
3836,
18
],
[
3836,
4018,
19
],
[
4018,
4289,
20
],
[
4289,
4393,
21
],
[
4393,
4486,
22
],
[
4486,
4690,
23
],
[
4690,
4894,
24
],
[
4894,
4957,
25
],
[
4957,
5111,
26
],
[
5111,
5181,
27
],
[
5181,
5529,
28
],
[
5529,
5914,
29
],
[
5914,
6040,
30
],
[
6040,
6467,
31
],
[
6467,
6549,
32
],
[
6549,
6631,
33
],
[
6631,
6898,
34
],
[
6898,
7198,
35
],
[
7198,
7282,
36
]
]
} |
17760fdd8cc21bb8325a6fd27531c9b222e69dbc | Agenda
Welcome and introductions Health & Safety Community Engagement and Media Communications Archive Consultation Historic Environment Records HERDS Update AOB: December meeting - Birmingham HS2 Archive Consultation
Vision: To tell the story of a nation
Create a highly accessible and outstanding archival legacy that will be developed and promoted What could the HS2 archive be?
Inspirational, engaging, innovative
Inaccessible, forgotten, irrelevant Archiving at high speed
Three elements
Artefacts / hard copy records
- stored, curated
- accessible, used
Digital data
- stored, curated
- accessible, used
The HS2 Virtual Collection:
- Innovation What are our options for the artefacts?
- Local deposition
- Shared deposition
- Single site deposition Consultation sequence
- Developing collateral
- Issue pre-consultation documentation
- Museum scoping workshop
- Feedback and report
- ??? second consultation or targeted engagement
- Announce strategy HS2
HERDS update Recent contractor Round Tables
Specific Objectives and methods review (contractor presentations)
- Predictive modelling
- Assessment of knowledge gaps/ defining areas of potential
Mitigation
- Decision making and HERDS objectives
- The HS2 route in context
- Criteria for decision making Recent contractor Round Tables
Community Engagement
• Work to date – Euston, Birmingham, Heritage Open days, diverse range of people engaged • Future opportunities (including beyond urban centres) • Mechanisms for engaging with people • Capturing feedback, and evaluating strategies Varying levels of activity and assessing ‘blank’ areas
1. Identification - some periods/activities more visible than others
2. Past fieldwork/recording biases
3. Some techniques better at identifying certain types of activity over others
4. Some locations may have been more intensively settled than others.
5. Some areas may have less visible archaeology for certain periods over others
6. ‘Known unknowns’ Types of archaeology and visibility Less visible archaeology: developing fieldwork strategies
• Exploring the location of Palaeolithic deposits and reconstructing past environments
• Identifying settlement location and developing models for settlement patterns for the Mesolithic, Neolithic and Early Bronze Age
• Identifying evidence for late Roman occupation and any continuity with the Early Medieval period Approaching less visible archaeology
- Reviewing works undertaken to date
- Predictive modelling
- Plotting existing data by period, defining ‘blanks’
- Fieldwalking vs test pitting
- Archaeological character areas (stratified random sampling) vs Arbitrary sampling units (irrespective of zones)
- Palaeo-environmental and geo-archaeology techniques
- Route Wide Project Plans being considered
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/0318-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 14,
"total-input-tokens": 14422,
"total-output-tokens": 1053,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
0,
1
],
[
0,
194,
2
],
[
194,
354,
3
],
[
354,
459,
4
],
[
459,
660,
5
],
[
660,
765,
6
],
[
765,
968,
7
],
[
968,
986,
8
],
[
986,
1278,
9
],
[
1278,
1563,
10
],
[
1563,
1972,
11
],
[
1972,
2008,
12
],
[
2008,
2386,
13
],
[
2386,
2780,
14
]
]
} |
93340dc3026d8ca24e0dc4f5a0b746f19899f2b0 | HS2
Heritage Sub-group
11 December 2018 Agenda
Welcome and introductions Health & Safety General Update Area Team 2018 Review and forward look to 2019 • Area North • Area Central • Area South General update
STEM Geoarchaeology Digital platform HERs Archive Geoarchaeology update
Route-wide strategies
- Deposit model completed for Area North January 2019
- G.I. review completed in Area Central and 12 locations identified for further geoarchaeological investigation
- S2 strategy focusing on the River Pinn and New Years Bourne in S2 combining geoarchaeology and geophysics
- Peat deposits dating to the Early Neolithic at Denham
- Upcoming Palaeolithic meeting (Feb 2019)
- Environmental Archaeology round-table (Jan 2019)
G.I. and MWCC
- EWC scoping with Main Works Contractors Work experience and STEM activities
**Museums** (Coffin Works, Natural History Museum, BMAG)
Peace Gardens with Historic England
**Office based days** with the HS2 Heritage teams and contractors
**Work Placements** (Birkbeck University) HERDS Digital Platform- live Blogs
Late Prehistoric and Roman settlement
Ongoing geophysical survey results in Area Central are regularly identifying what appear to be Late Prehistoric and/or Romano-British settlement. Is a path.
News
Story of a nation: HS2 archaeology
Story of a nation: HS2 archaeology begins in UK's largest excavation
Documents
Cultural Heritage ES HS2 Phase One Environmental Statement Volume 5: Cultural Heritage
HERDS Documents HS2 Phase One Historic Environment Research and Delivery Strategy
Evaluation works at Streethay
Evaluation works at Streethay, Staffordshire have identified evidence of Roman-British HS2 workers discover ancient coastline in Ruislip Late Prehistoric and Roman settlement
by John Halsted in Categories One
Ongoing geophysical survey results in Area Central are regularly identifying what appear to be Late Prehistoric and/or Romano-British settlement. Is a pattern emerging? How do these results compare with what we know already about forms and patterns of settlement in these periods?
posted on Thursday, September 20, 2018 at 10:35 AM
2 comments | Email a link | Edit WSI (Written Scheme of Investigation) Intervention polygon boundaries. Interventions represent any exploratory hole (e.g. borehole or core), trial pit, evaluation.
Archaeological excavation of h... Archaeological monitoring Archaeological recording HERDS Gviewer
Choose Field Values
HERDS Objective ID KC021, Assess the evidence for regional & cultural distinctiveness along the
HERDS Objective Category Knowledge Creation, Knowledge Creation
HERDS Objective Type Scheme wide, Scheme wide
4. Selecting a checkbox will search for all records that have anything recorded against that chosen field. If you select multiple checkboxes it will match records that have information recorded for at least one of the chosen fields
- Palaeolithic
- Mesolithic
- Neolithic
3. Selecting options here will return all records that match that option and which match the other search terms on this form. It is recommended that you just use one of these dropdown boxes to search for records.
4. Selecting a checkbox will search for all records that have anything HERs accessioning:
- Working with HS-G HER representative
- Time estimates received from a majority of HERs
- HS2 to review implications for SLAs
- Specific HS2 OASIS forms developed by ADS Archive
Strategy consultation:
• Working with Atkins to prepare consultation event • Documentation out in the new year • Event likely /c 11th February • Invitees: HS-G, line of route museums, HE
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/0319-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 15,
"total-input-tokens": 14510,
"total-output-tokens": 1358,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
42,
1
],
[
42,
201,
2
],
[
201,
267,
3
],
[
267,
795,
4
],
[
795,
1036,
5
],
[
1036,
1065,
6
],
[
1065,
1681,
7
],
[
1681,
1731,
8
],
[
1731,
2172,
9
],
[
2172,
2422,
10
],
[
2422,
2940,
11
],
[
2940,
2940,
12
],
[
2940,
3225,
13
],
[
3225,
3416,
14
],
[
3416,
3612,
15
]
]
} |
5a39d053b7c8753a5c8dfbc47237a7657607cee9 | In 2018, UK emissions of the basket of seven greenhouse gases covered by the Kyoto Protocol were estimated to be 451.5 million tonnes carbon dioxide equivalent (MtCO₂e), a decrease of 2.1% compared to the 2017 figure of 461.0 million tonnes. Greenhouse gas emissions in 2018 are estimated to be 43.1% lower than they were in 1990.
- The decrease in greenhouse gas emissions from 2017 was mainly caused by reductions in emissions in the energy supply sector, down 6.6% (7.4 MtCO₂e). This was driven by the continued decrease in power station emissions due to the change in the fuel mix for electricity generation, in particular a reduction in the use of coal and gas. Emissions from energy supply are now 62.3% lower than they were in 1990.
- Emissions from transport fell by 1.4% (1.8 MtCO₂e) in 2018, their first fall since 2013. Despite this transport remains the largest emitting sector, responsible for 28% of all greenhouse gas emissions in the UK. Transport emissions are only 3.0% lower than in 1990, as increased road traffic has largely offset improvements in vehicle fuel efficiency.
- Between 2017 and 2018 emissions from the business sector decreased by 2.5% (2.1 MtCO₂e) caused by falls from industrial combustion and from refrigeration and air conditioning. Emissions from industrial processes decreased by 7.3% (0.8 MtCO₂e), caused by reduced emissions from the production of ammonia, halocarbons, iron and steel.
- There was an increase of 3.8% (2.5 MtCO₂e) in residential sector emissions, driven by an increase in the use of natural gas for heating due to colder weather in the first half of 2018. Similarly, there was a 3.7% increase in public sector emissions. Emissions from both of these sectors tend to vary from year to year depending on the temperature.
Carbon dioxide (CO₂) is the most dominant greenhouse gas from the Kyoto “basket” of greenhouse gases, accounting for 81% of total UK greenhouse gas emissions in 2018. The latest figures show:
- UK net CO₂ emissions were estimated to be 365.7 million tonnes (Mt) in 2018, which was 2.2% lower than the 2017 figure of 373.8 Mt. This decrease in CO₂ emissions was mainly due to the decrease in the use of coal and gas for electricity generation (as described above). Between 1990 and 2018 UK net CO₂ emissions have decreased by 38.6%.
What you need to know about these statistics: This publication provides the latest estimates of 1990-2018 UK territorial greenhouse gas emissions, which are presented in carbon dioxide equivalent units (CO₂e) throughout this statistical release. They show greenhouse gas emissions occurring within the UK’s borders and cover the Kyoto “basket” of seven greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide (CO₂), methane (CH₄), nitrous oxide (N₂O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFC), perfluorocarbons (PFC), sulphur hexafluoride (SF₆) and nitrogen trifluoride (NF₃).
## Contents
Introduction .................................................................................................................. 3
2018 total greenhouse gas emissions ........................................................................... 5
UK performance against emissions reduction targets .................................................. 7
The Climate Change Act 2008 .................................................................................... 7
Kyoto Protocol target .................................................................................................. 8
EU Effort Sharing Decision ......................................................................................... 9
Emissions Trading ........................................................................................................ 10
European Union Emissions Trading System (EU ETS) .................................................. 10
Emissions by sector ...................................................................................................... 12
Transport ..................................................................................................................... 14
Energy supply ............................................................................................................... 16
Business ....................................................................................................................... 18
Residential ................................................................................................................... 19
Agriculture ................................................................................................................... 20
Waste management ..................................................................................................... 20
Industrial processes .................................................................................................... 21
Public ........................................................................................................................... 22
Land use, land use change and forestry (LULUCF) ....................................................... 23
Emissions from UK-based international aviation and shipping bunkers ..................... 25
Revisions from provisional estimates of greenhouse gas emissions ............................ 26
Revisions to the UK’s Greenhouse Gas Inventory ......................................................... 27
Accompanying tables .................................................................................................. 34
Technical information .................................................................................................. 35
Methodology for producing greenhouse gas emissions estimates ............................... 35
Estimating emissions on a temperature adjusted basis .................................................. 36
Uncertainties ............................................................................................................... 37
Further information ..................................................................................................... 37
Future updates to these statistics ................................................................................ 37
Related publications .................................................................................................... 38
Revisions policy .......................................................................................................... 39
Uses of these statistics ............................................................................................... 39
User engagement ......................................................................................................... 39
National Statistics designation .................................................................................... 40
Pre-release access to statistics .................................................................................... 40
Contact ......................................................................................................................... 40 Introduction
This publication provides the latest annual estimates of UK territorial greenhouse gas emissions from 1990-2018. The geographic coverage of this report is UK only unless stated otherwise. The figures in this statistical release are used as the basis for reporting against UK greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets and provide information for users on the drivers of emissions trends since 1990. Emissions are estimated following the guidance set out by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC(^1)), as required for the UK’s submissions to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) each year.
The estimates present emissions on a “territorial” basis, so only include emissions which occur within the UK’s borders. They therefore exclude emissions from UK businesses and residents that occur abroad, including from international aviation and shipping, and any emissions embedded within the supply chain of manufactured goods and services imported into the UK (while including emissions that occur in the UK resulting from exported goods and services).
Two additional approaches to estimating UK emissions are also published and the Office for National Statistics (ONS) has published an article that compares these different measures of the UK’s greenhouse gas emissions in more detail. The alternative measures are:
- ONS publishes emissions on a “residential” basis in the UK Environmental Accounts. The figures represent emissions caused by UK residents and businesses whether in the UK or abroad, but exclude emissions within the UK which can be attributed to overseas residents and businesses.
- The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) publishes the UK’s carbon footprint. This estimates emissions on a “consumption” basis, meaning it covers emissions associated with the consumption of goods and services by households in the UK. It includes estimates of emissions associated with each stage of the supply chain for those goods and services, regardless of where they occur, while excluding emissions occurring in the UK that are associated with the consumption of goods and services by households outside the UK.
The estimates in this publication are based on the source of the emissions rather than where the end-user activity occurred, so for example emissions related to electricity generation are attributed to power stations, where the emissions occur, rather than homes and businesses where the electricity is used. A breakdown of 1990-2018 UK territorial emissions by end-user sector will be published as an annex to this publication on Thursday 26 March 2020(^2).
These estimates cover the Kyoto “basket” of seven gases: carbon dioxide (CO(\_2)), methane (CH(\_4)), nitrous oxide (N(\_2)O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFC), perfluorocarbons (PFC), sulphur hexafluoride (SF(\_6)) and nitrogen trifluoride (NF(\_3)). The last four gases are collectively referred to as fluorinated gases or F gases. In accordance with international reporting and carbon trading protocols, emissions from each of the gases is weighted by its global warming potential (GWP)(^3), so that total greenhouse gas emissions can be reported on a consistent basis. The GWP for each gas is defined as its warming influence relation to that of carbon dioxide over a
______________________________________________________________________
(^1) 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: https://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/index.html
(^2) The Annex for 1990-2017 UK greenhouse gas emissions final figures by end-user and fuel type published in March 2019 can be found here: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/final-uk-greenhouse-gas-emissions-national-statistics-1990-2017
(^3) The global warming potentials (GWPs) used are from Working Group 1 of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007 and summarised in a table published on the following page: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/uk-greenhouse-gas-emissions-explanatory-notes 100 year period. Greenhouse gas emissions are then presented in carbon dioxide equivalent units (CO2e).
Carbon dioxide is reported in terms of net emissions, which means total emissions minus total removals of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere by carbon sinks. Carbon sinks are defined by the UNFCCC as “any process, activity or mechanism which removes a greenhouse gas, an aerosol or a precursor of a greenhouse gas from the atmosphere”.
For the purposes of reporting, greenhouse gas emissions are allocated into sectors as follows:
| Sector | Description | |-------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Energy Supply | Emissions from electricity generation and other energy production activities such as mining, refining and manufacturing fuels. In the end-user estimates these emissions are instead assigned between the other sectors based on where the electricity/fuel is used, or to the Exports sector where they are used abroad. | | Business | Emissions from fuel combustion and product use in industrial and commercial sectors, and F gas emissions from refrigeration and air conditioning in all sectors. Includes industrial off-road machinery but not business-related transport emissions, which are included in the Transport sector. | | Transport | Emissions from road transport, domestic aviation, railways and domestic shipping. Only includes emissions from vehicles and not from transport related infrastructure or from air conditioning. International aviation and shipping emissions are not included in national totals. | | Public | Emissions from the combustion of fuel in public sector buildings, e.g. hospitals and schools. Emissions from public transport are included in the Transport sector. | | Residential | Emissions from residential properties, including from consumer product use. Primarily consists of fuel combustion for heating/cooking, garden machinery, and fluorinated gases released from aerosols and metered dose inhalers. | | Agriculture | Emissions of greenhouse gases from livestock, agricultural soils (excluding carbon stock changes which are included in the LULUCF sector) and agricultural machinery. | | Industrial processes | Emissions resulting from industrial processes, except for those associated with fuel combustion which are included in the Business sector. | | Land use, land use change and forestry (LULUCF) | Emissions/removals of CO₂ from changes in the carbon stock in forestland, cropland, grassland, wetlands, settlements and harvested wood products, and of other greenhouse gases from drainage (excl. croplands and intensive grasslands) and rewetting of soils, nitrogen mineralisation associated with loss and gain of soil organic matter, and fires. Because the impact of biomass harvest on carbon stocks in ecosystems is included in this sector, any emissions of CO₂ from burning biomass (regardless of the country of origin) are excluded from other sectors to avoid double counting them. | | Waste management | Emissions resulting from the treatment and disposal of solid and liquid waste, for example from landfill, incineration and composting. Emissions from incineration with energy recovery are instead reported in the Energy Supply sector and emissions from residential composting are included in the Residential sector. | References to the ‘UK Greenhouse Gas Inventory’ refer to the consistent time series of emissions from 1990 to the most recent year which is updated annually and reported to the UN and the EU. The figures in these statistics are consistent with the UK’s Greenhouse Gas Inventory for 1990-2018, although the inventory reported to the UN includes emissions from the UK’s Crown Dependencies and certain Overseas Territories which are excluded from these statistics except where specifically stated.
Note that as part of this release the 1990-2017 emissions figures have been revised since the previous publication in February 2019, to incorporate methodological improvements and new data, and the 2018 figures have been revised from the provisional estimates published in March 2019. Details of these revisions can be found later in this statistical release.
When emissions are measured on this basis, UK emissions account for around 1% of the global total, based on a range of estimates produced by the UN, the International Energy Agency and the World Resources Institute amongst others.
2018 total greenhouse gas emissions
In the data tables accompanying this publication, table 1 shows UK greenhouse gas emissions since 1990 by gas.
In 2018, UK emissions of the basket of seven greenhouse gases covered by the Kyoto Protocol were estimated to be 451.5 million tonnes carbon dioxide equivalent (MtCO₂e), a decrease of 2.1% compared to the 2017 figure of 461.0 million tonnes. Greenhouse gas emissions in 2018 are estimated to be 43.1% lower than they were in 1990.
Figure 1: Total UK greenhouse gas emissions, 1990-2018 (MtCO₂e)
Source: Table 1, Final UK greenhouse gas emissions national statistics 1990-2018 Excel data tables When broken down by gas, UK emissions are dominated by carbon dioxide, which is estimated to have accounted for about 81% of the UK’s greenhouse gas emissions in 2018. Weighted by global warming potential, methane accounted for about 11% of UK emissions and nitrous oxide for about 5% of emissions in 2018. Fluorinated gases accounted for the remainder, around 3%.
Carbon dioxide has always been the dominant greenhouse gas emitted in the UK. Emissions of CO₂ have reduced by 38.6% (around 230 MtCO₂) since 1990 to 365.7 MtCO₂ in 2018, mainly due to decreases in emissions from power stations. There have been much larger proportional falls in emissions from methane (61.1% since 1990) and nitrous oxide (57.6%). Fluorinated gas (F gas) emissions are estimated to be 20.3% lower now than they were in 1990, with hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) being the dominant F gas.
**Figure 2: Greenhouse gas emissions by gas, UK, 2018 (%)**
Source: Table 1, Final UK greenhouse gas emissions national statistics 1990-2018 Excel data tables UK performance against emissions reduction targets
In the data tables accompanying this publication, table 9 shows the UK’s progress against its domestic and international targets.
Note: The carbon accounting regulations for 2018 have not yet been laid in Parliament, and so the UK’s progress against the first year of the third carbon budget is not yet available. Progress will be updated in an annex to this publication on 26 March 2020.
The Climate Change Act 2008
The UK has domestic targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions under the Climate Change Act 2008 (CCA)(^4). The CCA established a long-term legally binding framework to reduce emissions, initially committing the UK to reducing emissions by at least 80% below 1990/95 baselines by 2050. In June 2019, following the IPCC’s Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C and advice from the independent Committee on Climate Change, the CCA was amended to commit the UK to achieving a 100% reduction in emissions (to net zero) by 2050.
The CCA also introduced carbon budgets, which set legally binding limits on the total amount of greenhouse gas emissions the UK can emit for a given five-year period(^5). The first carbon budget ran from 2008-12. In 2014, the UK confirmed that it had met the budget, with emissions 36 MtCO(\_2)e below the cap of 3,018 MtCO(\_2)e(^6). The second carbon budget ran from 2013-17. In 2019, the UK confirmed that it had met the budget, with emissions 384 MtCO(\_2)e below the cap of 2,782 MtCO(\_2)e(^7). A final statement for the third carbon budget, covering the period 2018-22, will be published in May 2024.
Compliance with carbon budgets is not assessed by directly comparing the budget level against UK greenhouse gas emissions. Instead, the budget level is compared to the UK’s ‘net carbon account’. The net carbon account is currently defined as the sum of three components:
- Emissions allowances allocated to the UK under the EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETS)(^8)
- Emissions not covered by the EU ETS (‘non-traded’)
- Credits/debits from other international trading systems
Projected performance against future carbon budgets can be found in the latest UK energy and emissions projections publication(^9).
______________________________________________________________________
(^4) Climate Change Act 2008: [http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2008/27/contents](http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2008/27/contents)
(^5) Carbon budgets: [https://www.gov.uk/guidance/carbon-budgets](https://www.gov.uk/guidance/carbon-budgets)
(^6) Final statement for the first carbon budget period: [https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/final-statement-for-the-first-carbon-budget-period](https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/final-statement-for-the-first-carbon-budget-period)
(^7) Final statement for the second carbon budget period: [https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/final-statement-for-the-second-carbon-budget-period](https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/final-statement-for-the-second-carbon-budget-period)
(^8) The EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETS): [https://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/ets_en](https://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/ets_en)
(^9) Energy and emissions projections: [https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/energy-and-emissions-projections](https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/energy-and-emissions-projections) Kyoto Protocol target
The Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) is an international agreement.
First Commitment Period (2008-2012) The UK met its emissions reductions target for the first commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol. Under the first commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol (2008-12), the EU and its Member States, Iceland and Norway collectively made a commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions across the EU by 8% on 1990 levels by 2012. As part of this, the UK undertook to reduce total greenhouse gas emissions by 12.5% below base year levels over the five-year period 2008-12(^\\text{10}).
UK emissions of the basket of greenhouse gases covered by the Kyoto Protocol were an average 600.6 MtCO(\_2)e per year (exclusive of emissions trading) over the first commitment period (2008-12), 23% lower than base year emissions(^\\text{11}).
Second Commitment Period (2013-2020) Under the second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol (2013-2020) the EU and the Member States have a target to reduce emissions by 20% relative to the reference year (1990) over the period. The commitments of the EU and the Member States, and those of Iceland, are being fulfilled jointly in accordance with Article 4 of the Kyoto Protocol. In line with this target, EU emissions are split into (i) ‘traded sector’ emissions, covered by the EU Emissions Trading System which gives an overall EU-wide ‘cap’ on emissions from participating sectors; and (ii) ‘non traded sector’ emissions, which are covered by Member State-level targets under the
(^{10}) Council Decision (2002/358/EC) of 25 April 2002: [http://www.eea.europa.eu/policy-documents/council-decision-2002-358-ec](http://www.eea.europa.eu/policy-documents/council-decision-2002-358-ec)
(^{11}) Record of UK base year emissions: [https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/345163/base_year_tables.xlsx](https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/345163/base_year_tables.xlsx) Effort Sharing Decision (ESD). The Kyoto Protocol second commitment period also covers emissions from the land use, land use change and forestry (LULUCF) sector which are not covered by the ESD.
The UK has now ratified the Doha Amendment, but it has not yet come into force. These statistics therefore do not include information on the UK’s progress against its second commitment period target.
**Beyond 2020**
Following the 21st Conference of the Parties (COP21) of the UNFCCC in Paris in December 2015, 195 countries committed to adopt a global climate change Agreement. The Paris Agreement entered into force on 4 November 2016 and was ratified by the UK on 18 November 2016. Parties to the Paris Agreement are required to prepare, communicate and maintain successive Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs). In 2015, the EU and its Member States (including the UK) submitted their NDC for the period 2021 to 2030. This established a target of at least a 40% reduction in domestic greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 compared to 1990 levels.
Now that the UK has left the EU, the UK will come forward with its own NDC. This will be without prejudice to future relationship negotiations with the EU on climate.
**EU Effort Sharing Decision**
The UK has annual greenhouse gas emissions limits under the EU Effort Sharing Decision (ESD) for the period 2013-2020. The ESD was agreed as part of the 2008 EU Climate and Energy package and came into force from January 2013. It sets out targets for EU Member States to either reduce or limit emissions by a certain percentage in the non-traded sector (i.e. covering most sectors not included in the EU Emissions Trading System), by 2020 from a 2005 baseline. The UK's 2020 target, based on relative GDP per capita, is to reduce emissions by 16% from 2005 levels, to be achieved through a declining limit for emissions for each year from 2013-2020.(^\\text{12})
In November 2019 the European Commission confirmed for each Member State their performance against ESD for 2017.(^\\text{13}) UK greenhouse gas emissions for 2017 under the ESD were confirmed to be 332.1 MtCO(\_2)e, 28.4 MtCO(\_2)e below the UK’s annual limit for 2017 of 360.4 MtCO(\_2)e, meaning that the UK met its fifth annual target in the period. Provisional estimates indicate that greenhouse gas emissions for 2018 under the Effort Sharing Decision will also be below the annual emissions limit, by around 25.5 MtCO(\_2)e.
______________________________________________________________________
(^{12}) Annual emission allocations, European Commission: [http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/effort/framework/documentation_en.htm](http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/effort/framework/documentation_en.htm)
(^{13}) Commission Implementing Decision 2019/2005: [https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/GA/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32019D2005](https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/GA/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32019D2005)
(^{14}) ESD dataset 2019, EEA website: [https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/data/esd-2](https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/data/esd-2) Table 1: Progress towards the EU Effort Sharing Decision
| UK and Gibraltar, 2013-2018 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | |-----------------------------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------| | Total greenhouse gas emissions excl. LULUCF and NF3 (A) | 566.5 | 524.0 | 503.5 | 482.8 | 470.5 | 462.1 | | Total verified emissions from stationary installations under the EU ETS (B) | 225.3 | 197.9 | 175.9 | 147.4 | 136.8 | 128.8 | | CO2 emissions from civil aviation (C) | 1.7 | 1.6 | 1.6 | 1.5 | 1.6 | 1.5 | | Total ESD emissions (D = A - B - C) | 339.5 | 324.4 | 326.0 | 333.9 | 332.1 | 331.8 | | Annual emissions allocation (E) | 358.7 | 354.2 | 349.7 | 345.2 | 360.4 | 357.2 | | Difference (E - D) | 19.3 | 29.8 | 23.7 | 11.3 | 28.4 | 25.5 |
Source: Table 9, Final UK greenhouse gas emissions national statistics 1990-2018 Excel data tables
Emissions Trading
Under the UNFCCC and Kyoto Protocol, three flexible mechanisms were established to provide for trading of national allowances and project-based credits by Governments and emitters. These are International Emissions Trading, the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) and Joint Implementation (JI). In reporting emissions reductions against all of its targets, the UK needs to take account of emissions trading through these flexible mechanisms. At the present time, the scope of the UK’s emissions trading does not extend beyond the European Union Emissions Trading System (EU ETS), although it should be noted that EU ETS participants may also use credits generated under CDM and JI projects, subject to certain limits, in order to comply with their obligations.
European Union Emissions Trading System (EU ETS)
The UK needs to take account of emissions trading through the EU ETS when reporting against carbon budgets. The EU ETS works by putting a limit on overall emissions from installations (e.g. power plants, industrial plants) and aviation operators on intra-EEA flights. This limit is reduced each year. Within the limit installations and aviation operators in Member States across the EU can buy and sell emission allowances as needed. This ‘cap-and-trade’ approach gives the flexibility needed to cut emissions in the most cost-effective way.
Currently, any installation or aviation operator within the System in the EU (except electricity generators and installations in sectors not considered to be at risk of so-called ‘carbon leakage’) is given an allocation of emissions allowances each year. If the installation’s actual emissions are above this initial allocation for the year in question, then the installation must either purchase allowances through the System or bring forward some allowances from the following year’s allocation, to cover the deficit. Conversely, installations with a surplus of emissions compared with their cap can either sell allowances or carry them over into the following year’s allocation, thus providing a financial incentive to reduce emissions.
Phase I of the EU ETS covered the three year period 2005-2007 and Phase II coincided with the first Kyoto Commitment Period (2008-12). During this period each Member State held a specific quantity of allowances based on their EU-approved National Allocation Plan (NAP). This then resulted in net “sales” or “purchases” of emissions allowances reported from UK installations depending on whether total emissions were below or above the UK’s Phase II allocation\\textsuperscript{15}.
Phase III of the EU ETS (2013-20) builds upon the previous two phases and has been significantly revised to make a greater contribution to tackling climate change. The system shifted away from NAPs in favour of an EU-wide cap on the number of available allowances across Member States. In addition, a greater share of the allowances are sold at auction by Member States. In the absence of a UK-specific allocation plan, a notional cap has been estimated for the purpose of calculating carbon budget performance. Further details of this methodology are laid out in the Annual Statement of Emissions\\textsuperscript{16}.
In 2012, aviation was included in the EU ETS for the first time, and aircraft operators were required to report their annual emissions and surrender an equivalent number of allowances for all flights within the European Economic Area (EEA). However, UK carbon budgets only cover domestic aviation (that is, aviation within the UK). Taking into account these changes in EU ETS, from 2013 onwards domestic aviation emissions are included in the traded sector for UK carbon budget reporting purposes. To do so requires the calculation of a separate notional cap for UK domestic aviation, covering flights within the UK only.
Table 2: EU ETS net trading position as reported for carbon budgets performance
| UK, 2008-2017 | MtCO\\textsubscript{2}e | |---------------|-----------------| | | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | | Net purchases/(sales) by UK installations | 19.3 | (13.5) | (7.6) | (24.9) | (14.5) | 44.2 | 59.1 | 29.1 | 1.3 | (27.6) | | Net cancelled unallocated allowances/(sales) by UK Government\\textsuperscript{1} | 0.9 | 0.9 | 0.9 | 0.9 | 0.9 | - | - | - | - | - | | Net UK domestic aviation emissions against aviation cap | - | - | - | - | - | (0.1) | (0.3) | (0.2) | (0.3) | (0.3) | | Net UK purchases/(sales) | 20.2 | (12.6) | (6.7) | (24.0) | (13.6) | 44.1 | 58.8 | 28.9 | 1.0 | (27.9) |
Source: Table 9, Final UK greenhouse gas emissions national statistics 1990-2018 Excel data tables
Note:
1. At the end of Phase II of the EU ETS, the UK was required to cancel all allowances which have not been either issued or auctioned by that point. As a consequence, allowances totalling 4.5 MtCO\\textsubscript{2}e were cancelled in 2012. These cancelled allowances have the effect of reducing the overall cap for the whole of Phase II. For presentational purposes, this amount has been distributed evenly over the five years 2008-2012, effectively reducing the cap by 0.9 MtCO\\textsubscript{2}e each year.
2. Domestic aviation emissions are included in carbon budgets accounting from 2013.
3. From 2013, the EU ETS entered its third phase, which will end in 2020. Changes to the operating rules in this period mean that Member States no longer receive a national cap as the ETS operates at installation level. Therefore a ‘notional’ cap is estimated for the purpose of carbon budgets accounting.
4. Values in brackets indicate negative numbers or sales.
\\textsuperscript{15} Note that a negative net value indicates that the reported emissions from UK installations in the EU ETS were below the cap, i.e. there was a net selling or withholding of units by UK installations. This means that emissions are either emitted elsewhere or emitted at a later stage, so they may not be used to offset UK emissions. The opposite occurs when reported emissions from EU ETS installations exceed the cap.
\\textsuperscript{16} Annual Statement of Emissions: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/annual-statements-of-emissions Emissions by sector
In the data tables accompanying this publication, table 3 shows overall UK greenhouse gas emissions since 1990 by sector and source, while tables 4-7 show this breakdown for each individual gas.
All the sectoral breakdowns below are defined as by source, meaning emissions are attributed to the sector that emits them directly, as opposed to where the end-user activity occurred. A breakdown of 1990-2018 UK territorial emissions by end-user sector will be published as an annex to this publication on Thursday 26 March 2020.
In 2018, 28% of net greenhouse gas emissions in the UK were estimated to be from the transport sector, 23% from energy supply, 18% from business, 15% from the residential sector and 10% from agriculture. The rest was attributable to the remaining sectors: waste management, industrial processes, and the public sector. The land use, land use change and forestry (LULUCF) sector acted as a net sink in 2018 so emissions were effectively negative.
Table 3: Sources of greenhouse gas emissions UK, 1990-2018
| Sector | 1990 | 1995 | 2000 | 2005 | 2010 | 2015 | 2017 | 2018 | |-----------------------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------| | Transport | 128.1 | 129.7 | 133.3 | 136.0 | 124.5 | 123.5 | 126.1 | 124.4 | | Energy supply | 278.0 | 238.0 | 221.6 | 231.5 | 207.4 | 145.3 | 112.3 | 104.9 | | Business | 113.8 | 111.9 | 115.7 | 109.2 | 94.3 | 85.2 | 81.1 | 79.0 | | Residential | 80.1 | 81.7 | 88.7 | 85.7 | 87.5 | 67.4 | 66.6 | 69.1 | | Agriculture | 54.0 | 52.9 | 50.3 | 47.9 | 44.6 | 45.2 | 45.8 | 45.4 | | Waste management | 66.6 | 69.3 | 63.1 | 49.1 | 29.7 | 20.7 | 20.4 | 20.7 | | Industrial processes | 59.9 | 50.9 | 27.2 | 20.7 | 12.7 | 12.7 | 11.0 | 10.2 | | Public | 13.5 | 13.3 | 12.1 | 11.2 | 9.5 | 8.0 | 7.7 | 8.0 | | LULUCF | -0.1 | -2.3 | -4.1 | -7.2 | -9.3 | -10.0 | -10.1 | -10.3 | | Total | 793.8 | 745.4 | 707.9 | 683.9 | 600.9 | 497.9 | 461.0 | 451.5 |
Source: Table 3, Final UK greenhouse gas emissions national statistics 1990-2018 Excel data tables Figure 4: Greenhouse gas emissions by source sector, UK, 2018 (MtCO₂e)
Table 4: UK greenhouse gas emissions by gas and sector
| Source sector | Carbon dioxide | Methane | Nitrous oxide | F gases | Total | |---------------------|----------------|---------|---------------|---------|--------| | Transport | 123.0 | 0.1 | 1.2 | 0.0 | 124.4 | | Energy supply | 98.4 | 5.8 | 0.8 | 0.0 | 104.9 | | Business | 65.9 | 0.1 | 0.8 | 12.1 | 79.0 | | Residential | 66.4 | 1.0 | 0.2 | 1.5 | 69.1 | | Agriculture | 5.7 | 25.4 | 14.3 | 0.0 | 45.4 | | Waste management | 0.2 | 19.0 | 1.4 | 0.0 | 20.7 | | Industrial processes| 9.7 | 0.1 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 10.2 | | Public | 8.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 8.0 | | LULUCF | -11.7 | 0.0 | 1.4 | 0.0 | -10.3 | | **Total** | **365.7** | **51.5**| **20.4** | **13.8**| **451.5**|
Source: Tables 3 to 7, Final UK greenhouse gas emissions national statistics 1990-2018 Excel data tables Transport
The transport sector consists of emissions from road transport, railways, domestic aviation, shipping, fishing and aircraft support vehicles. It is estimated to have been responsible for around 28% of UK greenhouse gas emissions in 2018, almost entirely through carbon dioxide emissions. The main source of emissions from this sector is the use of petrol and diesel in road transport. Transport emissions fell by 1% between 2017 and 2018, despite a small increase in road traffic. The transport sector has historically been the second most emitting sector; however reductions over time in what was the largest sector (energy supply) mean that since 2016 transport has been the most emitting sector.
Between 1990 and 2018, there has been relatively little overall change in the level of greenhouse gas emissions from the transport sector. Between 1990 and 2007 (when emissions peaked) there was a general increasing trend, with some fluctuations year to year. After this peak, emissions declined each year until 2013, at which point this trend reversed to show small increases most years. The overall effect of these fluctuations over time means emissions are estimated to have been around 3% lower in 2018 than in 1990.
Road transport is the most significant source of emissions in this sector, in particular passenger cars; and the changes which have been seen over the period were heavily influenced by this category. Figure 5 shows how the volume of traffic on the roads has changed over time in Great Britain, which reflects the trend seen for the UK. Motor vehicle traffic volumes have generally increased throughout this period, other than a fall seen between 2007 and 2012 following the recession.
However, with lower petrol consumption outweighing an increase in diesel consumption and improvements in fuel efficiency of both petrol and diesel cars, the volume of emissions from passenger cars has generally decreased since the mid-2000s. Although this has been partially offset by an increase in emissions from light commercial vehicles. Emissions of carbon dioxide are closely related to the amount of fuel used, whilst nitrous oxide and methane emissions are influenced more by the vehicle type and age.
______________________________________________________________________
17 Transport Statistics Great Britain, Energy and environment (TSGB03), Table TSGB0301 (ENV0101) Petroleum consumption by transport mode and fuel type: United Kingdom from 2000: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/tsgb03 18 Transport Statistics Great Britain, Energy and environment (TSGB03), Table TSGB0303 (ENV0103) Average new car fuel consumption: Great Britain from 1997: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/tsgb03 Figure 5: Motor vehicle traffic, Great Britain 1990-2018 (Billion vehicle kilometres)
Source: Transport Statistics Great Britain, Roads and traffic (TSGB07), Table TSGB0702 (TRA0201) Road traffic by vehicle type in Great Britain, annual from 1949: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/tsgb07
Figure 6: Greenhouse gas emissions from transport, UK 1990-2018 (MtCO₂e)
Source: Tables 3 to 7, Final UK greenhouse gas emissions national statistics 1990-2018 Excel data tables Energy supply
The energy supply sector consists of emissions from fuel combustion for electricity generation and other energy production sources. It is estimated to have been responsible for 23% of UK greenhouse gas emissions in 2018, with carbon dioxide being by far the most prominent gas for this sector (94%). The main source of emissions from this sector is the use of natural gas and coal in electricity generation from power stations.
There was a 7% fall in emissions from the energy supply sector between 2017 and 2018, meaning that between 1990 and 2018 they have reduced by 62%. This decrease has resulted mainly from changes in the mix of fuels being used for electricity generation, including the growth of renewables; together with greater efficiency resulting from improvements in technology. The energy supply sector has historically been the largest emissions sector; however these reductions mean that since 2016 it has been the second largest sector (the largest sector being transport).
Since 1990 there has been a decline in the use of coal at power stations and an increase in the use of gas, which has a lower carbon content so results in fewer emissions. Coal use in generation reduced by 91% between 1990 and 2018. Electricity generation was 6% higher in 2018 than in 1990, although it peaked in 2005 and has decreased since then.
There was a 24% decrease in coal use for electricity generation between 2017 and 2018. This follows large falls in 2016 and 2017 driven by the increase in the carbon price floor in April 2015, from £9 per tonne of CO₂ to £18 per tonne of CO₂, which led to a shift away from coal towards gas. In 2018 there was also a fall in the use of gas for electricity generation of 4%, whereas renewables saw a 19% increase. In 2018, total greenhouse gas emissions from power stations, at 66.8 MtCO₂e, accounted for 15% of all UK greenhouse gas emissions.
The other main factor which has noticeably contributed to the long-term decline in emissions in the energy sector has been in relation to coal mining. The production of deep-mined coal in particular has declined steadily over the period, with the last three large deep mines all closing in 2015. Emissions from coal mining and handling have fallen from 21.8 MtCO₂e in 1990 to only 0.5 MtCO₂e in 2018.
______________________________________________________________________
19 Digest of United Kingdom Energy Statistics, Table 5.1.1 Fuel input for electricity generation, 1970 to 2018 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/632667/DUKES_5.1.1.xls
20 Digest of United Kingdom Energy Statistics, Table 5.1.3 Electricity generated and supplied, 1970 to 2018 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/632669/DUKES_5.1.3.xls
21 Digest of United Kingdom Energy Statistics, Chapter 5 Electricity https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/electricity-chapter-5-digest-of-united-kingdom-energy-statistics-dukes Figure 7: Fuel used for UK electricity generation, UK 1990-2018 (Million tonnes of oil equivalent (Mtoe))
Source: Digest of United Kingdom Energy Statistics, Table 5.1.1 Fuel input for electricity generation, 1970 to 2018 https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/electricity-chapter-5-digest-of-united-kingdom-energy-statistics-dukes
Figure 8: Greenhouse gas emissions from energy supply, 1990-2018 (MtCO₂e)
Source: Tables 3 to 7, Final UK greenhouse gas emissions national statistics 1990-2018 Excel data tables Business
The business sector consists of emissions from combustion in industrial/commercial sectors, industrial off-road machinery, and refrigeration and air conditioning. Between 2017 and 2018 there was a 3% decrease in emissions from the business sector and it is estimated to have been responsible for 18% of UK greenhouse gas emissions in 2018, with carbon dioxide being the most prominent gas. Emissions from this sector primarily relate to fossil fuel combustion in industry and commerce, although emissions of F gases from the use of fluorinated compounds in certain applications, particularly refrigeration and air-conditioning, are also significant. The business sector is responsible for the majority of emissions from F gases.
In 2018, emissions from the business sector were 31% lower than 1990 emissions. Most of this decrease came between 2001 and 2009, with a significant drop in 2009 likely driven by economic factors. There has been a gradual decline in emissions in recent years. The main driver of the decrease in emissions since 1990 is a reduction in emissions from industrial combustion (including iron and steel) which has led to a 41% reduction in carbon dioxide emissions since 1990. However, emissions from F gases have increased significantly, mainly due to an increase in emissions from refrigeration and air-conditioning as HFCs replaced ozone depleting substances which were previously used as refrigerants. This increasing trend slowed in recent years and since 2015 has reversed, following the introduction of the HFC phase down as part of the EU’s 2014 F-Gas Regulation.
Figure 9: Greenhouse gas emissions from business, UK 1990-2018 (MtCO₂e)
Source: Tables 3 to 7, Final UK greenhouse gas emissions national statistics 1990-2018 Excel data tables Residential
The residential sector consists of emissions from fuel combustion for heating and cooking, garden machinery, and fluorinated gases released from aerosols and metered dose inhalers. It is estimated to have been responsible for around 15% of UK greenhouse gas emissions in 2018, with carbon dioxide being the most prominent gas for this sector (96%). The main source of emissions from this sector is the use of natural gas for heating and cooking.
It should be noted that since these figures are estimates of emissions by source, emissions related to residential electricity use, including electricity use for heating, are attributed to power stations and are therefore included in the energy supply sector rather than the residential sector.
Between 1990 and 2018, there has been considerable variation in greenhouse gas emissions from year to year in the residential sector. In general, carbon dioxide emissions from this sector are particularly heavily influenced by external temperatures, with colder temperatures driving higher emissions due to increased use of heating.
Temperature was the main driver of the 4% increase in residential emissions between 2017 and 2018. The average temperature across the year was on average the same in 2018 as in 2017, but 2018 had a particularly cold February and March, with average temperatures over 3 degrees Celsius lower than in 2017 in both months, increasing the use of natural gas for heating. Further information on the impact of external temperatures on emissions can be found later in this statistical release.
Figure 10: Greenhouse gas emissions from the residential sector, UK 1990-2018 (MtCO₂e)
Source: Tables 3 to 7, Final UK greenhouse gas emissions national statistics 1990-2018 Excel data tables
______________________________________________________________________
22 Energy Trends: Weather Table ET 7.1 Average temperatures, heating degree days and deviations from the long term mean https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/energy-trends-section-7-weather Agriculture
The agriculture sector consists of emissions from livestock, agricultural soils, stationary combustion sources and off-road machinery. It is estimated to have been responsible for 10% of UK greenhouse gas emissions in 2018. Emissions of methane (56%) and nitrous oxide (31%) dominate this sector. The most significant sources here are emissions of methane due to enteric fermentation from livestock, particularly cattle; and nitrous oxide emissions related to the use of fertilisers on agricultural soils.
Between 1990 and 2018, greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture decreased by around 16%, with a general downward trend in emissions since the late 1990s. This was driven by a fall in animal numbers over the period, together with a decrease in synthetic fertiliser use.
Between 2017 and 2018 there was a 1% decrease in emissions from the agriculture sector.
Figure 11: Greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture, UK 1990-2018 (MtCO₂e)
Waste management
The waste management sector consists of emissions from waste disposed of to landfill sites, waste incineration, and the treatment of waste-water. It is estimated to have been responsible for around 5% of UK greenhouse gas emissions in 2018, with methane being by far the most prominent gas (accounting for 92% of emissions). The vast majority of these emissions are from landfill sites.
Between 1990 and 2018, greenhouse gas emissions from the waste management sector decreased by 69%. This was due to a combination of factors, including improvements in the standards of landfilling, changes to the types of waste going to landfill (such as reducing the amount of biodegradable waste), and an increase in the amount of landfill gas being used for energy.
Emissions in the waste management sector rose by 1% between 2017 and 2018 due mainly to increased emissions from landfill.
**Figure 12: Greenhouse gas emissions from waste management, UK 1990-2018 (MtCO₂e)**
!\[Graph showing greenhouse gas emissions from waste management, UK 1990-2018 (MtCO₂e)\](source: Tables 3 to 7, Final UK greenhouse gas emissions national statistics 1990-2018 Excel data tables)
**Industrial processes**
The industrial processes sector consists of emissions from industry except for those associated with fuel combustion. It is estimated to have been responsible for 2% of UK greenhouse gas emissions in 2018, with carbon dioxide being the most prominent gas. The largest source of emissions was cement production, with other processes such as sinter, lime, and iron and steel production also contributing significantly.
Between 1990 and 2018, there was a large reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from the industrial processes sector, with an overall decrease of 83%. This was most notably due to a large reduction in emissions from adipic acid production and halocarbon production between 1998 and 1999 (combined emissions from which are now almost zero).
Emissions in the industrial processes sector decreased by 7% in 2018 compared to 2017. This was mainly caused by reduced emissions from the production of ammonia, halocarbons, and iron and steel. The public sector consists of emissions from combustion of fuel in public sector buildings, such as schools, hospitals and offices. It is estimated to have been responsible for less than 2% of UK greenhouse gas emissions in 2018, with carbon dioxide making up almost all of these emissions. The main source of emissions from this sector is the use of natural gas for heating public buildings.
Between 1990 and 2018 there has been a general downward trend in greenhouse gas emissions from the public sector, which have fallen by 41% over this period. This has been driven by a change in the fuel mix, with less use of coal and oil, and more use of natural gas.
Between 2017 and 2018 emissions increased by 4% in the public sector. As with the residential sector this is likely to be due to cooler temperatures increasing the use of gas for heating. Land use, land use change and forestry (LULUCF)
The LULUCF sector consists of emissions and removals from forest land, cropland, grassland, settlements and harvested wood products. It acted as a net sink(^{23}) of UK greenhouse gas emissions in 2018, dominated by carbon dioxide removals. In general, settlements and cropland are the largest sources of carbon dioxide emissions, while forest land and grasslands are the dominant sinks.
In the UK the LULUCF sector is estimated to have been a net sink in every year from 1990-2018, with the estimated size of the sink increasing from 0.1 MtCO(\_2)e in 1990 to 10.3 MtCO(\_2)e in 2018. This has been driven by a reduction in emissions from land being converted to cropland and an increase in the sink provided by forest land, with an increasing uptake of carbon dioxide by trees as they reach maturity, in line with the historical planting pattern. There has also been some reduction in emissions since 1990 due to less intensive agricultural practices.
Between 2017 and 2018 there was a 2% increase in the size of the net sink provided by the LULUCF sector.
(^{23}) Carbon sinks are defined by the UNFCCC as “any process, activity or mechanism which removes a greenhouse gas, an aerosol or a precursor of a greenhouse gas from the atmosphere”.
Source: Tables 3 to 7, Final UK greenhouse gas emissions national statistics 1990-2018 Excel data tables Figure 15: Greenhouse gas emissions from the LULUCF sector, UK 1990-2018 (MtCO$\_2$e)
Source: Tables 3 to 7, Final UK greenhouse gas emissions national statistics 1990-2018 Excel data tables Emissions from UK-based international aviation and shipping bunkers
In the data tables accompanying this publication, table 8 shows greenhouse gas emissions arising from use of fuels from UK international aviation and shipping bunkers since 1990.
Emissions from international aviation and shipping can be estimated from refuelling from bunkers at UK airports and ports, whether by UK or non-UK operators. Under the reporting guidelines agreed by the UNFCCC, these emissions are not included in the UK’s emissions total, but are reported as memo items in national greenhouse gas inventories. Parties to the UNFCCC are required to act to limit or reduce emissions from international services working through the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) and International Maritime Organisation (IMO).
It is important to note that whether emissions from refuelling at UK-based international aviation and shipping bunkers can be used as an accurate estimate of UK international aviation and shipping emissions will depend on what assumptions are being made about how to allocate international aviation and shipping emissions to different countries. In the International Civil Aviation Organisation, 193 states have agreed to implement a sectoral approach to tackling international aviation emissions, in the form of a “global market-based measure” known as the Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation (CORSIA), which does not allocate emissions to states. Under the scheme, airlines will offset their international aviation emissions with reductions from other sectors, with the aim of delivering carbon-neutral growth of the sector from 2020.
At the International Maritime Organization, the 2018 Initial Strategy on Reduction of GHG Emissions from Ships commits Member States to peak greenhouse gas emissions from international shipping as soon as possible and to reduce the total annual greenhouse gas emissions by at least 50% by 2050 compared to 2008 while pursuing efforts towards phasing them out as soon as possible this century.
In 2018, emissions from international aviation fuel use from UK bunkers were estimated to be 36.7 MtCO₂e. This was 1.1% larger than the 2017 figure. Between 1990 and 2006, when emissions reached a peak, emissions more than doubled from 15.5 MtCO₂e to 35.6 MtCO₂e. After 2006 emissions flattened out, but have risen again in the last two years to above the 2006 total. High altitude aviation has a greenhouse effect over and above that of carbon dioxide emissions from fuel alone, but this is not reflected in these estimates.
Emissions from UK international shipping bunkers were estimated to be 7.9 MtCO₂e in 2018, a small decrease of 0.2% from the 2017 level. Since 1990, emissions from UK shipping bunkers have fluctuated, as can be seen in the chart below, but in recent years have been at around the same level that they were in 1990.
______________________________________________________________________
24 A large container or compartment that stores fuel for ships or aircraft. 25 https://www.icao.int/environmental-protection/CORSIA/Pages/default.aspx 26 https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/resource/250.IMO_submission_Talanoa_Dialogue_April_2018.pdf Revisions from provisional estimates of greenhouse gas emissions
Provisional estimates of 2018 UK greenhouse gas and carbon dioxide emissions were published in March 2019, based on early estimates of energy consumption for the year. Differences between the provisional and final estimates arise primarily due to revisions to other statistics on which these estimates were based, use of actual data to estimate non-CO₂ emissions which are only estimated in a simplistic way in the provisional estimates, and methodological changes to the way emissions are calculated.
Typically the provisional estimates provide a better indication of emissions trends than of absolute emissions, as they do not take account of any methodological improvements that may be made to the way emissions are calculated and which can lead to revisions to the whole emissions time series from 1990 onwards. More information on revisions to the time series can be found in the next section.
It was provisionally estimated that total greenhouse gas emissions in 2018 for the UK would be 448.5 MtCO₂e, representing a 2.5% decrease on 2017 emissions. The final estimates show that 2018 emissions were 451.5 MtCO₂e, representing a 2.1% decrease on 2017 emissions. The provisional greenhouse gas emissions estimates therefore slightly underestimated total greenhouse gas emissions (by 0.6%) and slightly overestimated the percentage decrease in emissions from 2017 to 2018 (by 0.5 percentage points). The provisional estimates are focused on carbon dioxide emissions from the energy sector, and only provided a simplistic estimate of non-CO₂ gases which assumed that the 2018 emissions for non-CO₂ gases changed from the 2017 total in line with the percentage difference between the estimates for the 2017 and 2018 of total non-CO₂ emissions in the 2017 Energy and Emissions Projections²⁷ published by BEIS. Looking just at carbon dioxide emissions, it was provisionally estimated that net UK carbon dioxide emissions in 2018 would be 364.1 million tonnes. The final 2018 figure of 365.7 million tonnes therefore shows that the provisional estimate underestimated CO₂ emissions by 0.4%.
The provisional estimate of non-CO₂ gases was 84.4 MtCO₂e and the final estimate is 85.8 MtCO₂e so these emissions are 1.7% higher than reported in the provisional estimates. This was largely due to waste management emissions increasing where the projections had anticipated a fall.
Table 5: Comparison of 2018 provisional and final estimates UK, 2017-2018
| | 2018 Provisional estimates | 2018 Final estimates | Difference between final and provisional | Provisional 2017 to 2018 % change | Final 2017 to 2018 % change | |----------------------|-----------------------------|----------------------|------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------|-----------------------------| | Total CO₂ | 364.1 | 365.7 | 1.5 | -2.4% | -2.2% | | Non-CO₂ gases | 84.4 | 85.8 | 1.4 | -3.0% | -1.6% | | All greenhouse gases | 448.5 | 451.5 | 2.9 | -2.5% | -2.1% |
Source: Table 1, Final UK greenhouse gas emissions national statistics 1990-2018 Excel data tables Table 1, Provisional UK greenhouse gas emissions national statistics 2018 Excel data tables
Revisions to the UK’s Greenhouse Gas Inventory
The UK Greenhouse Gas Inventory (the time series of emissions from 1990 onwards which is the basis for these statistics), is reviewed every year internally and externally (including a review by the UNFCCC), and the whole historical data series is revised where necessary to incorporate methodological improvements, changes to international reporting guidelines or new data. This takes into account revisions to the datasets which have been used in its compilation, most notably the UK energy statistics published in the Digest of UK Energy Statistics (DUKES). The methodological changes to the UK Greenhouse Gas Inventory can also impact future emissions projections. Full details of the methods used to produce the latest greenhouse gas emissions estimates will be published in the UK’s National Inventory Report²⁸ (NIR).
These changes are applied back through the time series to 1990 in order to ensure that the trend in emissions from 1990 to the latest year is based on a consistent method. Therefore, it is not appropriate to compare the emissions time series from one year with that from another.
²⁷ Energy and emissions projections: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/energy-and-emissions-projections ²⁸ Previous UK NlRs can be found here: http://naei.beis.gov.uk/reports/ and the latest NIR covering 1990-2018 emissions will be submitted to the UNFCCC on 15th April 2020. However, the latest inventory represents a single consistent data series going back to 1990, and this therefore allows year-on-year comparisons to be made.
The most notable methodological changes to the historical series since the 2019 Greenhouse Gas Inventory was published are revisions to the LULUCF sector, while revisions to the datasets used in producing these estimates have led to changes across most sectors for more recent years. Details of the changes made to estimates of 1990 and 2017 emissions are given below. Revisions to other years of the time series are of a similar scale.
Table 6: Revisions in the 2020 Greenhouse Gas Inventory, by sector UK, 1990 and 2017
| Sector | 1990 emissions | 2017 emissions | Change | 1990 emissions | 2017 emissions | Change | |-----------------------|----------------|----------------|--------|----------------|----------------|--------| | | 2019 inventory | 2020 inventory | | 2019 inventory | 2020 inventory | | | Energy supply | 277.9 | 278.0 | ~0.0 | 112.6 | 112.3 | -0.3 | | Transport | 128.1 | 128.1 | ~0.0 | 125.9 | 126.1 | 0.2 | | Business | 114.0 | 113.8 | -0.2 | 80.1 | 81.1 | 1.0 | | Residential | 80.1 | 80.1 | ~0.0 | 66.9 | 66.6 | -0.3 | | Agriculture | 54.0 | 54.0 | ~0.0 | 45.6 | 45.8 | 0.2 | | Waste management | 66.6 | 66.6 | ~0.0 | 20.3 | 20.4 | 0.1 | | Industrial processes | 59.9 | 59.9 | ~0.0 | 10.8 | 11.0 | 0.2 | | Public | 13.5 | 13.5 | ~0.0 | 7.8 | 7.7 | -0.1 | | LULUCF | 0.3 | -0.1 | -0.4 | -9.9 | -10.1 | -0.2 | | **Total** | **794.4** | **793.8** | **-0.5** | **460.2** | **461.0** | **0.8** |
~0.0 indicates where a value is non-zero but is less than either 0.05 MtCO₂e in magnitude.
Source: Table 3, Final UK greenhouse gas emissions national statistics 1990-2017 Data tables
Within the sectors there have also been some changes made to the names of source categories this year, either to clarify them or to denote a change in coverage compared to the previous publication. These are summarised below. | Source category | Sector | Reason for change | |-----------------------------------------------------|-------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Closed foams | Business | This is a renaming of the *Foams* category from previous publications, to make it clearer and distinguish it from the *One component foams* category. The coverage is unchanged. | | Industrial combustion and electricity (excl. iron and steel) | Business | This is a renaming of the *Other industrial combustion and electricity* category from previous publications to make it clearer. The coverage is unchanged. | | Commercial and miscellaneous combustion and electricity | Business | This is a renaming of the *Miscellaneous industrial and commercial combustion and electricity* category from previous publications to make it clearer. The coverage is unchanged. | | Railways - mobile combustion | Transport | This is a renaming of the *Railways* from previous publications, to make it clearer and distinguish it from the *Railways - stationary combustion* category. The coverage is unchanged. | | Recreational use of N₂O | Residential | This is a new category this year. These emissions were previously included in the *Use of N₂O* category in the *Industrial processes* sector, but inclusion in the *Residential* sector was judged to be more appropriate. | | Soda ash production & use | Industrial processes | This is a renaming of the *Soda ash production* category from previous publications to reflect that it now includes some emissions from soda ash use, which have been included in these statistics for the first time this year. |
Details of the methodological changes made to the emissions estimates this year are given below.
**Additional sources from soda ash use**
Based on a recommendation from the UNFCCC, estimates have been made of CO₂ emissions for the use of soda ash (sodium carbonate) for applications other than glass production. While glass production is already included in the inventory, non-glass uses of soda ash were previously reported as “not estimated” due to their falling below the threshold of significance (0.01% of the inventory total or 500 ktCO₂e, whichever is lower). The UNFCCC requested that we find stronger evidence that emissions were low enough to remain unreported, and in doing so the evidence we found was good enough to report. Therefore, despite emissions from non-glass uses of soda-ash being small enough to remain un-estimated – 26 ktCO₂e in 1990 and 19 ktCO₂e in 2017, representing approximately 0.004% of total emissions – we now estimate them as we now have the data to do so. The estimates include soda ash converted to sodium bicarbonate.
**Transition to energy units for fuels**
The handling of fuels activity data and emission factors are now being done in units of terajoule (TJ (net)) at the earliest practicable stage in the process. TJ (net) are the international standard units for inventory reporting and guidance, so moving to use these units reduces the number of conversions required when utilising international data and reporting using common metrics.
The impact of this work has not been calculated as the impact will be felt across a great number of sectors, so it is not practicable to distinguish the impact of this from the routine recalculations across the dozens of models that this work would impact. Also note that we would expect the recalculations cause by this transition to be very limited as the unit conversion on emission factors and activity data should cancel out when calculating emissions, so the only impact would be rounding errors due to the use of subtly different calculations.
Oil and gas fugitive emissions
Three short studies into fugitive emissions from the energy sector were conducted in 2019. None of these studies have led to any notable recalculation of emission estimates in any year except 2012. Key outcomes from the studies are as follows:
- Downstream gas fugitives: there are no data recalculations this year; however, two studies are ongoing to address potential small gaps in the inventory;
- Upstream oil and gas fugitives: access to new data sources but further analysis is required before any changes are implemented in the inventory so no data recalculations have occurred as a result this year;
- Emission estimate from the Elgin field gas leak in the North Sea in 2012(^{29}): a new emission estimate for methane (64 ktCO(\_2)e) has been estimated based on a research publication and added to the 2012 dataset.
Rail emissions and emission factors improvement
Improvements have been made to the 2018 rail emission estimates. Key emission factors used for rail in the GHGI were revised based on a recent Rail Standards and Safety Board project to develop new emission factors by engine power output which covered around 50% of the UK diesel fleet. The size of the recalculation in 2017 is a slight reduction in methane emissions of 0.001kt (one tonne) CO(\_2)e.
Minor LULUCF carbon stock changes
Minor changes were made to the carbon stock changes of forest land remaining forest land, land converted to forest land, and cropland remaining cropland. The most significant of these was in forest land remaining forest land though the overall impact of the changes is a 28 ktCO(\_2)e increase to emissions in the base year, and a 10 ktCO(\_2)e increase in emissions in 2017.
- **Forest land remaining forest land**: Wood production statistics are used as an input into the model that produces these estimates. In order to address some problems in the resulting estimates prior to the start of the wood production statistics (i.e. pre-1976), Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) data was used to extend the data back to 1961. The overlap method was used to make the FAO data consistent with the wood production statistics and the UK level data was divided between the Devolved
(^{29}) [https://www.gov.uk/government/news/elgin-platform-incident](https://www.gov.uk/government/news/elgin-platform-incident) Administrations and private/public forest estates on the pro-rata basis, using the 1976 estimates.
The estimated level of conifer thinning was increased for Scotland and Wales to smooth the modelled wood production in order to reduce discontinuities in the time series.
A number of changes were made to the CARBINE model for estimating carbon stocks that addressed some issues identified during a verification exercise such as an underestimate of dead organic matter on deforested land.
- **Land converted to forest land**: Changes were made to the planting data and the CARBINE model as described for forest Land remaining forest Land.
- **Cropland remaining cropland**: There was a change in the equilibrium soil carbon density from values for 0-100cm of the soil profile to values for the top 0-30cm of soil(^{30}). As a result, there is an upward shift in emissions throughout the time series. An adjustment was also made to the cropland areas for potatoes and sugar beet in England in 2017, and for the areas of oats in England from 1971-1973.
### Harvested wood products changes
Harvested wood products are reported under LULUCF. As described for forest land remaining forest land, the overlap method as used to make FAO data consistent with the wood production statistics and the estimated level of conifer thinning was also increased. The overall change from this is a reduction in emissions (increased draw-down) in 1990 of 458 ktCO(\_2)e and a reduction of 2017 emissions (increased draw-down) of 359 ktCO(\_2)e.
### Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies LULUCF estimation changes
Previously some categories within the LULUCF sector have not been included in the UK inventory for Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies as the estimates were found to be below the threshold at which countries are not required to include sources in their greenhouse gas inventories. However, it was recommended in the September 2019 inventory review by the UNFCCC that the insignificance threshold cannot be applied to geographical sub-regions within a category for which emissions are already reported for the UK, so forest and grassland wildfires in Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies are required to be reported.
Calculations have now been introduced for Guernsey, Jersey and the Isle of Man based on the rate of burning in UK forests. The calculations for the Cayman Islands are based on the rate of burning in Cuba. There is no forest land in the Falkland Islands or Gibraltar and the fire statistics for Bermuda state zero forest area burnt. For wildfires from grassland the calculations for Guernsey, Jersey, Isle of Man, the Falkland Islands and the Cayman Islands are based on the rate of burning of UK grassland. This method follows the geographical proxy guidelines (with no closer proxy available for the Falkland Islands and the Cayman Islands). Fire statistics
______________________________________________________________________
(^{30}) Bradley, R. I., R. Milne, et al. (2005). A soil carbon and land use database for the United Kingdom. Soil Use and Management 21(004): 363-369. for Bermuda state zero area burnt. The emissions are highest from the Falkland Islands which has a large grassland area.
Small changes to cropland and settlement emissions have also occurred as a result of moving to a coded model, when small methodological improvements have been made. Emissions and removals for changes in settlement were calculated for Bermuda and the Cayman Islands for the first time.
The overall change for LULUCF from Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies is an increase of 280 ktCO₂e for 1990 and 304 ktCO₂e for 2017. This does not affect the UK totals presented in table 6 and throughout most of this publication.
Regulatory Inventory Database
A new database system for processing emissions data from various regulatory inventories into emissions estimates for the UK inventory has been introduced. The new system automates the processing, leading to greater consistency in the application of assumptions used to deal with gaps and outliers in the regulator inventory datasets. This has led to some changes as part of the overhaul of systems involved reviewing and updating some of the assumptions used in gap-filling procedures.
Improvement to carbon factors for coal used in the cement industry
The UK inventory agency has received an updated set of carbon emission factors from the cement sector trade association, which indicate that the coal carbon emission factors dating back to 2000 (and also with a 1990 data point) were lower than those used in previous submissions. The lower carbon emission factors for the early part of the time series have been determined as more consistent with the large industry dataset of carbon emission factors now available, leading to recalculations back to 1990.
Minor LULUCF Recalculations
A series of minor changes were made to the LULUCF calculations.
- **Forest land remaining forest land wildfire emissions**: there has been an addition of wildfire data in Scotland which has increased wildfire emissions for 2014.
- **Land converted to forest land soil mineralisation for the UK**: changes to planting data and the CARBINE model as described previously have an impact on soil carbon stock exchange from which nitrous oxide (N₂O) emissions due to mineralisation are calculated.
- **Forest land drainage for the UK**: changes to the forest planting time series directly impacts calculations for forest drainage which are based on the areas of forest planted on different soil types. • **Forest land converted to grassland controlled burning emissions/forest land converted to settlements controlled burning**: calculation for controlled burning following deforestation are now made directly from biomass lost as estimated by the CARBINE model instead of from deforested area multiplied by average biomass densities. Estimates of deforestation were altered due to reprocessing of Countryside Survey data and using Forestry England Corporate Indicators report to estimate deforestation in England for 2017-2018.
• **Forest land converted to grassland carbon stock change/forest land converted to settlements carbon stock change**: as for controlled burning emissions recalculations, there were alterations to deforestation estimates. Additionally, carbon stock change in living biomass and dead organic matter is now estimated by the CARBINE model instead of from deforested area by average biomass densities. Accompanying tables
The following tables are available in Excel and ODS format on the department’s statistics website:
| Table 1 | Estimated territorial greenhouse gas emissions by gas, UK 1990-2018 | |---------|---------------------------------------------------------------| | Table 2 | Estimated territorial greenhouse gas emissions by geographical coverage and gas, UK, Crown Dependencies & Overseas Territories 1990-2018 | | Table 3 | Estimated territorial greenhouse gas emissions by source category, 1990-2018 | | Table 4 | Estimated territorial emissions of Carbon Dioxide (CO₂) by source category, 1970-2018 | | Table 5 | Estimated territorial emissions of Methane (CH₄) by source category, 1990-2018 | | Table 6 | Estimated territorial emissions of Nitrous Oxide (N₂O) by source category, 1990-2018 | | Table 7 | Estimated territorial emissions of fluorinated gases (F gases) by source category, 1990-2018 | | Table 8 | Estimated greenhouse gas emissions arising from use of fuels from UK international aviation and shipping bunkers 1990-2018 | | Table 9 | UK territorial greenhouse gas emissions 2008-2018, progress towards the Kyoto Protocol, Carbon Budgets and EU Effort Sharing Decision Targets | | Table 10 | Uncertainty in estimates of UK territorial greenhouse gas emissions: 1990/2017 | | Table 11 | Uncertainty in estimates of UK territorial greenhouse gas emissions by sector: 1990/2017 | | Table 12 | Sectoral definitions and inclusions | | Table 13 | Sectoral details, methodologies and data sources | | Table 14 | Estimated territorial greenhouse gas emissions by National Communication source category, type of fuel and end-user category for the UK only (excluding NF₃) 1990-2018 | | Table 15 | Estimated territorial greenhouse gas emissions for the UK and Crown Dependencies by source category and type of fuel, 1990-2018 | | Table 16 | Estimated territorial greenhouse gas emissions for the UK, Crown Dependencies and Overseas Territories by source category and type of fuel, 1990-2018 |
We intend to remove tables 14 and 15 listed above from the next publication because we believe they have few users and the data in them will still be available from the pivot tables published on the NAEI website. If you would prefer to see these tables retained in this release please contact us at [email protected]. Technical information
Methodology for producing greenhouse gas emissions estimates
Because it is impractical to directly measure emissions from every exhaust, chimney and acre of land in the UK, greenhouse gas emission estimates are based on a series of models that estimate emissions from different sources. The source data and methods used to derive UK greenhouse gas emission estimates have been developed to be consistent with methods defined within international guidance(^{31}). All countries that report to the UNFCCC are required to use these estimation methods to ensure that the emissions for each country are complete and comparable.
The basic equation for estimating most sources of emissions is:
[ \\text{Emission Factor} \\times \\text{Activity Data} = \\text{Emission Estimate} ]
For example, to estimate CO(\_2) emissions from vehicles the activity data might be the total number of kilometres travelled by that type of vehicle and the emission factor the amount of CO(\_2) emitted per kilometre.
The emission factor is the emission per unit of activity. Emission factors for energy sources are either dependent on the fuel characteristics (for emissions of CO(\_2)) or how the fuel is burned, for example the size and efficiency of equipment used. For other sources, the emission factor can be dependent on a range of parameters, such as feed characteristics for livestock or the chemical reactions taking place for industrial process emissions. Emission factors are typically derived from measurements on a number of representative sources and the resulting factor applied to all similar sources in the UK.
The UK Greenhouse Gas Inventory uses the best available data from UK and international research for each emission source. The approach used is largely defined by the availability of data and the significance of the emission source in the overall UK inventory: more detailed methods are used for the high-emitting sources, whilst simpler methods can be used for minor sources, consistent with international guidance.
For some sources, the calculation of emissions is more complicated, and therefore a model is used to estimate emissions. For example, emissions of methane from waste disposed to landfills are estimated using a model that reflects the fact that the emissions occur over a long timeframe from the initial disposal of the waste, and that emissions are affected by the level of capture and utilisation of the landfill methane produced. The CO(\_2) emissions and removals from land use, land use change and forestry are also modelled.
Table 13 in the data tables accompanying this publication summarises the methods and data sources used to estimate emissions from each source, and there are factsheets published on the NAEI website(^{32}) that summarise the main data sources and methods used for each sector. More detailed methodology information for each source can be found in the National Inventory Report submitted to the UNFCCC each year. The report for the 1990-2018 inventory will be
(^{31}) 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: https://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/index.html
(^{32}) Sector, Gas and Uncertainty Summary Factsheets: https://naei.beis.gov.uk/overview/ghg-overview published on 15 April 2020, so the report for the 1990-2017 inventory\\textsuperscript{33} is the most recently available at the time of this publication.
BEIS also runs a programme to monitor atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases, which is used to verify the emission estimates made in the Greenhouse Gas Inventory\\textsuperscript{34}.
**Estimating emissions on a temperature adjusted basis**
BEIS publishes provisional estimates of temperature adjusted emissions\\textsuperscript{35}, which give an idea of overall trends in emissions without fluctuations due to changes in external temperatures. The provisional emissions series is estimated based on UK provisional energy consumption data published by BEIS and is not as accurate as the estimates in this statistical release, which are derived from our annual Greenhouse Gas Inventory. We can compare the latest provisional unadjusted and temperature adjusted emissions with the final estimates now available.
On a temperature adjusted basis, net carbon dioxide emissions in 2017 and 2018 were estimated to be 388.9 Mt and 374.1 Mt respectively. The decrease in carbon dioxide emissions between 2017 and 2018 in the temperature adjusted figures is therefore 14.8 Mt, which is slightly more than the decrease seen in the non-temperature adjusted figures, as can be seen in the table below. This suggests that the underlying change between 2017 and 2018 when adjusted for temperature would be more than the 2.2% shown.
**Table 7: Comparison of provisional emissions estimates with final emissions estimates UK, 2017-2018**
| | 2017 CO\\textsubscript{2} emissions (Mt) | 2018 CO\\textsubscript{2} emissions (Mt) | Absolute change (Mt) | Percentage change | |----------------------|----------------------------------------|----------------------------------------|----------------------|-------------------| | Final estimates | | | | | | unadjusted emissions | 373.8 | 365.7 | -8.1 | -2.2% | | Provisional estimates| | | | | | unadjusted emissions | 373.2 | 364.1 | -9.1 | -2.4% | | Provisional estimates| | | | | | Temperature adjusted emissions | 388.9 | 374.1 | -14.8 | -3.8% |
Source: Table 1, Final UK greenhouse gas emissions national statistics 1990-2018 Data tables Table 3 & 4, Provisional UK greenhouse gas emissions national statistics 2018 Excel data tables
Note: The provisional emissions estimates differ from the emissions estimates in these statistics because they were published before the 2018 figures presented were finalised.
\\textsuperscript{33} UK National Inventory Report 1990-2017: https://naei.beis.gov.uk/reports/reports?report_id=981 \\textsuperscript{34} Monitoring and verification of long term UK atmospheric measurement of greenhouse gas emissions: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/uk-greenhouse-gas-emissions-monitoring-and-verification \\textsuperscript{35} Provisional UK greenhouse gas emissions: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/provisional-uk-greenhouse-gas-emissions-national-statistics Uncertainties
Estimates of emissions have an inherent uncertainty due to uncertainty in the underlying data used to calculate the emissions, and due to uncertainty in the applicability, completeness and application of that data. Uncertainty analysis is conducted by modelling the uncertainty in the underlying emission factors, activity data, and other variables within models; or in the overall model output. This suggests that the 95% confidence interval around the overall greenhouse gas emissions estimates is believed to be ±3%, as shown in Figure 17 (which is based on uncertainty analysis of 2017 emissions, as published in 2019). Estimates of 2018 uncertainties will be published on 26 March 2020.
The uncertainty of greenhouse gas emissions estimates varies considerably by sector. LULUCF emissions estimates are the most uncertain, followed by waste management and agriculture.
Figure 17: Illustration of uncertainty in UK greenhouse gas emissions, UK, Crown Dependencies and Overseas Territories, 2017 (MtCO₂e)
The error bar on this chart represents the uncertainty range (in this case, the 95% confidence interval) around the 2017 total greenhouse gas emissions central estimate.
Further information
Future updates to these statistics
On Thursday 26 March 2020 BEIS will publish a breakdown of 1990-2018 UK territorial emissions by end-user sector and fuel type, to supplement the source sector breakdown included in this publication.
On Thursday 26 March 2020 BEIS will also publish provisional estimates of UK greenhouse gas emissions for 2019. This will coincide with the publication of Energy Trends statistics, which will include estimates of 2019 UK energy consumption. On Thursday 25 June 2020 BEIS will publish estimates of carbon dioxide emissions by local authority for 2018.
Final estimates of UK greenhouse gas emissions for 2019 will be published in February 2021.
Related publications
- This statistical release and the related data tables are the first release of data from the National Atmospheric Emissions Inventory (NAEI) for 1970-2018, produced for BEIS and the Devolved Administrations by Ricardo Energy & Environment. Additional results will be released as they become available. For further information on the UK Greenhouse Gas Inventory, see the NAEI website.
- The UK’s National Inventory Report (NIR) for 1990-2018 will be submitted to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) on 15th April 2020. The report will contain national greenhouse gas emissions estimates for 1990-2018 and descriptions of the methods used to produce the estimates. Previous reports can be found on the NAEI website.
- The background quality report provides a summary of quality issues relating to statistics on UK territorial greenhouse gas emissions.
- There are uncertainties associated with all estimates of greenhouse gas emissions. Although for any given year considerable uncertainties may surround the emissions estimates for a pollutant, it is important to note that trends over time are likely to be much more reliable. For more information on these uncertainties see the uncertainties factsheet on the NAEI website.
- The record of base year emissions table shows how the UK base year for UK Carbon Budgets and the Kyoto Protocol has changed from 2008 to the latest inventory year.
- BEIS also publishes emissions projections based on assumptions of future emission reduction policies, economic growth, fossil fuel prices, electricity generation costs, UK population and other key variables.
- Further information about the Kyoto Protocol can be found on the UNFCCC’s website.
- Further details of the European Union Emissions Trading System can be found at the EU ETS section of the Gov.uk website.
- Under the Climate Change Act, the Annual Statement of Emissions for 2018 must be laid before Parliament and published no later than 31st March 2020. This will give details of the net UK carbon account for 2018, which is used to determine compliance with the targets and budgets under the Act.
- ONS publishes emissions on a “residential” basis in the UK Environmental Accounts. The figures represent emissions caused by UK residents and businesses whether in the UK or abroad, but exclude emissions within the UK which can be attributed to overseas residents and businesses.
- Defra publishes the UK’s carbon footprint. This estimates emissions on a “consumption” basis, meaning it covers emissions associated with the consumption of goods and services. by households in the UK. It includes estimates of emissions associated with each stage of the supply chain for those goods and services, regardless of where they occur, while excluding emissions occurring in the UK that are associated with the consumption of goods and services by households outside the UK.
- The latest UK energy statistics, including revisions to earlier years’ data, can be found in the Digest of UK Energy Statistics.
- Detailed UK temperature data can be found on both the Met Office website and the Weather Statistics section of the gov.uk website.
- Similar results for non-greenhouse gas atmospheric pollutants are published by Defra in its statistics on Emissions of air pollutants in the UK.
Revisions policy
The BEIS statistical revisions policy sets out the revisions policy for these statistics, which has been developed in accordance with the UK Statistics Authority Code of Practice for Statistics.
Uses of these statistics
The UK’s greenhouse gas emission estimates are used by central government departments, devolved governments and local authorities to understand emissions in the areas they are responsible for, develop policies to reduce emissions and to set targets. They are the basis for the UK’s domestic and international emissions targets and are required to be reported to the UNFCCC and EU each year.
Outside government the statistics are used by the media and the public to understand the level of the UK’s greenhouse gas emissions and trends over time. They provide detailed emissions data on gases, sectors and sub-sectors that may of interest to users (particularly academics) with a focus on a particular area of emissions. The data are also the basis of emission conversion factors that are used by companies and other organisations to report their greenhouse gas emissions.
A statement of user needs for greenhouse gas emission statistics is published at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/uk-greenhouse-gas-emissions-statistics- statement-on-user-needs
User engagement
Users are encouraged to provide comments and feedback on how these statistics are used and how well they meet user needs. In particular, this year we are consulting on our intention to remove tables 14 and 15 from the data tables that accompany this publication. Comments on this and any issues relating to this statistical release are welcomed and should be sent to: [email protected]
The BEIS statement on statistical public engagement and data standards sets out the department’s commitments on public engagement and data standards as outlined by the Code of Practice for Statistics. National Statistics designation
National Statistics status means that our statistics meet the highest standards of trustworthiness, quality and public value, and it is our responsibility to maintain compliance with these standards.
The continued designation of these statistics as National Statistics was confirmed in September 2018 following a compliance check by the Office for Statistics Regulation. The statistics last underwent a full assessment against the Code of Practice for Statistics in 2014.
Since the latest review by the Office for Statistics Regulation, we have continued to comply with the Code of Practice for Statistics, and have made the following improvements:
- Improved the accuracy of the historic emissions estimates by continuing to make methodological changes to the UK’s Greenhouse Gas Inventory.
- Providing more methodological and background information about the statistics in the statistical release.
- Publishing a new table showing emissions by source category for the UK, Crown Dependencies and Overseas Territories combined (the geographical coverage of UK submissions to the UNFCCC).
Pre-release access to statistics
Some ministers and officials receive pre-release access to these statistics up to 24 hours before release. Details of the arrangements for doing this and a list of the ministers and officials that receive pre-release access to these statistics can be found in the BEIS statement of compliance with the Pre-Release Access to Official Statistics Order 2008.
Contact
- Responsible statistician: Christopher Waite
- Email: [email protected]
- Media enquiries: 020 7215 1000
- Public enquiries: 020 7215 8285
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/0320-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 41,
"total-input-tokens": 79633,
"total-output-tokens": 23910,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
2856,
1
],
[
2856,
7100,
2
],
[
7100,
11096,
3
],
[
11096,
15058,
4
],
[
15058,
16792,
5
],
[
16792,
17818,
6
],
[
17818,
21147,
7
],
[
21147,
23201,
8
],
[
23201,
26209,
9
],
[
26209,
29570,
10
],
[
29570,
33295,
11
],
[
33295,
35531,
12
],
[
35531,
36799,
13
],
[
36799,
39486,
14
],
[
39486,
39974,
15
],
[
39974,
42881,
16
],
[
42881,
43397,
17
],
[
43397,
45182,
18
],
[
45182,
47152,
19
],
[
47152,
48782,
20
],
[
48782,
50268,
21
],
[
50268,
51118,
22
],
[
51118,
52527,
23
],
[
52527,
52718,
24
],
[
52718,
55889,
25
],
[
55889,
57361,
26
],
[
57361,
60971,
27
],
[
60971,
63524,
28
],
[
63524,
66940,
29
],
[
66940,
70043,
30
],
[
70043,
73102,
31
],
[
73102,
75571,
32
],
[
75571,
76497,
33
],
[
76497,
78851,
34
],
[
78851,
82133,
35
],
[
82133,
85705,
36
],
[
85705,
87401,
37
],
[
87401,
90233,
38
],
[
90233,
92889,
39
],
[
92889,
94573,
40
],
[
94573,
94573,
41
]
]
} |
5a335ce44a4232dc711282a484999b74a5f80507 | THE OFFICE OF RAIL AND ROAD 156th BOARD MEETING 09:00-15:15 TUESDAY 29 JANUARY 2019 ONE KEMBLE STREET, LONDON WC2B 4AN
Non-executive members: Declan Collier (Chair), Tracey Barlow, Stephen Glaister, Anne Heal, Bob Holland, Michael Luger, Justin McCracken, Graham Mather
Executive members: John Larkinson (Chief Executive), Graham Richards (Director Railway Planning and Performance); Ian Prosser (Director Railway Safety).
In attendance: Dan Brown (Director Strategy and Policy), Russell Grossman (Director of Communications), Freya Guinness (Director Corporate Operations and Organisational Development), Juliet Lazarus (Director Legal Services and Competition), Tess Sanford (Board Secretary), Stephanie Tobyn (Deputy Director Railway Markets and Economics)
Other ORR staff in attendance are shown in the text.
Item 1 WELCOME AND APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
1. The chair welcomed everyone to his first meeting as chair. There were no apologies.
Item 2 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
2. No new external interests were declared.
Item 3 APPROVAL OF PREVIOUS MINUTES AND MATTERS ARISING
3. The minutes were approved and the chair would sign them.
4. In discussing the action points: ● John Larkinson offered to circulate a note on the work in hand on the review of open access [Action: JLk] ● Following an update on successful discussions with DfT, the board agreed to defer any letter to the department on the issue of rolling stock risk [Action: deferred]
Item 4: HEADLINES AND REGULAR REPORTS
05. Ian Prosser updated the Board on: progress with authorisations of new rolling stock and work in hand to highlight future risks (including software risks) and a better understanding of ORR’s concerns within DfT. John Larkinson assured the board that ORR’s interventions and actions would be properly recorded [Action]. The board discussed plans to meet the growing need for software and cyber security skills in-house. The board also heard updates on funding for the tram safety standards body and Sandilands prosecutions, work with NR (RMDs and SO) on trackworker safety, work to better understand a negative trend in passenger and public harm figures, and driver licencing in advance of Brexit.
06. Graham Richards noted that a Highways update would be part of the later agenda item. On Rail he said that NR’s response to the provisional order on performance was due on 15 February and was expected to address all ORR’s concerns. The board was asked to note the update on NR’s response to the provisional order on its breach of timetable licence conditions, including the potential for a timelag between the end of the provisional order and the implementation of any final order that might become necessary. The board noted this approach.
07. The board were concerned with the lack of detail underpinning the assurance offered in the report on progress with the May and December 2019 timetable change planning. Following discussion, the executive agreed the following actions: • urgently check the status of the Bolton works which were key to the success of the May change and seek further detail on the delays on the Elizabeth Line, • ascertain now whether T-12 would be met for May, • set out for the board what regular contact was happening and what evidence was available to justify increased confidence in the capability of the PMO to deliver change effectively, including considering again where additional ORR assurance could be useful. This might include gathering stakeholder views on the PMO’s effectiveness and timely reminders to others on the recommendations of the Timetabling Review which they had not yet implemented.
08. Graham also reported on encouraging improvements in PPM for Northern, GTR and TPE following the December timetable change. The board commented on the confusing picture offered by delay attribution and asked for a longer discussion on this at the next meeting [Action: forward programme].
09. Stephanie Tobyn reported [redact this section until this process is complete] that a case to answer letter had been issued that day to GTR on the PIDD investigation while work on the Northern investigation was continuing, and DfT were aware. She also reported that NR (both centre and Route managing directors) had accepted the Final Determination unconditionally and also consented to the licence changes proposed. The board noted the challenge of issuing 180 new licences and commended the staff involved. Overall, ORR was making good progress towards being ready for CP6.
10. Dan Brown reported on work to ensure continuity of passenger and freight services with mainland Europe and Ireland after Brexit: ORR was content that there were no regulatory impediments in any scenario. He identified risks (among others) in relation to parliamentary time for the necessary statutory instruments, IGC’s future status as a competent safety authority, and border control capacity at key entry points. The board discussed the risk of disruption to freight flows, including behaviour such as stockpiling and subsequent drawdown of stock and what NR had done to prepare.
11. Freya Guinness reported on the projected budget underspend which was largely the result of restraint in the early part of the year when the scope and impact of the timetabling inquiry were unknown and there had been a provision for rent on two London buildings. Significant work had been done to bring forward discrete pieces of consultancy into the current year to reduce the underspend. All business plan commitments would be met (except Crossrail which was an externally caused delay).
12. John Larkinson reported on meetings with the chair of the Transport Select Committee (Lilian Greenwood), FOCs and the supply chain and internal engagement including holding senior leadership ‘roadshows’ at all offices Item 5 FINAL ORDER RELATING TO NR BREACH OF TIMETABLE LICENCE CONDITIONS
Catherine Williams joined the meeting for the next two items
13. Catherine Williams reported on the completed consultation on the provisional order. The board agreed to issue the final order unchanged from the draft. [Action]
Item 6 2019-20 ORR BUSINESS PLAN AND BUDGET Lucy Doubleday and Liz Thornhill joined the meeting for this item.
14. Freya Guinness explained the bottom up/top down approach which had led to these proposals, including board’s steer from the November strategy discussion. Increases in headcount were proposed to address key areas. Accommodation costs were ringfenced, and would lead to a short term increase to our charges to the industry. Flexibility to allow for responding to the outcome of the Williams review and work to prepare for the spending review SR2021 were included in current plans.
15. Directors each set out their priorities for 2019-20, any remaining scope for flexibility, and how these would be reflected in the business plan. The board asked that the plan explicitly referred to ORR’s readiness to flex in response to the Williams review, recognised the increasing size of its regional offices, and discussed the right length of horizon for business planning. The detailed budget would be presented at the March meeting.
Item 7 HIGHWAYS ENGLAND
Richard Coates joined the meeting for this item
16. The board discussed the briefing provided and key areas of interest in relation to Highways England’s performance on RIS1 and planning for RIS2.
Highways England: Colin Matthews (Chair) Jim O’Sullivan (Chief Executive) and Eliot Shaw (Director of Strategy) joined the meeting
17. Colin Matthews set out HE’s three imperatives: safety, customer service and delivering government’s road investment plans effectively.
18. Jim O’Sullivan described developing capability over the first four years of HE’s operations, including culture change in the organisation, how it had responded to financial challenges, and shifts in external understanding of the value and importance of the network to the UK economy. He described forthcoming challenges around delivering RIS2, system capacity for megaprojects, historic data quality, flux in renewals investment, cost increases and planning, noting that a different public funding model might lead to higher expectations from customers using the network.
19. With its visitors the board discussed: HE’s overall annual capacity to manage work on the network, the impact of megaprojects on capacity and capital funding, the need to manage the network as a whole, improving customers’ experience to meet growing expectations, setting the right targets to measure performance fairly, the benefit of comparative data between regions, and public information around maintenance works. HE explained work in hand to leverage safer driving (working with insurers) and maximising the value added by traffic officers. HE explained the work it was doing following the Genoa bridge collapse to assure all its structures were safe – additional resources were being used to deliver a risk based programme of inspection by 31/3/19. Asset data would also be substantially improved as a result of this programme. The meeting also discussed preparations for Brexit including non-traditional movement patterns and operational contingencies around all ports.
The guests left the meeting
Lunch
Item 8 REGULATORY FINANCE BRIEFING (NR’S FINANCIAL POSITION IN CP5)
Carl Hetherington, Gordon Cole and Richard Connor joined the meeting for this item
20. The presentation set out the transition from CP5 to implementing CP6 and unresolved issues. The board discussed declining efficiency in CP5, contrasts in approach between Scotland and England/Wales, proposals for future reporting by route, challenges around route data and indicators of efficiency including disruptive possessions. The board noted that reporting would deliver a wider range of indicators and better information to judge performance.
Item 9 COMMUNICATIONS STRATEGY 6 MONTHLY REPORT
Lisa O’Brien and Jennifer Webber joined the meeting for this item
21. Russell Grossman introduced the paper which reported against the current strategy. The reports showed that the office had had an exceptionally positive six months in reputational terms including the final determination, the timetabling review and our work for consumers. The report included the forward look requested by the board in November.
22. The board welcomed the report and discussed it. They noted the complaints and general inquiries data and asked that board discussions should include information on user views where possible.
23. The board noted the increased risk of public criticism which accompanied a higher profile and took assurance from the evidence in the report that the overall strategy was effective. They endorsed the continuation of the successful strategy, noting the importance of staying confident in our approach.
Item 10 NR 100 DAY REVIEW
24. John Larkinson noted that NR’s board was considering the 100 day review later this week. He would update the ORR board on their views and any intelligence about other stakeholder views following that discussion. He had written to Andrew Haines following the board’s policy discussion on the subject and that letter would be circulated [Action: Secretariat]
ITEM 11 WILLIAMS REVIEW
Robert Cook and Rob Whiteway joined the meeting for this item 25. Dan Brown updated the board on discussions with the Williams Review team and their emerging thinking and thanked members for comments on the draft letter which had been circulated. The board discussed the different drivers for change and industry models which might be under discussion. Consumers were not interested in industry arrangements, only that the system worked. The board asked the team to continue actively to offer information, evidence and objective advice to the Williams review team.
26. Following discussion the board agreed that the letter should include the purpose of economic regulation as set out in response to Shaw review and the many different regimes we already operate, explain the broader context of the safety system (including why we have the different bodies and roles and the duty to cooperate), expose the philosophy ORR applied in PR18 including route based regulation, importance of efficiency and controlling unit costs.
27. Work would continue to develop our thinking on where we can contribute to Williams, including:
- Competition and contestability
- Consumer protection and advocacy
- Regulatory strategy/ PR18
- Fares
28. The Williams review would be on the Board agenda for February and subsequent meetings. The Board noted that our own staff were very interested in the review and should be kept in touch with our engagement on Williams.
29. As part of our developing thinking, ORR should reflect on the role of regulation in Japan and in any TfL-like structure.
ITEM 12 COMMITTEE REPORTS
30. Bob Holland reported that ARC had considered a new, simpler risk system which should be more effective and require less maintenance. They had taken internal audit and internal reports on the London accommodation move, including key risks, which were being effectively mitigated at this time. They also considered a report on market sensitive information where more work was needed to reduce the risk of inappropriate handling on the relatively rare occasions that ORR handled such information.
- Michael Luger reported that RENCO had considered work on an updated people strategy and would meet the Staff Council in March.
ITEM 12 ANY OTHER BUSINESS
31. The board noted the items circulated below the line: forward programme, minutes and a paper on Welsh Valleys railway.
32. Declan Collier reported that CEO recruitment was continuing with interviews scheduled the following week.
33. February’s board meeting would be in Manchester with site visits and a dinner the day before. Details would follow.
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/0321-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 5,
"total-input-tokens": 15890,
"total-output-tokens": 3047,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
2576,
1
],
[
2576,
5823,
2
],
[
5823,
8780,
3
],
[
8780,
11309,
4
],
[
11309,
13876,
5
]
]
} |
8344b88f6dca69d813add2f3edc3f83d0b3212c1 | | Organisation Name | Expression of Interest Start | Contract Reference Number | Tender Title | Description of goods | Service within the council | Contract Start Date | Contract End Date | Review Date | |-------------------|-----------------------------|---------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------|-------------------|------------------|-------------| | Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council | 04/10/2018 | DN368939 | Short Breaks Service for Children and Young People with Disabilities | 321100 - Social Community Care Supplies & Services - Children | Rochdale - Childrens | 13/10/2018 | 16/10/2018 | 15/10/2018 | | Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council | 30/10/2018 | DN370468 | Structural and Civil Engineering Services for the Rochdale Town Hall HLF project | 150000 - Consultancy | Rochdale - Resources | 01/01/2019 | 31/12/2023 | 31/09/2023 | | Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council | 30/10/2018 | DN370482 | Cost Management Services for the Rochdale Town Hall HLF project | 311600 - Services | Rochdale - Resources | 31/10/2018 | 31/10/2019 | 31/07/2019 | | Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council | 01/11/2018 | DN370451 | Conservation Architect and MEP services for Rochdale Town Hall HLF project | 180000 - Environmental Services | Rochdale - Resources | 03/11/2018 | 31/03/2020 | 31/12/2019 | | Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council | 01/11/2018 | DN374463 | Rochdale Town Hall Restoration – Procurement route update | 181800 - Technical Equipment | Rochdale - Resources | 01/11/2018 | 11/11/2018 | 11/08/2018 | | Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council | 07/11/2018 | DN375342 | Provision of Be-Crypt Enterprise Maintenance Technology | 270000 - Information Communication Technology | Rochdale - Resources | 01/12/2018 | 30/11/2021 | 31/09/2021 | | Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council | 15/11/2018 | DN376957 | Short Break Services for Children with Disabilities | 321100 - Social Community Care Supplies & Services - Children | Rochdale - Children's | 01/04/2019 | 31/03/2023 | 31/12/2022 | | Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council | 16/11/2018 | DN377255 | Interpretation and Exhibition Design for Rochdale Town Hall HLF Project E.O.I. | 391420 - Design | Rochdale - Neighbourhoods | 16/11/2018 | 14/12/2018 | 14/09/2018 | | Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council | 23/11/2018 | DN378216 | Metric Survey for Rochdale Town Hall | 150000 - Consultancy 261517 - Consultancy 391500 - Consultancy | Rochdale - Neighbourhoods | 31/12/2018 | 31/01/2019 | 31/10/2018 | | Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council | 28/11/2018 | DN379019 | Purchase of 1 x 10T Crane Tipper | 391000 - Architect 391500 - Consultancy | Rochdale - Neighbourhoods | 01/02/2019 | 02/02/2019 | 02/11/2018 | | Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council | 30/11/2018 | DN371886 | Design, Manufacture and Installation of Exhibition Display Works on behalf of the Greater Manchester Fire Service Museum 6245: Architect Services for GM Fire Service Museum and Associated Works | 391000 - Architect | Rochdale - Neighbourhoods | 21/01/2019 | 01/05/2020 | 01/02/2020 | | Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council | 30/11/2018 | DN379250 | 6306: Cost Management Services for GM Fire Service Museum and Associated Works | 391500 - Consultancy | Rochdale - Neighbourhoods | 21/01/2019 | 01/05/2020 | 01/02/2020 | | Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council | 30/11/2018 | DN379295 | Bulky Household Waste Collection | 180000 - Environmental Services | Rochdale - Neighbourhoods | 21/01/2019 | 01/06/2020 | 01/01/2020 | | Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council | 12/12/2018 | DN381493 | South Heywood Link Rd. Junction 19 Ground Investigation | 150000 - Consultancy | Rochdale - Neighbourhoods | 11/01/2019 | 31/12/2021 | 30/09/2021 | | Rochdale Council | 17/12/2018 | DN383511 | Expressions of Interest for Community Bonfire Events Management | 291000 - Events | Rochdale - Neighbourhoods | 04/02/2019 | 18/02/2019 | 18/11/2018 | | Rochdale Council | 10/12/2018 | DN380678 | HLF Development Stage Activity Plan for Rochdale Town Hall | 152100 - Strategic Planning | Rochdale - Neighbourhoods | 27/12/2018 | 27/12/2018 | 27/09/2018 | | Rochdale Council | 10/12/2018 | DN380678 | HLF Development Stage Activity Plan for Rochdale Town Hall | 152100 - Strategic Planning | Rochdale - Neighbourhoods | 28/12/2018 | 31/03/2020 | 28/09/2018 |
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/0322-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 1,
"total-input-tokens": 4430,
"total-output-tokens": 1752,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
4593,
1
]
]
} |
a36a37cc40fbb4a0836f7219d3a5f6d15d2b168d | Item 1 WELCOME AND APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
1. The chair welcomed everyone to the meeting. There were no apologies.
Item 2 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
2. No new interests were declared.
Item 3 APPROVAL OF PREVIOUS MINUTES AND MATTERS ARISING
3. The minutes needed some correction and clarification but were otherwise agreed. The chair would sign them once these changes had been made.
4. The Board noted the report on the action points which included: • clarification on a future agenda item on train service performance measurement [forward programme] • a reminder about the role of RENCO(^1) in supporting NED recruitment.
Item 4: EXECUTIVE DIRECTORS’ HEADLINES AND REGULAR REPORTS
5. Ian Prosser introduced the new format of monthly report to the Board. The board welcomed the move to a shorter and more focused report and asked for trends to be shown. The board also asked the quality of reproduction and size of the text to be taken into account when circulating papers. [Action – secretariat] Ian reported on: challenges resulting from new rolling stock – both particular types and the overall scale of change; IGC’s work on the Eleclink project; industry workshops on alertness devices for drivers; toilet effluent discharge. The board asked about increasing rolling contact fatigue reports: because the risk is mitigated by speed restrictions, this had implications for performance as well as safety risk. HSRC(^2) had discussed the unimproved performance on track worker safety with Chris Gibb (NR’s non exec chair of their SHE committee) the day before.
6. Graham Richards reported on preparations for the start of CP6 including internal recruitment. The board discussed risk identification around the May 2019
______________________________________________________________________
(^1) ORR’s remuneration and nominations committee (^2) ORR’s health and safety regulatory committee timetable change and related access arrangements, which staff expected to resolve in good time. TOCs had written to the Secretary of State about their own readiness. The board took some assurance from the publication of timetables for May, but were concerned that contingency arrangements should also have been considered by NR. The board asked JLk to write to NR seeking assurance on this issue. [Action: John Larkinson] Overall the executive felt that May ’19 timetable was ‘on track’ but would continue to be vigilant in monitoring progress to launch day.
7. **Carl Hetherington** reported on potential issues with the introduction of the ombudsman condition to the TOC licences and asked the Board to note that the Scotland grant letter had not yet been finalised between Transport Scotland and NR.
8. **Dan Brown** reported on good progress towards arrangements for the continuation of services post-Brexit, particularly a 9 month extension on driver licence validity issued by the EU. The remaining risks were outside the control of ORR/DfT including customs arrangements and passport clearance at St Pancras. Graham Richards added that plans were in place and tested for highways disruption in Kent and other ports. He had discussed with Highways England the importance of their role in getting good information to customers during any disruption and particularly in responding dynamically to any emerging issue – drawing on the recent investigation into PIDD failures on rail.
9. **John Larkinson** reported on progress on the London office move, staff engagement through leadership roadshows, the announcement of the PIDD investigation outcome, feedback on the Manchester stakeholder dinner and other external engagement.
**Item 5: 2019-20 BUDGET ALLOCATIONS AND STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES**
*Freya Guinness called in for this item*
10. Freya Guinness introduced the item. Since their February meeting the board had been consulted on how to treat an increase in employer contributions to pensions, which would add nearly £1m to the overall budget. This would be passed on to the rail industry through the levy and sought from DfT for roads.
11. The board continued to be content with the changes proposed to the strategic objectives to better align the language to current priorities.
12. The board noted the service standards and suggested that each should also be reported on a quarterly basis.
13. The board approved the budget allocations and the revised strategic objectives.
**Item 6: SAFETY REGULATION OF THE CHANNEL TUNNEL FOLLOWING A NO DEAL BREXIT AND PROPOSED MOU WITH EPSF**
*Martin Jones joined the meeting for this item*
14. Martin Jones explained the changes made to the draft MOU since the papers had been circulated, none of which were substantive. The board noted the report and delegated the agreement and signing of the MOU to the Director of Railway Safety [action list]. FOR PUBLICATION
Items 7, 8 and 9 all related to NR but were slightly rearranged to reflect a more logical progression
Item 7 NR’S DELIVERY OF PERFORMANCE: COMPLIANCE WITH ORR’S PROVISIONAL ORDER
Dominic Bulcock joined the meeting for this item on the phone.
15. Graham Richards reported that the response from NR to the provisional order had been encouraging and the monitoring framework would now hold them to account to the plan offered. Close monitoring of Wessex, LNE and Scotland would continue and NR would produce a six month report (in September) on progress [forward programme].
16. The board was concerned about the quality of the plan to deliver improvements in performance and wished to see early evidence that changes were delivering improvement, given the lead times in some of the plans – so the September report should include concrete examples, however small. The board discussed the importance of identifying leading indicators that would show how passenger experience was changing, recognising the challenge this posed and the work already under way by NTF. While the adoption of a maturity model was encouraging, the timescales for change were disappointing. The board noted that well-made plans were only the starting point and delivery against the plan was more important.
17. The board agreed that NR had complied with the provisional order and asked for quarterly reports to demonstrate ongoing evidence of improvement in line with the plan. JLk would write to NR [Action]
Item 9 NR’S CP6 PREPAREDNESS: EFFICIENCY PLANNING
Gordon Cole joined the meeting for this item
18. The board had concerns about NR’s efficiency plans for CP6 and welcomed the paper which showed that the quality of underlying evidence from NR was insufficient to demonstrate their ability to deliver efficiently in CP6. Following ORR’s intervention, NR had now understood ORR’s real concerns. The board discussed the importance of fiscal accountability through route management. The executive were considering what evidence might lead to consideration of a licence breach in this regard.
19. John Larkinson would write to NR setting out the board’s concerns and seeking assurance that they would outline concrete evidence of efficiency measures in place that could be assessed by ORR and that the roll out of the restructuring under the NR100 day plan will demonstrate that real improvements to financial management would be made. [Action]
Item 10 HS1 LTD – 5 YEAR ASSET MANAGEMENT STATEMENT AND PR19
Feras Alshaker joined the meeting for this item and the next. Keith Ludeman (Chair) and Dyan Crowther (CEO) of HS1 joined the meeting
20. The chair welcomed the guests to this meeting.
21. The guests tabled a presentation which covered the 5YAMS (5 year asset management statement), NRHS (Network Rail High Speed), engagement, the renewals annuity and next steps.
22. The board and visitors discussed the reasons underlying the projected increase in charges including: quicker than expected track deterioration, treatment of signalling, cost of the annuity, and operating costs for NRHS. HS1 set out the work it had done to manage its overall costs including NRHS’s contract.
23. HS1 was working with its passenger and freight customers and stakeholders (including DfT and ORR) to explain the issues and seek solutions that were sustainable: it recognised the potential shock to customers of the projected charge increases. Ultimately it sought an affordable approach consistent with the Concession Agreement but this was proving difficult in spite of positive engagement by DfT and support from ORR’s exec team.
24. The board thanked HS1 for their open discussion of the issues.
Lunch
Item 11 PERIODIC REVIEW OF HS1 LTD (PR19) Chris Warburton and Debbie Daniels joined the meeting for this item
25. Feras Alshaker described the outcome of ORR’s public consultation on Eurostar International Limited’s (EIL) request for a suspension of the PR19 process because of the demands of Brexit on its business. The board reflected on the pressures on EIL and the possible delay before Brexit was resolved.
26. The paper set out four options including two which required a variation to the process set out in the Concession Agreement and therefore could not be implemented without HS1 and DfT agreement. HS1 had said they would not consent to the delay requested by EIL.
27. The board recognised the real issues presented by Brexit for EIL and the preference of HS1 for no change to the Concession Agreement process. However, the board agreed that option 1 offered a fair and pragmatic change which would not compromise the legitimacy of the process.
28. The board understood that it did not have powers to unilaterally change the process set out in the Concession Agreement as requested by EIL and therefore would allow EIL to make additional representations by mid-June and to allow HS1 to comment on those views. This would not vary the Periodic Review process set out in the Concession Agreement and could be implemented unilaterally by ORR.
29. GR would write to all the parties. All relevant correspondence with HS1, DfT and EIL would be put in the public domain. [Action: GR]
Item 8 NR’S 100 DAY REVIEW AND CP6 DELIVERY PLAN Carl Hetherington and Pedro Abrantes joined the meeting for this item
30. DfT was due to publish NR’s Delivery Plan for CP6 imminently. John Larkinson emphasised the need for the plan to be clearly reconcilable to the Final Determination before it was adjusted or changed by the 100 day review. The link was not yet sufficiently clear in all areas. The Board noted that the enhancement delivery plan would be published late because the DfT needed more time to consider it.
31. Further details of the 100 day plan were now emerging including some additional costs.
32. The board discussed risks arising from the 100 day plan or increasing as a result of management distraction, blurring of accountability, insufficiently detailed plans, doubts about efficient cost management, and poor line of sight to the CP6 commitments.
33. The board had already expressed general support for the 100 day plan as long as it did not undermine the overall settlement and now discussed when it was likely to issue an opinion under the change management licence condition. ORR executive should make clear what it would expect to see and by when – allowing for the delay which arose while senior staffing questions were resolved.
ITEM 12 WILLIAMS REVIEW
Robert Cook joined the meeting for this item
34. Dan Brown updated the board on work with the Williams Review team since the last board meeting and plans for a board policy discussion on the issues that the Review had sought advice on as well as the wider issues it was considering. The board was content with the process outlined by DB and looked forward to a more detailed discussion at the proposed April Board workshop.[Action: secretariat]
ITEM 13 COMMITTEE REPORTS
35. Stephen Glaister reported on the Highways Committee the day before which had discussed: performance in RIS1 and preparations for RIS2, the SBP and efficiency review, and preparations for Brexit.
36. Justin McCracken reported on HSRC which (as already mentioned) had heard from Chris Gibb of NR, and also discussed how ORR should meet its duty to promote safety research, a strategic chapter on tram safety and CTSA as well as noting an updated version of ORR’s RM3 safety management tool.
ITEM 15 ANY OTHER BUSINESS
37. The board noted the items circulated below the line including the forward programme.
Meeting closed at 2.55pm
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/0323-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 5,
"total-input-tokens": 10618,
"total-output-tokens": 2868,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
1844,
1
],
[
1844,
4752,
2
],
[
4752,
7450,
3
],
[
7450,
10565,
4
],
[
10565,
12350,
5
]
]
} |
fb001b963b294c8670c2cce7d535aacbc5e52b48 | Item 1 WELCOME AND APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
1. The chair welcomed everyone to the meeting. Graham Mather and Juliet Lazarus (General Counsel) had sent apologies. Daniel Brown had added RME to his existing responsibilities while John Larkinson was CEO.
2. The chair noted that this was Tracey Barlow’s final meeting before her appointment ended. He offered the board’s sincere gratitude and thanks for her substantial contribution over nearly ten years in the organisation and wished her well for the future.
Item 2 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
3. No new interests were declared.
Item 3 APPROVAL OF PREVIOUS MINUTES AND MATTERS ARISING
4. The minutes of the previous board meeting and the phone conference on 18 April were agreed.
5. The Board noted the report on the action points.
Item 4: HEALTH AND SAFETY QUARTERLY REPORT
06. Ian Prosser introduced the new format of quarterly report to the Board. He reported on workshops with 300 people to rollout the upgraded RM3 tool.
07. On Sandilands he reported on the lack of progress with any prosecutions by the CPS, the closure of recommendations 1 and 9 on RAIB’s Sandilands report, and work to secure funding for the LRSSB beyond the initial 3 years.
08. He updated the board on progress bringing different classes of rolling stock (including: 800s, 710s, 195s) into service. A paper on rolling stock issues was on the agenda for the May board [forward programme].
09. On safety performance, he mentioned an overall lack of improvement in the PIM, and work to understand the volatility of SPAD numbers. He was also working to encourage the adoption of in-cab vigilance devices, where there was now evidence that these were beneficial to driver welfare and ALARP, including a presentation to the ASLEF annual conference.
10. He also described a visit to Crossrail. As part of an update on the Eleclink project risk assessment by IGC he reported on their request for additional resources for the CTSA team, which was being considered.
11. The board discussed the RSSB work on SPADs and their wider industry safety risk leadership role. The potential read-across for driver vigilance devices to be adopted by commercial road users (hauliers and passenger transport) was an area to explore, possibly with HSE whose role with driver employers might be relevant.
12. The board asked that the charts in the new report needed to give some longer term context and trends. [action]
Item 5: EXECUTIVE DIRECTORS’ HEADLINES AND REGULAR REPORTS
Lucy Doubleday joined the meeting for this item
13. Graham Richards thanked board members for their contributions to ORR’s evidence to the TSC inquiry on road safety and reported on the start/stop of Operation Brock. On rail, he reported that the Easter works had broadly gone to plan and not generated much press comment.
14. Dan Brown reported that PR23 scoping discussions had begun to meet the need to be able to frontload advice to government. He reported on a new open access application (including a request to apply the economic equilibrium test for the first time), and discussions with government on HS2’s regulatory framework. He noted that all possible preparation had been undertaken for a no-deal Brexit which was still a possibility: this would re-emerge as a live issue in the autumn.
15. Freya Guinness and Lucy Doubleday outlined the end of year position against the business plan. The board discussed where underspends were the result of vacancies and how the consultancy budget had been used to address these in-year. They noted the cost of the timetable inquiry had been found from within existing budgets and discussed the degree to which work had been deferred, re-scoped or re-planned as a result of pressure on key resources. 2019-20 plans included a number of additional staff to improve resilience. The board noted the risk of adverse impact on staff, including increased turnover, and discussed how it could be mitigated. Overall ORR had had a good year as a result of significant effort across the organisation and the board thanked staff for their hard work.
16. Freya Guinness reported on progress with the London relocation and work to engage staff on design and fit out. Discussions were ongoing with ORR’s current landlord, and our tenant (LSB).
17. Russell Grossman reported on media coverage over recent months and activity with stakeholders including workshops to roll out the business plan. A new website would be developed for the middle of 2020. He looked ahead to likely areas of media interest in the next 3 months.
18. John Larkinson reported on discussions with Andrew Haines on the board’s concerns about NR’s readiness for CP6, and meetings with Parliamentarians. He sketched the work needed among the various parties involved in the transfer of the Welsh valleys line from NR to WAG and then to its new operator. ORR was supporting this where it accepted that it had a role and evidence to offer. He had also met with Keith Richards of DPTAC.
19. The board discussed the issues still to be resolved on the Welsh asset transfer, including liability for major failures. These were matters for government but might draw on evidence or advice from ORR officials. The board noted this was the first time parts of the NR-operated network were being handed over to a different owner and the issues raised were likely to offer relevant learning for any similar future change. ORR’s work in Wales was coordinated between the three local offices: Bristol, Birmingham and Manchester.
**Item 6: GTR PENALTY REPRESENTATIONS**
*Stephanie Tobyn, Sam McClelland-Hodgson and Ruth Luxford joined the meeting for this item*
20. Stephanie Tobyn introduced the item and briefed the board on the two representation letters received following the penalty announcement. Analysis of the contents was set out in the board pack. There had been no further contact with GTR and there was little new information in their representation letter.
21. The board discussed the representations and noted GTR did not accept that it was in breach of licence Condition 4. In addition GTR argued that its agreement with DfT on the £15m Passenger Benefits Fund addressed all its liabilities for the service failure. The board noted that the agreement with DfT was in relation to the franchise and could not relate to the licence and that the ORR was not a party to the agreement. The board did not feel that the quantum of that settlement or the other costs of the disruption to GTR (including eg enhanced compensation) were relevant to its decision to impose the penalty. The board did not accept that the new information offered was sufficient grounds for revisiting its decision. The licence condition was designed to make operators address their licence obligations on passenger information: GTR had failed to do so.
*Paragraphs 22 and 24 have been redacted as legal advice.*
23. The board noted the letter from DfT officials had been unhelpful by failing to distinguish properly between the franchise obligations and conditions imposed by the licence.
**Item 7: UPDATE ON NR’S FINAL ORDER IN RELATION TO TIMETABLING**
*Catherine Williams and David Reed joined the meeting for this item*
25. Catherine explained that three out of four requirements of the order had been met and the last (embedding the PMO properly) had been partially met. Further information had been sought from the PMO steering group and this would be reported in May.
26. The board discussed the PMO’s structure, role and effectiveness to date and the other parts of the system which needed to run well to support it, particularly with assurance. The PMO had been introduced to address some of the accountability gap identified by the Glaister review and it had its own responsibilities, but it also made more transparent the specific decisions that other bodies were responsible for, and where any internal conflicts arose. The board commented that it would be useful to have a process diagram that clearly set out how and where the PMO would intervene: this could then be used to test other parties’ understanding. [Action – schematic to be drawn up and tested with others]
27. The board then reviewed the latest versions of the risk registers around the May and December 2019 timetable changes, which had been included in the Board information pack (agenda item 5a): they noted planned mitigations for the delay on NWEP testing at 100mph. The board tested the understanding of staff on each risk and noted the overall picture. They particularly discussed how driver recruitment, training and availability reflect the capability of an operator to deliver its service and noted the continuing operational challenges of new rolling stock.
28. ORR had written to all operators following the announcement of the GTR penalty and work was now in hand to assess individual TOC’s responses on their passenger information plans.
**Item 8 NR’S 100 DAY PLAN AND CP6 PREPAREDNESS**
*Carl Hetherington joined the meeting for this item.*
29. John Larkinson updated the board on progress on the 100 day plan. The board discussed the importance of understanding both any delays in implementing the plan and the resource implications of any delay. It remained crucial that Network Rail kept its focus on the ‘day job’ and that the data and processes were in place to allow ORR to hold it to account. ORR would issue an opinion under the management of change policy after its May board meeting.
**Item 9 WILLIAMS REVIEW**
30. The board had discussed ORR’s work with the Williams Review and its developing submissions on compensation and accessibility the previous day. These submissions would be discussed at the May board [forward programme]. Engagement with the Review team would continue, including responding to further information requests.
**Item 10 HIGHWAYS ENGLAND – RIS2 AND EFFICIENCY REVIEW**
*Richard Coates, David Hunt and Adam Spencer Bickle joined the meeting for this item.*
31. Richard Coates introduced the regular update on RIS2 and described progress on the review of the draft SBP as the team developed advice for the DfT.
32. Key messages on HE’s performance in 2018-19 would on the May board agenda. [forward programme]
33. The board noted the report and the key messages paper. They discussed: the inflation rate HE used, HE’s exposure to exchange rate fluctuations through its supply chain strategy, the company’s procurement efficiency and how efficiency would be reported in RIS2 more generally.
34. They discussed, the importance of effective coordination between the SRN and MRN and the work of sub-national transport bodies in helping make this happen.
35. David Hunt reported positively on the quality of the Draft SBP compared to RIS1. The board discussed how the Draft SBP had been informed by ORR’s capability reviews, which had contributed to the good quality of HE’s Draft SBP.
36. The board noted the team’s view that there were areas where a more mature organisation could provide more comprehensive plans, including understanding the impact on customers of its renewals programme and its environmental impact. There was evidence that Highways England was maturing in these areas and had taken steps to reduce customer impact through moving closer towards minimising whole life cost.
37. The board discussed HE’s smart motorway proposals and what evidence was available on such schemes’ historical performance and safety. The team reported that there was some Post-Opening Project Evaluation (POPE) information available on early smart motorway schemes, which, although the sample was small, reported that they largely delivered the planned journey time improvements whilst safety performance was no worse than traditional motorways. There had been significant trials and evidence gathering before the programme was rolled out.
ITEM 11 TRAIN SERVICE PERFORMANCE
Daniel Bulcock, Lyn Armstrong and Lyndsey Melbourne joined the meeting for this item
38. Graham Richards introduced the pack which illustrated the wide range of available data collected on train performance and its use by different bodies. Operators and Network Rail used the data to manage their business and DfT/ORR used it to hold them to account.
39. The board agreed that the purpose of board reporting was for the board to understand and challenge how ORR is holding NR to account; and for the board to understand the end user experience and probe what else could the ORR do beyond holding NR to account, they added that it should also help them to understand the reasons for performance shortcomings within the industry and to inform any regulatory response.
40. A set of NR route scorecards was tabled. ORR had agreed that in CP6, alongside the consistent metrics it required (which each route must include in its scorecards), routes should vary their top level scorecard to reflect the measures most important to their customers (TOCs/FOCs), and any local priorities. CP6 had only just begun and the system needed time to test its effectiveness, particularly how the emphasis on TOCs priorities was reflected in performance outturns. As part of monitoring NR, ORR would assure itself on the quality of the routes’ engagement with their stakeholders, including in agreeing the specific measures. The board discussed the role of route supervisory boards and expected to see a relationship between their chairs and the ORR.
41. The board discussed the importance of consistency in reporting and the value of comparisons between routes, TOCs and regions. They agreed that their regular report should incorporate safety, financial, infrastructure and customer delivery measures on each route and translate this into an overall NR dashboard [action]. It would be useful to understand what information the NR board considered regularly. The board agreed there was a need to help passengers understand what published measures meant and which of those the regulator thought most significant in assessing the industry’s performance. Clarity in this area would reflect ORR’s commitment to evidence and objectivity.
42. The board discussed the lack of transparency around some aspects of TOC franchise performance and recognised the capability within the ORR to address this as part of its work as an accredited supplier of National Statistics. It supported the proposal for ORR to extend its reporting on TOC performance to deliver a clearer picture on passengers’ experience.
43. A revised board information pack would be developed in the light of this discussion for a first iteration at the June board. [forward programme].
ITEM 12 COMMITTEE REPORTS
44. Bob Holland reported on the Audit and Risk Committee the day before which had discussed: the new risk management system highlighting its A3 single sheet dashboard and clear governance. It had considered audit reports on payroll, performance data and follow up work, where some housekeeping actions on the governance report were still outstanding. ITEM 13 ANY OTHER BUSINESS
45. The board noted the items circulated below the line including the forward programme and the quarterly risk report.
Meeting closed at 2.55pm
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/0324-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 6,
"total-input-tokens": 12674,
"total-output-tokens": 3430,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
1770,
1
],
[
1770,
5384,
2
],
[
5384,
8592,
3
],
[
8592,
11635,
4
],
[
11635,
14998,
5
],
[
14998,
15171,
6
]
]
} |
a0fb803b200bace3f71b72a4345691cf51473bc9 | Item 1 WELCOME AND APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
1. The chair welcomed everyone to the meeting. There were no apologies.
Item 2 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
2. No new interests were declared.
Item 3 APPROVAL OF PREVIOUS MINUTES AND MATTERS ARISING
3. The board secretary read out some changes to the minute of the item on board reporting which were accepted. The remainder of the minutes of the previous board meeting were agreed and the Chair would sign an amended version [Action].
4. The Board noted the report on the action points, including that item iii had been closed by the inclusion of the requested graphic in the May board papers.
Item 4: HEALTH AND SAFETY MONTHLY REPORT
05. Ian Prosser introduced the monthly report and emerging headlines for his annual report on H&S in the industry. He reported on rolling stock, particularly the authorisation of 800s and other issues with authorisations. On Meridian Water, he explained that the DfT needed to supply a derogation to enable the station to be brought into use.
06. Ian had attended NR’s SHE committee and discussed their plans to improve trackworker safety by the removal of unassisted lookouts and unplanned red zone working by the end of CP6. Serious near misses continued to be a concern and this would be an area of focus.
07. The board discussed how the long term goal of safety improvement could be tracked without setting a target. The aim of ‘continuous improvement’ allowed the potential for something currently not ALARP to become feasible as technology or costs changed. The board noted that commentary which would be included in the quarterly report would give more context for trends and developments.
08. The board discussed the improvement notice served on Eurotunnel and noted the proposed inspection would include culture and leadership capability. IGC’s request for additional resources was being discussed with the funder.
09. The board discussed some particular issues for heritage railways including the need for cross-industry standards and shared learning, financial resource risk, challenges for a volunteer workforce and churn among board members, where understanding of legal duties and governance could quickly be eroded. ORR had increased its resource in the sector in the current year.
10. Ian described next steps in producing the Chief Inspector’s Annual Report and themes he expected to identify as key messages. More services on the network made maintaining safety even more reliant on good performance – capacity could only be maximised with a strong safety culture. One example was SPADs where numbers were up and the cause was difficult to identify: it was possible that the number of incidents simply reflected the increase in traffic and the limitations of relying on human parts of the system.
Item 5: EXECUTIVE DIRECTORS’ HEADLINES AND REGULAR REPORTS
Catherine Williams joined the meeting for this item
11. Graham Richards reported that the morning’s performance so far after the May timetable change was encouraging – tracking well above last year’s figures. He reminded the board that major issues took a few days to emerge in 2018. Catherine Williams introduced the report on December change preparations that had been circulated as an annex to the monthly performance report. The PMO would conduct a lessons learned exercise on May ’19 promptly including Meridian Water and Class 442 issues. Where DfT needed to act to mitigate a risk for December 2019 this had been made clear to them both by ORR and the PMO. The board asked for a commentary on progress to date set in the context of the Glaister review. It was clear that some progress had been made in delivering straightforward changes, but the scope for success with more ambitious change was unclear. [Action DB]
12. On the performance report, the board queried whether performance stats and NR delay minute data could be reconciled and suggested that delay minute trends might also be useful.
13. Dan Brown reported that in ensuring that ORR had not held up changes on which the May timetable depended, the authorisations team had worked to unreasonably shortened deadlines because of late submissions by dutyholders. There would be a letter to industry setting out the issue and seeking for it to be addressed. He also reported on progress with the Williams Review, an open access application1, and the commencement of the spending review process in DfT where it appeared that OM funds for NR would be protected but renewals and enhancements would be subject to review.
14. Russell Grossman reported on media issues over the past three weeks, including Which’s recycling of ORR’s statistics without crediting the Office and plans for the suite of annual publications that will be issued in July.
15. Freya Guinness reported on that the new lease on Cabot Square had been signed and the impact of delay of final completion. She also reported that HMT had written to begin the CSR process with ORR, setting out the timetable and
______________________________________________________________________
1 Details redacted for commercial confidentiality next steps. The work would take place based on the current scope of our functions.
16. **John Larkinson** reported on discussions with NR on some specific commercial risks, and his other meetings. He would continue to robustly respond to public speculation about the implications of Williams Review for ORR.
**Item 6 ANNUAL REPORT AND ACCOUNTS**
17. Freya Guinness reported that the NAO had issued an unqualified audit opinion, noting one misstatement of £14,000 as not material. The Audit and Risk Committee had scrutinised the accounts and the internal auditors’ reports. The board made some small comments on the content of the report and recommended that the Accounting Officer should approve it.
**Item 7 GTR PENALTY REPRESENTATIONS**
*Stephanie Tobyn, Sam McClelland-Hodgson joined the meeting for this item with Ruth Luxford on the phone*
*Paragraph 18 has been redacted from the published minute as legally privileged*
19. The board considered GTR’s representations on the costs it had incurred as a result of the timetable failure, including additional compensation and the creation of a passenger fund, and noted that the company continued to argue that it was not in breach of its licence condition on passenger information.
20. The board were content that their original decisions to find GTR in breach was lawful and correct. The Board did not consider that GTR’s representations on the contravention called into question the soundness of the contravention decision.
21. The board considered carefully the argument that the costs incurred by GTR and the creation of the passenger fund could be taken as mitigation and result in a reduction of the penalty. The board noted that the fund was subject to consultation and would not necessarily address improvements for passenger information. They noted that compensation had not reached everyone who had been affected. These sums were in relation to the failure to deliver franchise or passenger performance commitments and not to the specific duty imposed by the licence condition. This was an important and legitimate distinction. The board did not wish to blur the boundaries between the different regimes designed to protect passengers.
22. The aim of imposing the penalty was to change the future behaviour of the licensee to better meet its obligations on passenger information. The licensee continued to argue that it had not failed to meet its licence obligations and reducing the penalty at this point would undermine that original purpose.
23. The board considered the other representations made by Transport Focus and DTI but these did not alter the facts on which the original decision was made.
24. The Board carefully considered all of the representations received and took account of all the evidence, ORR’s published economic enforcement policy, and its duties set out in section 4 of the Railways Act 1993
25. The Board agreed that it:
______________________________________________________________________
2 Details redacted for commercial confidentiality 26. a. remained of the view that the imposition of a penalty is justified and proportionate, in accordance with the Macrory principles; and 27. b. remained of the view that a penalty of £5 million was appropriate in this case. [Action]
Item 8 NR’S 100 DAY PLAN AND DRAFT OPINION UNDER THE MANAGING CHANGE POLICY
Carl Hetherington and Sheona Mackenzie joined the meeting for this item
28. John Larkinson reminded the board of the framework of the managing change policy and the framework for issuing an opinion. This was the first time this had been done. The opinion could be applied to the overall programme and Phase 1 specifically. The board discussed risks associated with change programmes including: management distraction, unplanned cost, loss of stakeholder confidence and engagement. Better financial information was needed in order to assess future financial performance against expectations from PR18. The board particularly noted that the underpinning philosophy of PR18 was rooted in local stakeholder needs and accountability and that issues such as the role, operation and governance of route supervisory boards should be addressed as part of the move from routes to regions.
29. The board noted that the onus was on NR to deliver its programme without affecting its business as usual activity and reiterated its concerns at the lack of transparency around likely costs and benefits expected.
30. The board agreed that the opinion should be issued and delegated sign off to John Larkinson [Action]. The letter would be placed on the website shortly thereafter.
Item 9 RIS2 DRAFT STRATEGIC BUSINESS PLAN AND EFFICIENCY REVIEW
Richard Coates joined the meeting for this item with David Hunt and Adam Spencer Bickle on the phone.
31. David Hunt introduced the item, noting that supplementary information had been circulated with the papers following the board’s last discussion. He noted three key issues for the board: embedded efficiencies, measuring and proving that RIS2 is deliverable and savings on inflation.
Paragraphs 32 and 33 have been redacted as relating to documents that were in draft and will be published in future.
34. The board discussed issues around measuring HE’s performance including the new passenger satisfaction survey, the importance of better unit cost data, increasing volumes of traffic.
35. The board agreed the general view that the RIS2 SBP was better than RIS1 and reflected lessons learned but that with more cost, complexity and traffic to deal with there were serious risks to deliverability that needed to be recognised and managed. The board delegated final sign off of the advice to John Larkinson and Graham Richards. [Action]
Item 10 PR19
36. At a conference call on 13 May the Board had agreed an approach to a letter before action by Eurostar (ES) and delegated any urgent action to John Larkinson. Liz Thornhill now updated the board on steps taken by ES since the board call. They continued to pursue their application for JR despite the court’s initial refusal to grant judicial review and refusal to expedite the matter. ORR was continuing to oppose the application, including on the ground that it is premature. The board noted that ES was continuing to engage with HS1 on their draft 5YAMS.
37. The board discussed the options for recovering costs incurred, including internal costs, noting that costs incurred by HS1 would be borne by their customers. Cost recovery should be pursued at the end of the process.[Action]
**Item 11 HIGHWAYS ENGLAND – KEY MESSAGES ON PERFORMANCE**
*Richard Coates joined the meeting for items 11-13) with Ian Ritchie on the phone for this item only.*
38. Richard Coates reported that six out of eight KPIs had been assessed as met, with the ‘killed and seriously injured’ numbers still to be received and customer satisfaction below the 90% target. There was still scope for improvement but overall the report was positive.
39. The board discussed the objective standard which underpinned the KSI on pavement condition, and user satisfaction and its relationship to delay minutes. Richard Coates reported that HE have a credible plan to improve user satisfaction, but that the regular survey results would take time to reflect any improvement.
40. The board discussed the reduction of c£650m between the initial portfolio of projects for RIS1 and the current plan and were assured that change control had been applied mostly to remove projects which were low priority or did not offer value for money, and to deliver better overall portfolio management. It could be argued that this was a correction from initial over-programming. It would be important to be able to report at the end of RIS1 what had been changed, what deferred and whether the actual spend had been efficient. Transparency around these issues was a key public benefit of ORR’s role as Highways Monitor.
41. Overall the board recognised the progress HE had demonstrated in the past year in delivering good performance and that it had credible plans to continue its improvement into the beginning of RP2. The board noted the continuing challenge for HE of improving financial data around unit costs.
**ITEM 12 NETWORK RAIL ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT**
42. Graham Richards introduced the paper which reported on the final year of CP5. Network Rail performed poorly in a number of areas during CP5, which had been well documented in previous reports. During 2018-19 ORR had taken action on NR’s preparations for delivering efficiently and the company’s performance planning capability. The report would further evidence these actions and note the introduction of more intrusive monitoring in CP6.
43. The board agreed the broad thrust of the report adding that challenges which persist should be highlighted: understanding and demonstrating financial efficiency, health and safety (planning and delivery of safe working), and capital project failures. It was also noted that commentary on poor train performance should refer to operators’ contribution.
ITEM 13 COMPARISON OF KEY MESSAGES FOR RAIL AND ROAD PERFORMANCE
44. The paper reflected on the two annual reports of performance and the board welcomed the opportunity to discuss them. It was important to seize opportunities for cross-sectoral learning. The board noted subjects of particular interest where staff were reflecting on similarities and differences: procurement regimes, workforce safety, possession regimes.
45. One key benefit of ORR’s role in both regimes was the requirement to bring transparency and to root its decisions and advice to others in evidence.
ITEM 14 WILLIAMS REVIEW
Stephanie Tobyn, Marcus Clements, Scott Hamilton joined the meeting for this item with Robert Cook and Matt Westlake on the phone
46. Dan Brown introduced the discussion. This was an opportunity to contribute evidence to an important policy review and the aim was to identify issues that could be addressed immediately and those which would take longer to solve. Evidence needed to be robust as there were multiple interest groups, which were not aligned.
47. The submission to the Williams Review was due in early June, so it would refer to areas where more work was needed by ORR to develop more definitive advice.
Compensation
48. The board discussed the proposal to create rights and obligations on compensation through a licence condition. The board noted the gap between those entitled to claim and those claiming and the apparent reasons for this gap.
49. The board agreed that introducing a licence condition and code of conduct would incentivise TOCs to deliver punctual services and be an improvement for passengers. The board noted the model of automatic, fixed rate compensation for delay which applies in aviation but agreed that the detail of what should be required of TOCs needed more work. For example questions such as the purpose of compensation and what outcomes it should deliver for passengers would need to be tested. The risk of perverse behaviour (such as ‘padding’ the timetable to minimise the risk of delay) would also need to be considered. It was important to think about the resources such a system would need – both in TOCs and in the regulator.
Accessibility
50. The draft contained 16 separate policy recommendations with multiple options and built on ORR’s work on DPPP and the new accessible travel policy work. There were three recommendations which the team wanted to draw the Board’s attention to:
- Increased staffing at stations where that increase would make a station accessible for more passengers;
- Better information on access for passengers with limited mobility who are planning travel; A change in the governance of Access for All funding with different criteria and local control for longer term improvements.
51. The board discussed the draft report. While full access was the aspiration, this approach proposed better access to currently inaccessible stations and better information for passengers so they could plan with confidence. The board discussed the staff resource and other financial implications for these proposals, and questions around value for money vs people’s legitimate expectations of being able to access the network. There was no universal right of access to the network, but it could be granted. The board favoured national standards on access at stations. Issues with accessible rolling stock would also need to be considered.
52. More work would be done on possible funding models alongside other evidence gathering as the ATP work continued to develop.
53. The board discussed the ways that support could be given to passengers and how it might be organised and funded, but were clear that such implementation details were for others to determine once the principle proposed was accepted.
54. During 2018 the board had seen plans for an app to be developed to help passengers and the need for this continued to be urgent.
55. The board asked that the final submission be signed off by John Larkinson with the chair.
ITEM 15 FEEDBACK FROM COMMITTEES
56. Bob Holland reported on the ARC special meeting which had considered the annual accounts and reports from the internal and external auditors.
57. Stephen Glaister reported on the Highways Committee meeting which had considered the papers at the board today. He reported on the start of recruitment for the Highways expert panel and work in hand by HE and RAC Foundation to improve the evidence base for all lane running by post implementation reviews.
ITEM 16 REFLECTIONS ON REGIONAL VISIT
58. The Board discussed the key themes they had heard from guests at the stakeholder dinner on 20 May. Such opportunities to discuss local issues and understand how relationships with the executive were going were particularly important in Scotland.
59. Options for a regional visit in the autumn were discussed.
ITEM 17 ANY OTHER BUSINESS
60. The chair reported that the Secretary of State had agreed to the reappointment of three members whose terms otherwise would end this year.
61. Recruitment of additional NEDs had now begun.
62. The Board noted the below the line items.
Meeting closed at 2.55pm
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/0325-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 7,
"total-input-tokens": 15395,
"total-output-tokens": 4236,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
1680,
1
],
[
1680,
5059,
2
],
[
5059,
8040,
3
],
[
8040,
10898,
4
],
[
10898,
13955,
5
],
[
13955,
16722,
6
],
[
16722,
19225,
7
]
]
} |
a07b7e014e548db7b69415b1b0414c6cf609049a | Establishing Local Healthwatch Engaging with children and young people Establishing local Healthwatch (LHW) is a series of briefings produced by the LGA to assist local authorities and their partners in local communities and the NHS to support the commissioning, setting up and early development of local Healthwatch. The briefings are intended as a general introduction to what is involved and a brief summary of issues and questions which local authorities and others may wish to consider.
The full suite of briefings can be found at: www.local.gov.uk/health
Information in the briefings has been compiled from a document review, web-based research and information from LHW leads from around the country. It should not be regarded as a comprehensive picture or as statutory or non-statutory guidance, which is provided by the Secretary of State for Health and the Department of Health. Case examples show a range of different ways in which local authorities and partners are setting up, developing and supporting LHW – they reflect local ideas and solutions which may stimulate thinking about options, rather than being recommendations for general good practice. Key messages
- Local Healthwatch’s duties extend to involving children and young people in their work. It needs to develop strategies for effectively involving children and young people, and particularly those who are most disadvantaged. It will need to: secure the equal voice that children and young people want; include their views in communications with commissioners; and involve them in monitoring health and social care services at all levels.¹
- Children and young people should be involved in the development of their local Healthwatch’s priorities and work plan to ensure the agenda is not dominated by adult issues. They should be well represented in local Healthwatch membership and all spokespeople (for example on Health and Wellbeing Boards) should be sufficiently knowledgeable to speak on their behalf.
- Local Healthwatch organisations need to have access to the capacity and skills to work with children and young people, exploiting good practice from current Local Involvement Networks (LINks) and other voluntary sector organisations where it exists. There are already models, methods and expertise for developing children and young people’s engagement in use within the children and youth sector on which LHW can draw.
- The ‘Enter and view’ power will not be extended to a power to visit premises that provide social care to under-18 year-olds, such as children’s homes and foster care, but the power to request information from the local authority and the NHS will be extended to include information on health, wellbeing and care services for children and young people. In the absence of an Enter and view power, local Healthwatch will need to be imaginative in keeping in touch with young people’s views and experiences of social care facilities commissioned for them, for example on how well integrated they are with health services.
- It is vital that Healthwatch works collaboratively, with existing representatives, groups and organisations, in the statutory and voluntary sectors, that are intelligence and data-rich because they already gather information from children and young people; this will help to inform the collective local intelligence LHW will present through its seat on the health and wellbeing board. In addition, Healthwatch can present this information to Healthwatch England to inform national support.
- In engaging with children and young people, LHW may want to consider making use of social media – young people themselves are the best people to advise on ways of doing so. This should not, however, take the place of face-to-face activities which are valued by young people.
- The LHW Board and volunteers will need to understand the local safeguarding arrangements for children and young people between the local authority, the police, the local children’s safeguarding board, Ofsted and CQC both in order to know how to raise concerns and also to increase their understanding of the impact of failed safeguarding on children and young people and the importance of advocating for them. There should be appropriate training for LHW members in identifying and raising concerns about safeguarding. Introduction
Local Healthwatch is under a duty to involve the public in the design, commissioning and delivery of health and care services, and this applies as much to children and young people as to adults. The Department of Health has made clear its expectation that Healthwatch will be “a strong voice for children and young people, as well as adults, in both health and social care”. It is worth noting, in this context, that the recent report of the DH Children and Young People’s Health Outcomes Forum said that it is “extraordinary … that, in so many parts of the NHS and wider health system, adults fail to take account of children and young people’s views or to measure their health outcomes. We found too many examples where only adults’ views or health outcomes were measured.” (NB: this refers only to health services; the picture may be different for social care, since each local authority now has a participation lead who works with children, their families and carers in order to ensure that their views help shape commissioning priorities and future service delivery.)
In 2010, the National Children’s Bureau (NCB) began a 3-year project on Healthwatch, funded by the Department of Health, ‘Getting it right for children and young people’. The NCB has also gathered the views of children and young people on the health reforms and on how they would like to be involved with local Healthwatch and Healthwatch England. Some of the suggestions and examples in this briefing are based on the NCB’s reports of its consultations with children and young people (see resources section below).
Local authority commissioners and some voluntary sector organisations, some LINks hosts and LINks members will have experience and knowledge of involving young people and will be able to inform the development of local Healthwatch in this area. The discussion below is not intended to be fully comprehensive or to substitute for local knowledge and expertise, but it and the resources listed may help to provide a starting point for thinking about the complex issue of engaging respectfully and meaningfully with children and young people.
The legislative framework
It is important for local Healthwatch members to understand the legislative framework for giving children and young people a voice about matters which affect them. From time to time, LHW may need to invoke this legislation to make a point about the requirement for children and young people to be involved. It is also important for LHW members to understand that supporting children and young people to be heard is not an optional concession, but is a question of entitlement and human rights.
The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child to which the UK is a signatory, requires a commitment to “enable children and young people to have their say about matters affecting their lives”.
- The Children Act 1989 requires that social workers always consult a child or young person who is in care, or who might come into care, before making any decision about them.
- The Children Act 2004 amended this Act so that now children involved in child protection inquiries or children in need assessments must be consulted. • The Children Act 1989 requires that, in family law proceedings, the court must consider the child’s wishes and feelings.
• Section 7 of the Education Act 2005 requires Ofsted to have regard to the views of school students, as well as other stakeholders, when carrying out school inspections.
• Section 3 of the Child Care Act 2006 says that local authorities must have regard to the views of young children where relevant and available.
• The Disability Discrimination Act requires local authorities to encourage the participation of disabled people in public life.
In addition to the specific requirements above, general duties on local authorities, health and wellbeing boards (HWBs), clinical commissioning groups (CCGs) and the NHS Commissioning Board (NHS CB) to involve patients and the public in decision-making apply as much to children and young people as they do to adults.
The existing body of knowledge confirms that, when done well, children’s participation and involvement can:
• help children to develop a range of social and communication skills, including confidence-building and the capacity to participate in more sophisticated decision making
• help children become politically aware and active
• help parents, carers, policy makers and service providers improve their support for children
• provide children with a platform for learning about and demonstrating their capacities for good citizenship
• provide children with space in which they can articulate their needs but also demonstrate their resources
• help keep children safe – protection and participation are mutually reinforcing rights
• be important for children’s self-reflective processes and identity constructions both at a personal and a collective level
• accord children the rights of respect and dignity as equal human beings (United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, 1989)(^5).
So involving children and young people can not only help improve services, but it is also a good in itself – and, from the point of view of local Healthwatch, can help to build future leaders. LHW will want to work with local organisations and networks already involving young people, including local authorities’ participation leads and groups of children and young people looked after by the authority, schools, children’s centres, colleges and youth clubs, who may carry out some forms of involvement on behalf of LHW. But it will also be important for LHW boards and adult members to find ways of meeting with and hearing the views of young people face-to-face. As local authority commissioners and LHW members will know, there is no substitute for hearing about people’s experiences and aspirations directly from them. What can local Healthwatch do to involve children and young people?
In its vision for Healthwatch based on its consultation exercises, NCB includes the following recommendations:
- every local Healthwatch effectively involving children and young people in its work, including those who are most disadvantaged
- every local Healthwatch having access to the capacity and skills to work with children and young people
- children and young people being well represented in local Healthwatch
- local Healthwatch representatives sitting on health and well-being boards being sufficiently knowledgeable to champion local children and young people’s views
- Healthwatch England and other national partners working to champion children and young people’s voices and support good practice locally.
What these recommendations mean in operational terms will differ from one LHW to another, depending, for example, on relationships with the director of children’s services at the local authority and with local voluntary and community sector organisations which involve children and young people in their own work and advocate on their behalf. Nonetheless, there are some elements which will be common to all.
Involving children and young people in local Healthwatch
Each LHW will need to consider how children and young people can be involved in various ways, including governance, representative roles, advice and information. It hardly needs saying that involving parents carers and organisations which represent the interests of and advocate for children and young people, although essential, is not the same as involving children and young people themselves. Some options for the latter include:
- having a place for a young person on a LHW board (whether appointed or elected from LHW members or by or through community or voluntary organisations will no doubt depend on LHW’s approach to board membership as a whole) – this may mean thinking about how the board carries out its business so as to ensure it is understood and enjoyable for young representatives (and old!)
- having a sub-committee and/or standing working group specifically looking at issues for children and young people, with young people as members and making recommendations to the board
- having board members and/or staff with a specific remit for ensuring the inclusion of issues relating to children and young people in work plans and ensuring and reporting on the involvement of children and young people
- nominating a young person or people to represent the LHW in partnerships with various stakeholders (eg the health and wellbeing board which may have more than one LHW or third sector representative) • involving young people in Enter and view visiting – although this power does not extend to premises providing social care to children and young people, they could still be involved in visiting health care premises and premises providing social care to adults. It will be particularly important to involve young people in the planning, delivery and monitoring of adult services to which young people leaving the children’s social and health care system will be moving on – this period of transition is known to be a difficult one for young people, during which they need support which has not always been available. The Participation Works partnership based at NCB has developed a Young Inspectors Package to support young people in carrying out inspections of local services. Each local authority is encouraged by the Department for Education’s Positive for Youth policy statement to develop a programme of inspections by young people – these could be important sources of information for local Healthwatch as well as providing a model for its own involvement of young people.
• involving young people on specific issues, for example by introducing research led by young people, or setting up a young advisor commission
• involving young people in the information and advice function – for example in developing strategies for using social media and in information campaigns on specific issues
• developing relationships with young people in leadership roles – some local authority areas have a young mayor who often has an advisory group or cabinet of other young people; many areas have a young people’s parliament, youth council or other group in which young people come together as part of their civic engagement; all local authorities have a participation lead for young people and many local authorities already have reference groups of young people with whom they consult and to whom they provide or commission support, for example children and young people looked after by the local authority and groups of young people with learning disabilities.
Newham Council has carried out some initial consultation with Newham’s Young Mayor and is planning further engagement with the youth council being involved in the evaluation of the local Healthwatch tender.
Contact: Patrick Hall, Commissioner, Adult Social Care: [email protected]
Following consultation with young people, the National Children’s Bureau identified some practical principles for the operation of Healthwatch to maximise engagement with young people:
• communication: using young-person friendly advertising, and staying in touch through social media and schools
• providing a respectful, inclusive environment
• ensuring meetings are accessible: time, format, location, clarity about purpose of meetings
• providing creative and social activities
• ensure children’s issues are on the agenda
• offering access to decision-makers
• giving feedback on impact. The Strategic Network for Child Health and Wellbeing in the East of England has proposed a model for engaging children and young people in local Healthwatch, through the creation of Young Health Ambassadors for Children and Young People.
In this model, each local authority/health and wellbeing board/local healthwatch would have one young person acting as an Ambassador, as well as forming a virtual team to provide cover for one another and work across organisational borders. These Ambassadors would become the voice of children and young people to feed back findings to LHW, health and wellbeing boards and CCGs. The model would also enable the development of individual expertise for Ambassadors in specific age groups such as younger children or children from marginalised groups.
The Young Health Ambassadors would be recruited from young people who have completed The Prince’s Trust employment-based Health and Wellbeing Programme. These unemployed young people, aged between 16 and 25, would represent the more disadvantaged in the community and would undertake the Royal Society of Public Health’s qualifications in improving health and receive public speaking training to prepare them for the role.
The Young Health Ambassadors would be employed, initially on a 12-month apprenticeship, through the local authority or another host partner. They would meet directly with existing and new local children and young people’s groups and would present their amalgamated views to LHW, health and wellbeing boards and the East of England Strategic Network for Child Health and Wellbeing. There would also be regular opportunities for the Young Health Ambassadors to meet up regionally.
Good progress has been made, with 5 local authorities keen to take a young person on and others considering this option. Each local authority is consulting on how best to position this young person within their structures: some will become part of their children and young people’s teams and in one partnership with a youth-focused charity. Other options being explored are to host the young person within GP practices. All are keen to ensure that real career progression is provided for the Young Health Ambassador. This might be through employment within LHW itself.
Contact: Fiona Sampson, Strategic Network Co-ordinator: [email protected] Having access to the right capacity and skills
In addition to direct involvement of children and young people in the organisation, each LHW will need to decide how it wishes to have ongoing access to people with the knowledge and experience of engaging with children and young people of all ages, abilities and backgrounds. This means knowing about the relevant local networks of and for children and young people and understanding different means of effective engagement. Ways of accessing the right capacity and skills could include some or all of the following:
- having board members with this expertise (e.g. the chief executive of an organisation that advocates for children and young people)
- having LHW members who act as ‘champions’ for children and young people – this could involve several members with a brief to ensure the views and interests of different groups of young people are represented, eg young people from different ethnic backgrounds and faith communities, young lesbian and gay people, children and young people with mental health problems, young carers, children with disabilities, children looked after by the local authority, etc. (The last two groups on this list are key as particular users of social services.)
- having staff with designated responsibility for engaging with young people
- agreeing with the local authority and/or CCG ways in which LHW will work with them, drawing on their expertise of engaging children and young people – as part of their own engagement duties local authorities and/or CCGs may consider investing in support for young people to participate in LHW activities
- having a formal contract and service level agreement with another organisation that has the capacity and expertise to ensure appropriate engagement
- having an agreement or memorandum of understanding with a local network of organisations representing the interests of children and young people
- ensuring that all those Healthwatch members and staff who are engaged with children and young people have an understanding of safeguarding arrangements.
Children and young people being well represented, including on health and wellbeing boards
This is a similar point to the previous one, in that representing children and young people well requires certain skills and capacity. But it also requires a systematic means of understanding what is important to children and young people and of gathering their views. This will usually mean communicating through different routes with different groups in order to ensure that their views are known and that methods for gathering them are appropriate: younger children and older, disabled children, children from different communities, children in the care system etc.
As part of its engagement strategy, LHW will need to think about how it is going to ensure that it:
- knows what matters to children and young people in relation to their health and wellbeing and the services they use
- has arrangements (through members, staff, other organisations and local networks etc) for gathering the views of different groups of children • is clear about who is going to act as a representative of the perspectives of children and young people in the different forums in which it has a presence
• has a means of systematically seeking and presenting the views of children and young people on the work of the health and wellbeing board, including involving them in development of the joint strategic needs assessment and the joint health and wellbeing strategy.
Knowsley has established a local involvement network for young people, ‘LINked-Up’ to ensure equity of engagement, in recognition that adult issues tend to dominate the health agenda, and that young people are often not given the same opportunity to be heard. LINked-Up has been set up by young people and is part of a recognised children and young people’s governance structure that feeds into the work of the health and wellbeing board and supports continuous involvement, beyond consultation. The health and wellbeing board has established a health and wellbeing engagement board - a network of community networks, including young people, carers, Knowsley LINk and patient participation groups. A member of LINked-Up has direct representation on the health and wellbeing engagement board and has been nominated to be the health and wellbeing engagement board representative on the health and wellbeing board itself.
LINked-UP members use different approached to engage and involve other young people in thinking about their health and wellbeing. When young people identified social media as their preferred way of getting information LINked-Up responded and set up a Facebook group and website so that young people who do not attend meetings can still get involved and gain information.
Activities in which LINked-UP has been involved include:
• supporting the development of the CAMHS Tier 2 Commissioning Framework – young people took part in every stage of the tendering process, from the design of the specification to being part of the panel making decisions on which services were commissioned
• working with other LINks to on the Alder Hey Children’s Hospital Quality Accounts – Alder Hey was impressed with the contribution given by LINked-Up and young people are now involved in developing plans for a new building at Alder Hey
• working with a leading media company to create the ‘Get Wise 2 Health’ DVD – a training tool for healthcare professionals and frontline staff to help deliver young-people-friendly services
• undertaking ‘mystery shopper’ visits to pharmacies and sexual health clinics to check out how services are responding to patient views and improving users’ experience.
Contact: Patricia Jackson, Rights and Participation Co-ordinator: [email protected] Obtaining intelligence and information without the use of ‘Enter and view’
If LHW has a good engagement strategy and is part of a good local network with links to organisations that relate to and represent the perspectives of different groups of children and young people, their parents and carers, it should be possible to gather information about social care provision to a certain extent without the ability to exercise the Enter and view function. For example, a LHW might want to have regular contact with children in foster care and their parents to seek their views and this could be done through an intermediary organisation at suitable meeting places outside their homes.
LHW should also have a working relationship with Ofsted and with the local representative(s) of the Care Quality Commission, which does have the power to visit premises where social care is provided to children and young people. This working relationship can provide a two-way channel for the exchange of information and the CQC is keen to foster this (see references to its publications in the resources section).
As suggested above, it will also be important for LHW to be in touch with young people leaving the care system who are either going to receive care in the adult system or leaving the system altogether. Local authorities have specific duties in relation to this group of young people and should be in contact with them and able to assist LHW in seeking their views of their previous and present care (or lack of it).
Forms of engagement
There are a number of models of engagement with which local authority commissioners, LINks and local Healthwatch may be familiar, some of them using the metaphor of a ‘ladder of participation’ with greater involvement, autonomy and empowerment as participants ascend the ladder.
One influential model of children’s engagement is this one by Phil Treseder (overleaf).9
Different degrees of engagement will be appropriate and/or possible in relation to different issues and different groups of children and young people.
The examples in this briefing illustrate only a few of the many possible ways of involving and seeking the views of young people.
Children and young people themselves will be one of the greatest sources of advice on how to engage with their peers in a local Healthwatch area. Treseder’s circle: degrees of participation
**Child-initiated, shared decisions with adults** Children have the ideas, set up projects and come to adults for advice, discussion and support. The adults do not direct but offer their expertise for adults to consider.
**Consulted and informed** The project is designed and run by adults but children are consulted. They have a full understanding of the process and their views are taken seriously.
**Child-initiated and directed** Children have the initial idea and decide how the project is going to be carried out. Adults are available but do not take charge.
**Assigned but informed** Adults decide on the project and children volunteer for it. They know who decided to involve them and why. Adults respect children’s views.
**Adult-initiated, shared decisions with children** Adults have the initial idea but children are involved in every step of the planning and implementation. Not only are their views considered but children are also involved in taking the decisions. Examples of methods used by the Care Quality Commission in consulting children and young people about their experiences of GPs and dentists
- Clay faces and speech bubbles: 7 to 10 year-olds at Gasgoine Children’s Centre during an after school drop-in workshop. Children were asked to use the clay to create a face depicting the expression of the way they feel when they visit the doctors or the dentist. They were then asked to fill in a speech bubble to explain their feelings and give detail. They were able to take home the clay faces they had made and the speech bubbles were collected so feedback could be recorded.
- Ideal visit photo stories: 11 to 14 year olds at Jo Richardson School during a two-hour workshop with 20 students. Young people were introduced to the method of image work, which consists of making still pictures with their bodies to display a situation or idea. They were then asked to discuss what would happen during their ideal visit to the doctor or dentist. In small groups they created three images depicting their perfect visit. Each story was performed for the other groups and photographs taken. As a final step, each group provided captions or explanations of each image.
Report on consultation: Lucy Hamer, CQC: [email protected] or Aileen Hamdan: [email protected]
In April/May 2012, commissioned by the Transition Alliance Warrington LINk, through its host, the Black Health Agency, undertook a consultation with children and young people to formulate recommendations for developing local Healthwatch so that it is responsive to their needs. Twenty four activities, which included focus groups, after school clubs and one to one consultation with children and young people in Warrington, took place. Over 200 children and young people aged between 10 – 25 contributed their views. A questionnaire was also compiled which was disseminated to over 500 children and young people. One hundred and forty three young people participated in completing this questionnaire. A strong message from the consultation was the need to make use of social media in communicating with young people. A significant number of participants said they would access information and advice from their GP; therefore the need to ensure GPs’ awareness of Healthwatch was highlighted.
Following the consultation a children and young people’s reference group has been developed in Warrington, with interested children and young people signing up to be involved in a range of engagement activities relating to improving health and social care services.
Contact: Simon Kenton, Assistant Director Integrated Commissioning: [email protected] A recent programme in Luton carried out a consultation exercise around people’s awareness of health provision in their community.
The young people were responsible for creating a questionnaire and were trained in how to engage with members of the public, including how to deal with conflict.
As well as completing the questionnaire, the group also helped to signpost people to NHS services. The group spoke to over 300 people over a 4-day period and provided valuable data for the NHS services.
Three graduates from these programmes are now Young Ambassadors for The Prince’s Trust and have recently represented the views of young people in a Strategic Network for Child Health and Wellbeing ‘Model of Care’ meeting; giving the perspective of a young person’s experience of the NHS.
Their views have directly impacted on the design of future services.
Contact: Matthew Weatherby, Prince’s Trust: [email protected]
Safeguarding
Any engagement with children and young people and representation of their perspectives and interests needs an awareness of safeguarding issues, how to identify them and when and where to raise concerns.
Local Healthwatch staff and members, including young members, should understand the concept of safeguarding and be aware of the correct reporting arrangements for and the safeguarding practice of their local authority and should have a relationship with the local safeguarding children board.
Healthwatch members and staff, including young members, who are engaging with young people will need some training in the issues and an understanding of current local safeguarding issues.
Safeguarding legislation and government guidance says that safeguarding means:
• protecting children from maltreatment • preventing impairment of children’s health or development • ensuring that children are growing up in circumstances consistent with the provision of safe and effective care.
and
“undertaking that role so as to enable those children to have optimum life chances and to enter adulthood successfully.”
10 The LINK Vice Versa young advisers are a group of young people aged up to 19 who are trained to work with organisations and services in Bedford Borough Council to provide ideas and recommendations on making their publicity/publications child and young people friendly.
To support the development of local Healthwatch in Bedford, LINK Vice Versa has been speaking with children and young people about their experiences of health and social care services finding out what they want in a new organisation and helping the steering group to make sure that the people of Bedford Borough get the best possible service.
So far they have spoken with over 30 young people about their experience of health settings and how they want to get information, developed a series of posters for children and young people to let them know that Healthwatch is coming and will be at the Bedford River Festival speaking with children and young people face to find to find out their ideas.
Contact Emma Sparrow: [email protected] Safeguarding at its most extreme is about protecting children, young people and adults from serious abuse and even death, as recent horrific cases have made clear. But experienced professionals and policy makers emphasise that effective safeguarding involves a continuum of activities and individuals and is the responsibility of whole communities. Even involving children and young people in the work of local Healthwatch can be seen as a safeguarding activity, since at its best it will:
- empower young people to understand their own interests and act on them
- give them information they need to identify and report issues to people who can help
- involve those who have been excluded and unprotected in the past
- contribute to improving and integrating services and therefore making them safer.
The information below briefly summarises formal responsibilities for local safeguarding and inspection. For more information, see the resources section and the briefing on dignity, quality and adult safeguarding in this series.
Safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children is the responsibility of the local authority, working in partnership with the police, other public organisations, the voluntary sector, children and young people, parents and carers, and the wider community. Health professionals and organisations (CCGs and the NHS CB) also have a duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children.
The local safeguarding children board is the key statutory mechanism for agreeing how the relevant organisations in each area will cooperate to safeguard and promote the welfare of children.
The Care Quality Commission inspects children’s health services. However, it only inspects children’s social care services as part of a joint inspection programme with Ofsted. From June 2013, CQC will begin a new joint inspection programme with Ofsted and other inspectorates (eg of police, probation and prison services) of child protection arrangements.
These inspections will be carried out over three years and will look at the multi-agency arrangements for the protection of children in all local authority areas around England. CQC’s role will focus on the contribution of health to child protection arrangements. CQC has worked with LINks to produce a number of documents with learning for Healthwatch (see resources).
Although the Department of Health has indicated that it does not intend to give LHW ‘Enter and view’ powers in relation to children and young people’s social care, it may nonetheless receive information about facilities used by children and young people which raises concerns.
Concerns about safeguarding issues in relation to health and social care facilities or anywhere else should be reported in the first instance to the local authority social care or children’s services department, and the police where necessary – each authority will have its own name for the correct department or team to report to and emergency procedures for doing so. The safeguarding team and/or the police will pass any safeguarding concerns to CQC and Ofsted if they relate to services they regulate. Information from LHW that tells CQC and/or Ofsted about people’s experiences of the care provided for children and young people may help to inform a scheduled inspection or to trigger a responsive inspection.
All staff and local Healthwatch members who are coming into contact and working with children and young people will need to undergo a Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) check to confirm their identity and that there is nothing in their record that would make it unsafe for them to work with children and young people.
This is the same check that LINks members have undergone for working with vulnerable adults.
Questions to consider
1. Is the involvement of children and young people included in the local Healthwatch service specification and/or constitution? Have young people been involved in developing these – if not, are there still opportunities to involve them?
2. What arrangements will be made to enable children and young people to participate in local Healthwatch governance and membership? What opportunities and support will there be for them to represent local Healthwatch in partnership forums?
3. Has a mapping exercise been carried out or is one planned with statutory and voluntary sector partners on existing local networks and structures which engage with the diversity and age ranges of children and young people, as a preliminary to discussions about future partnership work?
4. How will local Healthwatch ensure that it has access to appropriate skills and capacity to engage with children and young people? Is there a legacy of engagement and good practice from the LINk that should be captured and passed on?
5. How will young people be actively involved in the activities of local Healthwatch? What training and support will they have to enable them to be involved?
East Sussex LINk has developed a LINk legacy enter and view package as part of its transition year work programme as a Healthwatch pathfinder. The core training module includes an understanding of child protection and safeguarding procedures; as well as an understanding of the regulatory framework for children’s services.
Contact: Elizabeth Mackie, [email protected] 6. How will Healthwatch members and staff obtain an ongoing understanding of the priorities and experiences of children and young people of the health and care system so as to represent their views appropriately to commissioners and others?
7. How will local Healthwatch members and staff be trained in local safeguarding arrangements for children and young people and how and when to raise issues of concern?
Resources
CQC (September 2012), ‘Links and CQC working together – 3: Working together where we have concerns for people’s safety’ www.cqc.org.uk
DH (2012), ‘Summary Report: Issues relating to local Healthwatch regulations’: http://tinyurl.com/brmryzb
The National Children’s Bureau’s Healthwatch page, including reports on children and young people’s views on the development of local Healthwatch http://tinyurl.com/cgh6vq9
NCB contact for LHW wanting advice and support on involving children and young people: [email protected]
Participation Works is a partnership of seven national children and young people’s agencies that supports organisation to effectively involve children in the development, delivery and evaluation of services that affect their lives. The website has information about a wide range of relevant publications and resources: http://www.participationworks.org.uk/resources
Department of Health (2012), Report of the Children and Young People’s Health Outcomes Forum: http://tinyurl.com/brkjrc
National Council for Voluntary Youth Work, Principles of Youth Participation: http://bit.ly/LEPFAb
NW regional youth work unit and transition alliance (2012) ‘Young People and Local Healthwatch’: http://tinyurl.com/cdqp74u
British Youth Council (2012), ‘Measuring the impact and success of your Youth Voice Vehicle’ (useful toolkit): http://tinyurl.com/cb9bkqs
The Safe Network is jointly managed by the NSPCC, Children England and Child Accident Prevention Trust (CAPT), and was created as a result of the Government’s Staying Safe action plan. It has information, resources and training materials on safeguarding children: http://www.safenetwork.org.uk/Pages/default.aspx
A National Voice info on Children In Care Councils mapping project http://tinyurl.com/cj4qjra Endnotes
1 This and the next two key messages are taken from the National Children’s Bureau’s report on children and young people’s views of the health reforms in England: http://tinyurl.com/c2z3zxw
2 DH (2012), ‘Summary Report: Issues relating to local Healthwatch regulations’: http://tinyurl.com/8fjjx9
3 DH (2012), Report of the Children and Young People’s Health Outcomes Forum: http://tinyurl.com/brkjrc
4 See also the research review NCB carried out, for the Children and Young People’s Health Outcomes Forum on cyp views on health services: http://tinyurl.com/clelkz4
5 For references to these findings see Appendices to East of England Strategic Network for Child Health and Wellbeing proposal for Young Health Ambassadors: http://tinyurl.com/95uaodq
6 Participation Works website on the Young Inspectors Programme: http://tinyurl.com/ngenq6
7 The full policy statement can be downloaded from: http://tinyurl.com/7obn8rw
8 The report of the NW regional youth work unit and transition alliance on Young People and Local Healthwatch discusses this issue in some detail: http://tinyurl.com/cdqp74u
9 Treseder, P. (1997) ‘Empowering Children and Young People. Training Manual: Promoting involvement in decision making’ Children’s Rights Office and Save the Children.
10 HM Government (2010), Working together to safeguard children: http://tinyurl.com/44stk2o
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/2523-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 20,
"total-input-tokens": 40654,
"total-output-tokens": 8872,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
71,
1
],
[
71,
1167,
2
],
[
1167,
4324,
3
],
[
4324,
7525,
4
],
[
7525,
10249,
5
],
[
10249,
12929,
6
],
[
12929,
15883,
7
],
[
15883,
18225,
8
],
[
18225,
21332,
9
],
[
21332,
24064,
10
],
[
24064,
26400,
11
],
[
26400,
27429,
12
],
[
27429,
30104,
13
],
[
30104,
32172,
14
],
[
32172,
33191,
15
],
[
33191,
36179,
16
],
[
36179,
38508,
17
],
[
38508,
40714,
18
],
[
40714,
42088,
19
],
[
42088,
42088,
20
]
]
} |
f7d971f5bb8ab13d8d80aeee37b7b9df1a6c604d | ## Selby District Council Estate Walkabouts 2020
| Area | Estate | April | Meeting point & Time | July | Meeting point & Time | September | Meeting point & Time | Neighbourhood Officer | Email | |---------------|-------------------------|-------------|---------------------------------------|--------------------|---------------------------------------|---------------------|---------------------------------------|-----------------------|------------------------------| | Selby | Flaxley Road | 24/04/2020 | Coultish Centre, Charles Street at 10:00am | 14/07/2020 (TARA) | Coultish Centre, Charles Street at 5:00pm | 25/09/2020 | Coultish Centre, Charles Street at 10:00am | Sue Cooley | [email protected] | | Selby | Abbots Road | 24/04/2020 | Cunliffe Centre, Petre Avenue at 10:00am | 14/07/2020 | Cunliffe Centre, Petre Avenue at 4:00pm | 25/09/2020 | Cunliffe Centre, Petre Avenue at 10:00am | Annette McDermott | [email protected] | | Selby | Laurie Backhouse Court | 15/04/2020 | Communal Room at 11:00am | | | 10/09/2020 | Communal Room at 11:00am | Carol Reynolds | [email protected] | | Brayton | St Wilfrids | 24/07/2020 | Communal Room at 11:00am | 22/09/2020 | Communal Room at 11:00am | | | Carol Reynolds | [email protected] | | Tadcaster | Rosemary & Windmill Rise| 16/07/2020 | Calcaria House, Windmill Rise at 2:00pm | 24/09/2020 | Rosemary Court at 2:00pm | | | Kris Capperauld | [email protected] | | Byram | All areas | 30/04/2020 | Anne Sharpe Centre, St Edwards Close at 10:00 am | | | 22/09/2020 | Anne Sharpe Centre, St Edwards Close at 3:00 pm | Barbara Scargill | [email protected] | | Sherburn in Elmet | North Drive & Beechwood | 21/07/2020 | Lady Popplewell Centre, Beechwood Close at 5:30pm | 22/09/2020 | Harold Mills Community Centre, North Drive at 1:00pm | | | Janine Ledger | [email protected] |
An estate walkabout is an important way of finding out what our residents and tenants think of the service, and what we can do to improve communities. This also give the tenants the opportunities to raise and report any local concerns such as fly tipping, groundworks in the area or other local concerns.
If you are unable to attend but still want to raise an issues on your estate, you can contact the relevent Neighbourhood Officer and report it through Access Selby on 01757 705101
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/2524-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 1,
"total-input-tokens": 2473,
"total-output-tokens": 903,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
3094,
1
]
]
} |
63a8edb91ce014e832d5d211f46f2f66036cec90 | Mr Christopher Woolard\
Financial Conduct Authority\
12 Endeavour Square\
London\
E20 1JN
28 January 2021
Dear Chris,
**Buy-Now-Pay-Later**
Thank you for your letter of 19 January setting out the recommendation from your forthcoming review into change and innovation in the unsecured credit market that the Treasury should legislate to bring currently unregulated, interest-free Buy-Now-Pay-Later activity into the scope of Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) regulation.
Over the course of the past few years, the Buy-Now-Pay-Later market has grown in the UK becoming a regular choice for online shoppers wanting to defer or spread the cost of a purchase. With the rapid rise of e-commerce that has occurred following the closure of high street shops during the COVID-19 restrictions, unregulated Buy-Now-Pay-Later has quite rightly risen up the agenda and become an important area to scrutinise.
In your letter you outline the key areas in which detriment may develop as these products embed themselves in the market. I agree with your assessment that without intervention, this market could develop in a way that is not in the best interests of consumers or the wider credit sector. I am particularly conscious about the concerns that you raise on affordability assessments, and the potential impact that the lack of visibility of Buy-Now-Pay-Later on credit files may have on other lenders in their ability to make their own affordability assessments. Given these growing concerns and the recognition that gaps exist in the regulatory framework, it is therefore right that the Government takes swift action to bring these products into regulation before potential detriment is able to occur.
These products, when used appropriately, can bring benefits to consumers and so it is right that we act in a proportionate manner when regulating. Given that unregulated Buy-Now-Pay-Later products are interest-free, they are inherently lower-risk than many other forms of credit and they can also be a useful tool for managing personal finances and smoothing out the cost of bigger purchases. Regulation of Buy-Now-Pay-Later products should therefore be balanced to ensure it provides consumers with the protections to counter the potential detriment you identify, but without damaging their fundamental utility in the process. Similarly, it is important that regulating Buy-Now-Pay-Later does not unintentionally bring other low-risk, day-to-day business activities that use the existing exemption for short-term payment deferral, such as gym membership and sport season ticket providers, into regulation. To achieve this balance and to ensure regulation is effective in our aims, it is right to take into account the views of consumers, providers and retailers through a formal consultation process in order to understand the impacts that this regulation could have.
My officials are working with the FCA to assess the policy and legislative options for the Government to achieve a balanced and proportionate approach to regulation and I intend to take forward the necessary legislation as a matter of priority. I would welcome continued engagement between the FCA and my officials as work progresses at pace to ensure timely and appropriate outcomes for consumers, Buy-Now-Pay-Later providers, the retailers that offer the product as a payment option, as well as the wider consumer credit market.
I look forward to the review’s publication in due course.
I am copying this letter to Charles Randell CBE and Nikhil Rathi.
JOHN GLEN
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/2525-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 2,
"total-input-tokens": 4218,
"total-output-tokens": 783,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
2023,
1
],
[
2023,
3542,
2
]
]
} |
5bcaf86aa46620552da86101ca2f1e6f10388e82 | Ethics for Public Health Research in Africa
Social Science Academy of Nigeria Ethics for Public Health Research in Africa
Proceedings of an International Workshop in collaboration with the Special Programme for Research and Training in Tropical Diseases (TDR) of the World Health Organisation, with the support of the Federal Ministry of Health, Abuja, Nigeria, April 21-23, 2008
Edited by
Olayiwola Erinosho Department of Sociology, Olabisi Onabanjo University, Ago-Iwoye, Nigeria Contents
01. Introduction Olayiwola Erinosho.................................................................1
02. Developing Ethical Oversight of Research in Developing Countries: Case Study of Nigeria Clement A. Adebamowo, Margaret A. Mafe, Aminu A. Yakubu, Julie M. Adekeye, and Jonathan Y. Jiya.................................................................7
03. Ethical Issues in Scientific Research Adebayo O. Adejumo.............................................................16
04. Consent Seeking and Principles of Distributive Justice in Field Laboratory Health Projects in Non-Literate Societies Adeyinka Falusi.................................................................21
05. Consent Seeking in Social and Behavioural Research in Non-Literate Communities Ayodele Samuel Jegede..........................................................27
06. Ethical Challenges and Code in Study Design in Social and Behavioural Research in Vaccine Testing in Non-Literate Communities Abraham Alabi.................................................................33
07. Ethical Issues and Research Code in Social Science Methodology in the Context of Africa Olayiwola Erinosho.............................................................37
08. Ethical Issues in Qualitative Research in Public Health in Africa Paul Nchoji Nkwi.................................................................43
09. HIV/AIDS in Nigeria and Its Ethical Challenges Babatunde Osotimehin..........................................................49
10. Ethical Issues in USAID Applied Health Research in Nigeria Stalin E. Ewoigbokhan..........................................................55
11. Perspective of the WHO Research Ethics Review Committee on Socio-Behavioural Research Projects in Public Health Abha Saxena.................................................................63
Appendix: Participants.............................................................67 Preface
While researchers increasingly recognise the need to protect the participants that are targeted in social and behavioural research in public health, available literature is bereft of ample examination of the key ethical issues and challenges most especially in largely non-literate populations in Africa. Thus, the need for sound frameworks in ethical research practice at the global level most especially in developing countries is at the top of the agenda of health promotion and research today.
The existence of viable and active ethical review committees in developing countries is a prerequisite for investment in research. Developing countries must appreciate and establish a system that ensures that the participants in research are protected from potential exploitation, injuries, and harm in order to attract investment in research as well as derive its benefits.
The commitment to the promotion and investment in health research on HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, Malaria, and Reproductive Health in developing countries prompted the establishment of Nigeria’s National Health Research Ethics Committees and/or other mechanisms that would ensure a sound system for promoting and ensuring the protection of human subjects in research. Several countries have developed their codes of ethics for health research.
Nigeria is one of the leaders in health research in Africa and it is in furtherance of its leadership role and commitment to health research that the Federal Ministry of Health established Nigeria’s National Health Research Ethics Committee (NHREC). The Nigerian Code has been developed while NHREC is currently training the members of ethics committees in our institutions. The Committee is about to register institutional ethics committees in order to ensure standardisation and a common understanding in the application of the Code. Finally, NHREC will classify the country’s ethics committees according to type and the complexity of the research that they are permitted to review.
The Federal Ministry of Health is aware of the significant gap in the knowledge and application of sound ethical principles among researchers which is affecting their ability to attract funds from international funding agencies for otherwise well conceived and written research proposals.
The Social Science Academy of Nigeria (SSAN) organised a capacity building workshop for Nigerians and others from the West African sub-Region on ethics and codes in applied social and behavioural research in public health. The inclusion of participants from countries in West African is in accordance with Nigeria’s commitment towards the promotion of health in the ECOWAS sub-region.
Our sincere gratitude to the Tropical Diseases Research Programme of the World Health Organisation (TDR/WHO) for providing a substantial part of the funds for the workshop and also to the local and international collaborators for assisting to build the capacity of African scientists. It is also a delight to collaborate again with Professor Layi Erinosho with whom we have had a long history of combining efforts to promote health research, policy, and programmes in Nigeria.
Dr. Shehu Sule, MFR, mni Acting Permanent Secretary, Federal Ministry of Health, Shehu Shagari Way, Abuja, Nigeria. Acknowledgements
The very important area of ethics in research involving human subjects is often mentioned and discussed in research proposals by African scholars in Africa. But the discussions are often superficial because token attention is paid to its imperatives and requirements by applied social scientists, particularly those that are working in public health in Africa.
The ever evolving codes and ethics in this area are least understood and appreciated by Africa’s researchers working in many of Africa’s institutions. This lack of appreciation is connected to the contexts where research is undertaken; - contexts that appear not to be as strict and as demanding as those in high income countries whose ethical codes are well articulated.
This weakness is also reflected in what is taught to students who are being prepared for careers that include research. Consequently, most researchers in Africa particularly those who apply social science knowledge to public health lack the capacity to handle ethical requirements in proposals. The Social Science Academy of Nigeria is aware of, and concerned with this problem and is determined to improve the situation. The workshop provided a window of opportunity to enhance the competence of researchers in this critical area.
Founded as the Social Science Council of Nigeria in 1983, the Academy is mandated to harness and develop the capacity of Nigerian social scientists; promote the advancement of social science knowledge; and engender cross-disciplinary discourse.
On behalf of the Academy, I thank the following for their support for this extremely important workshop:
Institutions:
1. Tropical Diseases Research Programme, World Health Organisation, Geneva, Switzerland.
2. Federal Ministry of Health, Abuja, Nigeria.
3. Nuffield Bioethics Council, United Kingdom.
Individuals:
1. Dr. Johannes Sommerfeld, TDR, World Health Organisation, Geneva, Switzerland.
2. Dr. Ayo Oduola, TDR, World Health Organisation, Geneva, Switzerland.
3. Dr. Amos Petu, World Health Organisation, Abuja, Nigeria.
4. Dr. Harald Schmidt, Nuffield Bioethics Council, United Kingdom.
5. Professor Adenike Grange, Former Hon. Minister of Health, Federal Ministry of Health, Abuja, Nigeria.
6. Dr. Shehu Sule, Acting Permanent Secretary, Federal Ministry of Health, Abuja, Nigeria.
7. Dr. Tolu Fakeye, Consultant Special Grade, Department of Planning Research & Statistics, Federal Ministry of Health, Abuja, Nigeria.
8. Dr. Margaret Mafe, Head, Department of Planning, Research and Statistics, Federal Ministry of Health, Abuja, Nigeria.
Professor Uvie A. Igun, President, Social Science Academy of Nigeria, Abuja, Nigeria. Contributors
Clement Adebayo Adebamowo, BM ChB Hons. (Jos), FWACS, FACS, D.Sc. (Harvard), professor of surgery and Lecturer in nutrition epidemiology and bioethics, University of Ibadan; Director of the Institute for Advanced Medical Research and Training at same; Director, West African Bioethics Training Programme; Chairman, Nigeria National Health Research Ethics Committee; Chairman, Advisory Committee of TRREE, University of Neuchatel, Switzerland; Member, External Advisory Committee, Joint Centre for Bioethics, University of Toronto; and Member, IRENSA, University of Cape Town, South Africa. He conducts research in bioethics, medical education, surgery, and oncology.
Julie M. Adekeye, MB BS, former focal person on ethics at the Federal Ministry of Health, Abuja, Nigeria.
Adebayo Adejumo, B.Sc. Nursing, M.Sc. Clinical Psychology Ph.D. Developmental Psychology (Ibadan), M.HSc. Bioethics (Toronto) is a recipient of awards of the: Joint Centre for Bioethics, Institute of Medical Science, University of Toronto, Canada (2005); Fogarty Foundation; and Union of Africa Population Studies. He is a faculty Member at the Centre for West African Bioethics; Member, National Health Research Ethics Committee of Nigeria. He teaches in the Department of Psychology, University of Ibadan, Nigeria.
Abraham Alabi, B.Sc. Microbiology (Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife), M.Sc., Ph.D. Medical Microbiology, (Lagos), formerly of the Nigerian Institute of Medical Research, Yaba, Lagos, Nigeria is Senior Scientific Officer, Medical Research Council (MRC), Banjul, The Gambia.
Olaiyiwola Erinosho, B.Sc. (Ibadan), M.A., Ph.D. (Toronto), professor of health sociology, Olabisi Onabanjo University, Ago-Iwoye, Ogun State, Nigeria. Former Head, Department of Sociology and Dean, Faculty of Social and Management Sciences; Member, Executive Committee, International Sociological Association (1994-2002); Member, Steering Committee, Tropical Diseases Programme, World Health Organization; and Consultant to Bilateral and Multilateral Organisations. Former Executive Secretary, Social Science Academy of Nigeria (1998-2005), and currently the President, African Sociological Association.
Stalin E. Ewoigbokhan, B.Sc. Biochemistry (Ife), M.P.H. (Ibadan) recipient of Certificates in international public health of the Boston (USA), Hokkaido (Japan) Universities, and Diploma in Journalism (Lagos). He is currently the Monitoring and Evaluation Advisor, Polio Eradication Team COMPASS/ USAID, Abuja, Nigeria.
Adeyinka Falusi, B.Sc. Hons. Chemistry, M.Phil., Ph.D Haematology (Ibadan), professor of haematology and Head of the Genetic & Bioethics Research Unit at the Institute for Advanced Medical Research & Training, College of Medicine, University of Ibadan and Acting Director/Chair of University of Ibadan/University College Hospital Ethics Review Committee of same University (2001-2005). She is a recipient of L’OREAL/UNESCO Award for Outstanding Woman of Science (Africa 2001) and the Rare Gem Award in Science & Technology in 2003. Professor Falusi is currently the President of the Sickle Cell Association of Nigeria (SCAN) and the Protem President of the Nigerian Bioethics Initiative (NIBIN).
Uvie A. Igun, B.Sc., M.Sc., (Ibadan), Ph.D. (Manchester), professor of medical anthropology, former Head of Department of Sociology, University of Maiduguri and Vice-Chancellor, Delta State University, Abraka. He is currently the Chairman and the Executive Board, Action AIDS and President, Social Science Academy of Nigeria.
Ayodele Samuel Jegede, B.Sc. (Ife), M.Sc., Ph.D. Medical Sociology/Anthropology (Ibadan), M.HSc. Bioethics (Toronto), Reader in medical anthropology/sociology and bioethics, University of Ibadan, and Faculty Member of the West African Bioethics Training Programme, College of Medicine, University of Ibadan, Nigeria. His areas of interest include health technology delivery and utilisation, research ethics, genomic and biotechnology policy, reproductive health including HIV/AIDS, tropical diseases including malaria and tuberculosis and qualitative methodology.
Jonathan Y. Jiya, MB BS, M.P.H., mni, was until recently, Director, Department of Planning, Research, and Statistics, Federal Ministry of Health, Abuja, Nigeria.
Margaret A. Mafe, Ph.D., public health specialist and former the focal person for ethics at the Nigerian Federal Ministry of Health, is Director, the Nigerian Institute of Medical Research, Yaba, Lagos, Nigeria.
Paul Nchoji Nkwi, born in Wombong, Northwest Province of Cameroon, studied in Nigeria, Italy and Switzerland graduating with degrees in philosophy and anthropology. Served as a teaching assistant at the University of Fribourg in Switzerland, and taught medical anthropology for over thirty years at the University of Yaoundé, rising to the post of full professor in 1980. Professor Nkwi previously served in different capacities in the Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research, returning to full time teaching in 1992. Founding president, Pan African Anthropological Association; former Vice President, African Academy of Sciences; and founding Executive Secretary, Cameroon Academy of Sciences. He is a permanent member of the International Union of Anthropological and Ethnological Sciences (IUAES).
Babtunde Osotimehin, MB BS (Ibadan), MD (Birmingham), Member of the Royal College of Physicians (UK), Fellow in Endocrinology, Cornell University Graduate School of Medicine, New York, USA (1979-1980); Fellow, Nigerian Postgraduate Medical College (1982); Fellow, West African Postgraduate Medical College (1982); Fellow, Royal College of Physicians, London (1989); and Fellow, Nigerian Academy of Science (2006). He was a Distinguished Visitor to the John D and Catherine T MacArthur Foundation, Chicago USA (1996) and Visiting Fellow, Harvard Centre for Population and Development Studies, Cambridge Massachusetts, USA (1996-1997). Previously Head of Department and Provost, College of Medicine, University of Ibadan (1990-1994), now Director General, National Agency for the Control of AIDS.
Abha Saxena, Staff Scientist, WHO ERC, Geneva, Switzerland.
Aminu A. Yakubu, M.P.H. is a biochemist and public health specialist and a health research officer at the Federal Ministry of Health, Abuja, Nigeria. Introduction
Olayiwola Erinosho
Introduction
Ethics, the science of morality, has always loomed large in the various time-honoured professions such as law, priesthood, medicine, and the military. However, globalization has invigorated interest in ethics and it now transcends all human endeavours. Ethics is now taken seriously in governance, business, academia, and other walks of life.
But concepts like ethics, democracy, justice, and freedom have different meanings in different contexts and cultures. What is ethical in a culture might be unethical in others. For example, traditional healers in Africa could be paid in kind by their clients rather than cash (e.g., marriage, or farm products etc.). This sort of exchange for professional services is unethical in western-style medicine and/or societies.
The on-going “strife” between the West and sections of the Arab population and/or countries over the meaning of freedom, democracy, and/or human rights can also be cited as an example. There is remarkable diversity across cultures, religions, national boundaries, ethnicity on the meaning of these concepts. For instance, quite a number of theocratic Arab/Muslim states that draw inspiration from the Holy Qur’an differ from Europeans on their meanings. Consequently, the challenge facing humankind is to share a common understanding of these cherished human values.
The challenge is equally evident in the context of health care research in which individuals, groups, and communities are targeted. As an example, the right and proper way in which animals are handled in Euro-American societies is not necessarily the case in other contexts such as Nigeria where animal rights are not recognised. Similarly, patriarchy which is the foundation of social structure in most parts of Africa is a significant determinant of social relationship between researchers and their targeted communities and respondents.
Oral cultures such as those in various parts of Africa attach importance to personal social relation in contrast to literate and technologically developed ones where relations are impersonal, highly segmented, and formal. The requirement of informed consent in writing does not go down very well in African societies that are still steeped in oral tradition unlike in European contexts where this is embraced and/or demanded.
There is therefore a divergence between the technologically developed and developing countries on the importance of ethics in socio-medical research. While the former have established effective mechanisms for reviewing and implementing research projects on human/animal subjects, the latter especially in Africa are just about doing so. As a result, many researchers in Africa always have a hard time getting approval for their protocols from international ethical review boards due to their failure to address sticking ethical issues in their protocols.
Support for foregoing assertion lies in a recent study of 670 researchers in developing countries which concluded that 44 per cent of their projects were not reviewed by their Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) even though a third of the studies was funded by United States organisations. The study also found that the IRBs in US institutions raised questions on consent forms in local languages and the protection of confidentiality than the IRBs in the host countries (Hyder et. al., 2004).
Another survey of fourteen African countries found most of them in transition. Quite a number are just establishing the mechanisms for ethical clearance while the National Ethical Committees in many contexts are either not functioning or not abreast of their responsibilities (NEBRA, 2006).
One of the tasks facing African countries is to put in place effective structure and process for ethical review and implementation of research protocols and/or projects and also ensure that any system that is put in place is functioning optimally. It is also vital to enhance the capacity of scholars to show appreciation for ethics in the implementation of their research projects.
The significance of research code in extant methods in the social, behavioural, and clinical sciences cannot also be ignored. Research code is about adherence to the rules of engagement in scientific research. As readers may well know, scientific inquiry is about observation, objectivity, rigorous interrogation, analysis, and interpretation of data on the basis of probability theory. Testable propositions are expected to be confirmed and/or refuted on the basis of carefully assembled verifiable facts. Every outcome of scientific enquiry has a character of hypothesis because today’s outcomes are refutable tomorrow if newly discovered facts indicate otherwise.
Scientists are expected to be detached in the course of their study of human behaviour (i.e., value-free) as well as display open rather a closed mind to the outcomes of their studies. Outcomes could be modified or rejected depending on new facts and data. These core principles in science methodology transcend all human societies.
The quest to strengthen the capacity of Africa’s researchers in Africa on ethics and research code is recognised by the WHO and other bodies that have committed significant resources to their training with commendable success. But one or two capacity building workshops are too few to achieve the desired impact in a continent that boasts of a vibrant community of scholars that are spread all over the more than three hundred and fifty universities and research institutions.
A regional workshop on ethics and research code in the social and behavioural aspects of public health research was organised to:
1. outline ethics in scientific research;
2. examine the ethical dilemmas and challenges in social and behavioural research in public health in non-literate populations;
3. analyse the factors which act as barriers to accessing grants with particular reference to ethics and code for research;
4. develop capacity on ethics and code in social and behavioural research in public health in largely non-literate populations, and
5. document and disseminate the outcomes of the meeting.
**Participants**
The participants were drawn from English speaking countries in the West and Central Africa sub-region, notably, Nigeria, Ghana, and Cameroons with most of them from Nigeria for understandable reasons while the resource persons were recruited from Cameroons, United Kingdom, India, and the World Health Organisation. It was conceived as a ‘Trainer of Trainers’ (TOT) workshop because the organisers believed that the mostly senior level participants could in turn organise in-house capacity enhancement workshops on ethics and research code in their respective institutions after training.
Forty-three senior and mid-career scholars in the legal, social, biological, and clinical sciences including others in the field of public health were selected to participate in the workshop from about one hundred and fifty (150) applicants.
**Workshop Format**
The workshop was interactive and participatory. Scientific sessions at which the resource persons presented papers preceded small group discussions, followed by plenary sessions at which the groups tabled their respective reports and recommendations for discussion.
**Presentations**
Ten papers that are grouped under four thematic issues were presented. The first of papers focus historical and conceptual issues. Adebamowo provides a historical overview of ethics from the general (i.e., at the global level) to the specific with reference to Nigeria, tracing as well the evolution of the work of Nigeria’s National Committee on Ethics and Research Code. The authors argue that the Nigeria experience could be a template for other countries in Africa. Adejumo on the hand outlines the key issues in ethics in scientific work.
Chapters 4, 5, and 6 are about consent seeking in diverse contexts, - social, behavioural and clinical research. Falusi’s contribution which is about consent seeking and the principles of distributive justice in laboratory projects highlights the key challenges especially when those that are targeted are non-literate. Further discussion of consent seeking from the social and behavioural science research standpoint is by Jegede while Alabi’s examines the ethical challenges in study design in social and behavioural research in vaccine testing in Africa.
The usual targets in social science research are individuals, groups, and communities. But social scientists collaborate with experts in public health and/or clinicians in various projects. There is however, little evidence that ethics is given as much emphasis in the training of social scientists as in the animal and human sciences. The outcomes of the pre- and post evaluation of the workshop which are discussed later on bear testimony to this assertion because most of the participants who previously received training on ethics and research code are in the fields of public health, biological and clinical sciences rather than in the social. The data also indicate that nearly all faculties with the exception of the social science faculties had established the mechanisms including the structure (i.e., ethics review committee) for reviewing research proposals.
Erinosho (see Chapter 7) outlines the sticking ethical issues in quantitative and qualitative social research methods, using ample examples in this regard while the paper by Nkwi in Chapter 8 complements the former. Here the author examines ethics in the context of ethnographic studies.
One of the two case reports in Chapter 10 highlights ethical challenges in applied research in non-literate communities while the other focuses on ethical dilemmas around the HIV/AIDS epidemic in Nigeria. Osotimehin argues that there are no easy answers especially where there is conflict over the concern for “public good” (i.e., where the aim is to protect the well-being of next of kin and the public at large) vis-à-vis the protection of individual rights on the debate on voluntary versus compulsory testing for HIV/AIDS (see Chapter 10). Similarly, the dilemmas which Nigerian researchers faced during the implementation of USAID supported applied research projects are amply examined in Chapter 9 by Ewoigbokhan. The writer argues that the critical issue is the pull between local mores and demands and those of the sponsors of research in Africa. The key point is that developing country researchers are caught in this web and they are unable to by-pass internationally stipulated rules and regulations on ethics in public health research.
Finally, Saxena sheds considerable light in Chapter 11 on the queries on social science protocols that are submitted to the World Health Organisation for ethical review and approval. The author concludes that social scientists that are working in public health often take a lot for granted in their write-ups.
**Evaluation**
Pre- and post evaluation surveys were conducted in order to provide insight into knowledge and the state of ethics and research code among the participants prior to workshop as well as assess the impact of training on them. About 67 per cent of them had never participated in capacity enhancement training workshop/programme on ethics code in health research. More than fifty per cent of them were from institutions with no functioning ethical review committees. Although 61 per cent are aware of Nigeria’s national code, only a third of them (27.3 per cent) previously processed their protocols through the national review board. Only 58 per cent said that their institutions offer formal courses on ethics. Nearly all of those who made this claim are from the faculties of science, public health, and medicine in contrast to those from the social sciences whose faculties had not introduced formal courses on ethics.
The outcomes of evaluation at the end of training indicate unanimous support for the introduction of formal courses on ethics and training programme for researchers across Nigeria and the West Africa sub-region. There is evidence from the responses that the participants benefited greatly from the presentations and the ample materials that were provided.
The participants proffered the following observations and recommendations:
**Observations**
01. The key ethical issues in quantitative and qualitative research are privacy, confidentiality, consent, gender sensitivity, feedback, and response to cultural specificities.
02. Informed consent in writing is viewed with deep suspicion in oral societies due to past experiences dating back to the colonial era.
03. Many institutions lack functioning ethical review boards.
04. Exploitation is distinguishable from inducement. While incentives for participants are not illegal, manipulative inducements are unethical.
05. Effective communication between researchers and largely non-literate participants is always a problem.
06. Ethical issues are not given adequate consideration in proposals and they are as such poorly articulated, indicating that researchers are not sufficiently skilled in proposal writing. There is also limited opportunity for guidance on project development.
07. Although IRBs are constituted, they do not function effectively because they lack the expertise to review and monitor ethical lapses in research proposals.
08. There is conflict between the cultural perspectives of the members of national ethics committees and the presumably superior viewpoints of the international funders of research that are inclined to perceive local cultures as ‘bad’. For example, international funding agencies/IRBs are not inclined to take local cultures into consideration in ethical issues concerning consent seeking.
09. Drug companies work with those who do not know their rights or those who have the capacity to negotiate appropriate long-term benefits for their communities in comparison to the risks that are involved. The sponsors and collaborators often times promise to make the products that are tested and found efficacious available to the community but later abandon such ideas.
10. There is generally a poor grasp of statistical methods and the calculation of sample size.
11. The handling, processing, and analysis of qualitative social science data in parts of Africa are weak/poor.
12. Researchers hardly extend the benefits of research to the targeted participants/communities in Africa. Neither do they share the outcomes of their work with them.
13. Field laboratory assistants in Africa are not well remunerated.
14. International organisations that are conducting drug trials are not fully monitored to ensure that they comply with standard operating procedures.
15. Lip service is paid to the translation of questionnaires into local languages that are administered in studies in Africa.
16. There are currently no effective and functional regulatory and monitoring policies that oversee appropriate storage and disposal of micro-organisms and biohazard waste in most parts of Africa.
**Recommendations**
01. National and institutional committees that monitor the activities of ethical review boards and researchers should be constituted and made to function effectively.
02. National ethical guidelines and code should be developed and adhered to.
03. There is a need for capacity building programmes for ethical review committees in order for them to function effectively.
04. Investigators should be equipped with the knowledge and skills on proposal/project writing such that the recognition and adoption of local and ethical guidelines are integrated into protocols.
05. Feedback should be given to researchers whose proposals are turned down in order for them to have further insight into reasons for the decision and also to be able to improve their work.
06. Local IRBs should ensure that the protocols that are approved by foreign IRBs should be reviewed by them in order to ensure the practicability of the studies and the extent to which they recognise/address socio-cultural implications.
07. Local researchers should be empowered to negotiate their needs and the benefits to local situation, especially where the validity of the results will be affected by the conditions that are advocated by donor agencies.
08. IRBs should be interdisciplinary in order to protect participants from issues that may be culturally and emotionally damaging. In addition, proposals should be sent to more than one expert representing the various disciplines for inputs.
09. The degree of risks in research should be commensurate to their benefits.
10. There is need to design curriculum for training in ethics in social and behavioural research in higher institutions.
11. There is also a need to build capacity of ethics review committees to review social science research.
12. Institutional ethical review committees for social and behavioural research issues should be constituted where none are currently in place.
13. There is need to operationalise consent seeking in view of the compelling cultural realities in Africa.
14. African researchers should be trained to be aware of the fact that they can influence research.
15. Local culture and traditions should be recognised in study design.
16. International agencies that are conducting drug trials should be monitored to ensure that the standard operating procedures are followed.
17. National and institutional ethical committees should protect the population by putting clause that makes it mandatory for the benefits of research to be available and affordable to their targeted participants and communities.
18. Proper agreement should be made from the beginning of research. Patent should be part of agreement prior to testing.
19. There is need to make concepts easier for the participants to understand (e.g., the concept of placebo) so that they can willingly participate in research.
20. There is need to demystify the belief that doctors are all-knowing and require absolute submission on issues of health in Africa.
21. Education and proper dissemination of information to communities are essential.
22. Every institution should have the mechanisms for the storage and disposal of their waste.
23. Each institution should have bio-safety officers.
24. High level risk research should be restricted to institutions that have the capacity to handle them. Such institutions must comply with the policies of the environmental impact agencies (i.e., the EIAs).
25. There is need for capacity building on the handling of toxic wastes etc. in laboratories.
Conclusion
There is ample evidence from the deliberations/recommendations at the Abuja (Nigeria) workshop that much more could be done to develop the capacity of scholars in the Africa sub-region on ethics and research code. Many scholars in the continent are at the receiving end because they are inclined to seek funding for their projects from well-endowed Euro-America funding and other multi-lateral and bilateral agencies. Yet obtaining support for worthwhile projects depends on meeting the stringent conditions for approval and showing how ethics will be effectively addressed in project implementation. It is undeniable that these issues cannot be effectively addressed unless researchers are competent on research code and also know how to handle their animal and human subjects.
The foregoing recommendations indicate that there is a window of opportunity for training African scholars on research ethics and code. However, one or two workshops will not do in view of the large community of scholars on the continent. Consequently, it is desirable to sustain the momentum of the Abuja workshop by funding several workshops in order to ensure that as many scholars as possible grasp the essence of research code and ethics. It is being proposed the World Health Organisation and responsible national authorities should support such workshops.
References
Hyder et. al., A.A. (2004) Ethical Review of Health Research: A Perspective from Developing Country Researcher, Journal of Medical Ethics, 30: 68-72.
NEBRA, (2006) Final Report Networking For Ethics on Biomedical Research in Africa, Sixth Framework Programme (2002-2006), Science and Society, November 2006, Check www.trree.org/site. Developing Ethical Oversight of Research in Developing Countries: Case Study of Nigeria
Clement A. Adebamowo, Margaret A. Mafe, Aminu A. Yakubu, Julie M. Adekeye, and Jonathan Y. Jiya
Introduction
In recent decades, there has been an increase in research and programmatic intervention to combat diseases that are prevalent in developing countries. With this rise have come increased reports of unethical research and scientific misconduct. These allegations highlight limited development and reach of programmes that are designed to ensure ethical oversight of health research in developing countries. We consider the creation of a national ethics regulatory infrastructure one of the necessary responses to address current and future health research ethics issues such as those already reported. In this paper, we use Nigeria as a case study for the development of such regulatory infrastructure and opine that the Nigerian examples may be suitable for other countries with a significant level of existing research ethics activities. To this end, we outline the history and development of the Nigerian Code for Health Research Ethics (NCHRE) and its successes, problems, and prospects. We suggest that the public-private partnership model that was used in Nigeria based on an innovation systems approach should be more widely adopted despite its limitations of greater cost and slower rollout of activities. The benefits of such as institutionalisation of research ethics, potentially greater impact and sustainability outweigh these limitations.
Nigeria is the most populous country in Africa. With a population of 140 million people, Nigeria is home to every 4 Africans. The health profile of Nigeria is characterised by twin epidemics of communicable diseases such as malaria, tuberculosis and HIV/AIDS and non-communicable diseases like obesity, hypertension, diabetes, cancers, and mental health disorders. In this respect, it is similar to most other developing countries. In the past decade, there has been increased funding of the health sector from the government, donor agencies, and development partners such as the WHO, the United Nations and its agencies, the Roll Back Malaria project, President Bush’s emergency Plan for AIDS Relief and the William J. Clinton Presidential Foundation. These have either provided or increased funding for treatment of diseases, particularly HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria.
Additionally, health research in Nigeria is increasing in response to the needs of the population. This is being driven by the need to find more effective treatments and public health interventions for persistent infectious diseases epidemics. The emergence of old diseases like tuberculosis and leprosy in ever more virulent forms is also driving the need for increased research. With the completion of the Human Genome and the International Haplotype Mapping Projects, researchers have been conducting research in Africa in order to better understand the genomic basis of diseases and human history as well as differential responses to drug treatments. Furthermore, more clinical trials are being conducted in order to take advantage of the low-cost, poorly regulated and less litigious health research environment. This growth in research activities is desirable and is to be encouraged. Research and clinical trials have the potential to improve the quality of health care services that are offered to the population. Research also increases countries’ abilities to participate in international research enterprise, thereby enhancing their potential to contribute to economic development and growth by providing employment, equipment, training and income for local researchers and their institutions. It transfers skills and helps to retain talented individuals who otherwise may be tempted to join the brain drain and leave developing countries.\\textsuperscript{11}
However, the increase in treatment and research programmes has revealed the dearth of functioning ethics committees in most developing countries, including Nigeria. Programmes to effectively protect research participants are nonexistent, weak or non-functional.\\textsuperscript{12-14} In response, local and international organisations have sought to strengthen health research ethics in developing countries. International organisations like the WHO\\textsuperscript{15} and UNESCO\\textsuperscript{16} have developed guidelines for the functioning of ethics committees while the European and Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnership (EDCTP)\\textsuperscript{17} and the United Nations Institutes of Health (NIH)\\textsuperscript{18} have awarded grants to support training of members of research ethics committees and biomedical researchers. In addition, researchers within countries have also increased interest and are demanding ethics regulatory infrastructure to augment these internationally funded activities.
In general, these programmes have functioned as stand-alone training programmes that equip individuals with the ability to function effectively as members of ethics’ committees, as ethically aware members of the research team, or as individuals who are capable of teaching or conducting research in bioethics. In countries that already have a relatively strong tradition of research ethics, this model works by training members of ethics committees who return to fit into existing structures.\\textsuperscript{19} However, in most African countries where ethics regulatory bodies (if they exist at all) are of more recent origin, this model may not work.\\textsuperscript{20} Studies of ethics review committees in Africa have shown that besides training, political commitment and funding are the most serious challenges that they face.\\textsuperscript{21-22} Trainees may therefore return to environments where their ability to practice their skills is severely compromised by institutional and infrastructural limitations.
In view of these realities, we believe the development of national ethics regulatory infrastructure should occur alongside increased training. Such bodies will:
1. set legally enforceable norms and guidelines for ethical review of protocols;
2. set training standards for members of health research ethics committees, and
3. develop strategies for adequately funding them.
In this paper, we describe how the Nigerian system is being set up; its successes and challenges. We propose this model for other African countries intent on developing ethics regulatory infrastructure.
**History of National Health Research Ethics Regulation in Nigeria**
The earliest attempts to set up a national ethics regulatory infrastructure in Nigeria took place in 1980. However, this effort faltered largely because of lack of sustained interest and funding. Subsequent attempts were also unsuccessful because the decades of the 1980s and 1990s were marked by military misrule and socio-economic dislocation. The advent of civilian democracy in Nigeria in 1999 coincided with a period of increased international attention to the problems of unethical health research that occurred particularly in developing countries.\\textsuperscript{23} By 2004, several Nigerians had graduated from the older U.S. National Institutes of Health/Fogarty International Centre (NIH/FIC) funded international research ethics training programmes in the United States, Canada, and South Africa, and they increased pressure on their institutions to set up ethics committees where there were none and strengthen existing ones even as they started to provide local bioethics training. These efforts gathered momentum such that during a 2006 Presidential Retreat on the Health of Nigerians, the fact that Nigeria needed an ethics regulatory infrastructure for health research to meet its United Nations Millennium Development Goals targets, was strongly highlighted.
In response, the Federal Government of Nigeria reconstituted and strengthened the National Health Research Ethics Committee (NHREC) and backed it with legislation to:
1. Determine guidelines for the functioning of health research ethics committees (HREC) in Nigeria;
2. Register and audit HRECs;
3. Set norms and standards for conducting research on humans and animals, and for conducting clinical trials;
4. Adjudicate in complaints about the functioning of HRECs and hear any complaint by a researcher who believes that he has been discriminated against by HREC;
5. Refer to the relevant statutory health professional council, matters involving the violation or potential violation of an ethical or a professional rule by a health care provider;
6. Institute such disciplinary action as may be prescribed against any person found to be in violation of any norms and standards, or guidelines, set for the conduct of research under this Act, and
7. Advise the Federal and State Ministries of Health on any ethical issues concerning research.
In order to expeditiously pursue these objectives, the Federal Ministry of Health signed a technical cooperation agreement with the West African Bioethics Training Programme (WAB), a United States NIH/FIC funded programme located in Nigeria with a mission to train biomedical researchers and train bioethics in Nigeria and West Africa. The terms of the technical agreement included the provision of training and support for members of the National Health Research Ethics Committee and relevant members of staff of the Federal Ministry of Health. The WAB was also to help the Ministry to draft a national code for health research ethics, develop standard operating procedures for ethics committees, and other relevant documents and activities with the aim of strengthening health research ethics in Nigeria.
In fulfilment of the terms of this technical agreement, the WAB set up a multidisciplinary, multi-institutional technical consultation committee comprising individuals with backgrounds in health and social sciences in addition to postgraduate training in bioethics. This committee was charged with the responsibility for reviewing current research ethics codes and developing an appropriate code for Nigeria that takes account of the existing guidelines and recent developments in international health research ethics. In doing its work, the committee was enjoined to take account of the Nigerian Constitution and the Federal structure of the country, other relevant laws, the history of research and research ethics in Nigeria as well as the needs of local and international researchers. Previous bioethics needs’ assessment studies had indicated that the potential for bureaucratic delays, corruption, and obstructionism were the most important concerns that biomedical researchers in Nigeria have about a national ethics committee. The committee was therefore asked to keep these concerns in mind as it develops the guidelines.
The draft code developed by the committee was submitted to NHREC in 2006 and it was adopted after amendments. The Code was then published on the NHREC website and disseminated within and outside the country for consultation and comments by the research community and stakeholders. Appropriate comments, suggestions and corrections that were received were incorporated by NHREC into the code after which it was submitted to the government for adoption. as the first domestic legal regulation establishing ethical review of research in Nigeria. The Code has now been released for implementation by Nigeria HRECs and biomedical researchers. It sets the norms and standards that must be applied for the ethical review of research in Nigeria.
**Enforcement of Ethics Regulations**
Prior to the development of the National Code in Nigeria, interested parties and institutions in Nigeria set up ethical committees according to institutional and international guidelines. There was therefore the lack of uniformity and minimum standards. There was also no coordinating and legally binding enforcement mechanism. More recently, largely in response to increased research funding from foreign governments and organisations, institutions have either established or remodelled their committees after the U.S. institutional review boards systems and in accordance with the U. S. Common Rule. This often occurred at the behest of international collaborators who needed to satisfy their home countries’ regulatory agencies. While such collaborative studies underwent ethical oversight, the same was often not true of locally funded and local-investigator led domestic research. Therefore, much undocumented unethical research continues to be conducted in Nigeria as in other developing countries, outside the purview of ethics committees. In addition, there was no systematic and sustained development of a culture of ethical health research in national institutions.
Where research is conducted with foreign funds, non-compliance with ethical standards can lead to the withdrawal of funding and the debarment of researchers from receiving additional funds from such sources in the future. Given that there is little international cooperation in enforcement of ethical conduct of research, such researchers may be able to access other research funds and, in the absence of domestic legal regulation of ethical research, there are few or no sanctions available against non-compliance with ethical standards. Litigation as a method of enforcing ethical standards has not been uniformly successful. This is partly because of weak judicial systems, the absence of enabling laws, and unenforceability of international guidelines such as the Nuremberg Code, Belmont principles, Helsinki Declaration, and CIOMS guidelines. The latter have been described as non-legally binding declarative statements that lack the specificity required for legal action. They are therefore not legally enforceable and their contravention in developing countries carries minimal risk to researchers.
**Highlights of the Nigerian Code for Health Research Ethics**
The Nigerian Code for Health Research Ethics resembles most of the current international health research ethics guidelines, but it differs from them in some important aspects. In order to ensure minimum standards in ethical evaluation of research, the Code requires all ethics committees in the country to be registered. This registration is renewable every two years and gives the NHREC the opportunity to conduct oversight over institutional ethics committees. Institutions setting up ethics committees are also expected to agree to provide equipment, office space and personnel for these committees, otherwise they risk losing their registration. Ethics committee members and biomedical researchers are also mandated to undergo at least biennial NHREC-approved training in informed consent. The Code requires institutions to appoint HREC administrators, an essential role that has hitherto been largely ignored in many of the efforts to promote health research ethics in developing countries. While HREC members are often rotated, administrators remain the backbone of sustainable ethics committees by ensuring continuity and providing support. A system of categorisation of committees has also been created so that institutions are motivated to support their HREC and improve them in order to maintain their status or attain a higher one. Categories are also linked to the types of research that institutions’ committees can approve and, by implication, the types of research that can be conducted in institutions. The Code allows institutions to have more than one ethics committee but limits the authority of the ethics committees to their geographical location or the research activities of the institution’s permanent staff only. This is to prevent “ethics committee shopping” by researchers seeking to avoid rigorous ethical oversight. In view of the high cost of setting up ethics committees and the need for there to be a steady stream of research proposals in order for a committee to acquire competence and experience in protocol review, the Code assumes that there may be institutions that cannot sustain the establishment and continual functioning of ethics committees. In order for research to be conducted in such institutions, the Code provides for the establishment of cooperative agreements between institutions that have and those that do not have ethics committees so that ethical oversight in the latter institutions is possible.
Central and regional review of protocols has been widely discussed in the research community as a method of providing ethical oversight of multicentre studies in a timely and an efficient manner. This avoids duplication of effort and discordant outcomes of multiple ethics committees’ review of same protocols. The Code provides opportunities for principal investigators to seek central review of their protocol by the National Ethics Committee at their own discretion or upon referral from their local ethics committees. This is recommended where the research involves multiple centres or is taking place in institutions or localities where there is no ethics committee. The ethics committee of an institution may also refer research to the National Committee for review, if, for example, the research is of such sophistication that no one institution in Nigeria has all the relevant expertise to adequately review and provide oversight function for it.
Individual researchers may also petition the National Committee to review a study where there has been inordinate delay or dispute with the institutional ethics committee. In such instances, the National Committee may assign the protocol to any institutional committee to review the protocol on its behalf as the “Committee of Record” after which local institutional committees provide continuing ethical oversight if the protocol is approved. Additionally, the National Committee may set up an ad hoc ethics committee made-up of experts from different institutions within Nigeria or the National Committee can constitute itself into a reviewing ethics committee and exercise all the authorities therein. Institutional ethics committees were preferred to regional ones. Though the latter are likely to be more efficient, they carry the risk that ethical review will not be seen as part of the cultural fabric of institutional research programmes and may not adequately support the growth of an ethical research environment within institutions.
In order to monitor the transfer of biological materials and protect the interests of local researchers in international collaborative research that exploits local bio-diversity and resources, the Code requires a Materials Transfer Agreement between collaborating researchers, monitored by the institutional ethics committee and recorded at the National Committee. Where appropriate, other agreements such as Clinical Trials Agreements, Community Assent, Community Benefits Agreements or Intellectual Property Rights Agreements, may also be required by the institutional ethics committees before studies are approved. Ethics committees are encouraged to consult each other when reviewing multicentre studies and researchers must submit ethics review of protocols from different sites to their institutional HREAC for resolution, particularly where outcome of review is discordant. The Code also outlines clear processes for ethics committees to provide continuing ethics oversight of studies, suspend studies, resolve concerns and issues arising from ethics oversight and recommend termination of studies to the National Committee. There are also procedures for the investigators to appeal to the local institutional ethics committees and independently to the National Committee in cases of disputes with the institutional committee. Several studies have shown that funding is the most important limitation facing ethical committees in developing countries. Several options have been suggested to resolve this problem including charging for review of protocols, institutional or government support, external funding, or grant support. The NHREC took the view that while ethical review of protocols is a public good that should be supported by the government, this is not a viable option for governments still struggling to meet their commitment to the provision of basic healthcare. Dependence on external grants alone was not considered a sustainable long-term option for funding ethics committees. Institutional ethics committees are therefore permitted to charge fees commensurate with the sophistication of the research protocol, source of research funds, and the expected amount of work that would need to be done in order to provide satisfactory ethics oversight. These fees can vary according to availability of additional support provided by institutions and other sources to the institutional ethics committees.
Ethics committees and independent ethicists can conduct both ethics consultations and ethics training programmes taking due care to avoid conflicts of interest. For quality assurance purposes, ethics education programmes must submit their curriculum and a list of lecturers/resource persons, and their qualifications to the NHREC for vetting to ensure that these meet the minimum requirements for education in research ethics that is mandated for members of ethics committees and biomedical researchers in the National Code at least once every two years.
Existing ethics guidelines have been criticised as having arisen partly or wholly in response to research ethics crises. For example, the Nuremberg Code was a result of the trial of doctors and scientists that conducted unethical research during the Second World War. They are also believed to be unbalanced because they accord excessive weight to the principle of autonomy and fail to meet current challenges in research ethics such as community concerns, use of placebos, conflicts about standard of care, resource availability when research is over, and quality of an adequate informed consent process. The Nigerian Code reflects these new paradigms in ethics guidelines and includes explicit information about protecting communities and their interests as well as the application of the ICH-GCP guidelines in clinical trials.
The National Committee believes that biomedical researchers and ethics committees’ adherence to the code and other guidelines will depend on the provision of educational programmes as well as enforcement of compliance by the National Committee. This will wean ethics committee members off the guidelines and processes with which they are already familiar. Many members of ethics committees lack adequate foundation in modern research ethics and this may explain the common complaints about the quality of ethics review, the types of issues that ethics committee members raise, and their concentration on minutiae of the informed consent form to the neglect of other prospects of research protocols. The National Committee therefore charged the WAB to continue to provide education for members of ethics committees in Nigeria on a continuing basis.
Problems and Prospects
Domesticating international research ethics guidelines, backing them with legislation, and setting up a national ethics regulatory body are necessary to advance the cause of ethical research in developing countries. Developing countries cannot develop modern research programmes or host health research conducted by international companies and organisations without transparent and effective research ethics regulatory infrastructure. In its absence, attempts to ensure compliance with ethics regulations are likely to remain superficial and falter over time. The exact mode for developing such an infrastructure will vary from country to country depending on constitutional arrangements, historical, social, economic, and educational factors, as well as the size of its research and ethics community. The Nigerian experience demonstrates the value of working with the government using a public-private partnership model.
Using a dynamically interactive systems approach, Nigeria has developed an in-country partnership between the public service and a private initiative to set up an ethics regulatory infrastructure that advances the objective of all partners. The government benefits from expertise that is not readily available within the public service and obtains support for the training of staff and the provision of books, computers, and electronic documents while providing the legal authority and institutional support for the framework. The private partner is able to further the objective of providing training in bioethics and producing graduates who will have opportunities to deploy their skills effectively within the system. We believe that this approach enhances the capacity of the country to have a sustainable ethics programme in the long run. This innovations systems concept for capacity development has been used in other areas of science and technology in Africa.
The systems approach to capacity building requires a shift in conceptualisation of partnerships from just producing personnel to the development of systems of interactive actors that are able to generate and apply knowledge needed within their local environment. This slows down the process and requires greater investment of time and effort because of the need to build a team, debate and resolve competing priorities, and mobilise resources. Trust must be built and barriers to partnership gently lowered. Demand for services must also be stimulated in consonance with development of delivery systems. This approach is eminently suitable for the bioethics expertise in developing countries because while the principles of biomedical ethics are global, their application is local and requires local knowledge and expertise. Training programmes that produce personnel without taking account of the environment and infrastructural requirements for effective functioning are not likely to have sustainable impact in the long run.
The model we have used is probably more suited to large countries with several research institutes and universities, some of which may already have health research ethics programs. Other countries have used other models. For example, some developing countries have centralised all ethics review and located it in the Health Ministry. This provides the Ministry the ability to monitor all research on-going in the country, negotiate with research partners, and allow only those studies that the Ministry considers relevant to the health needs of the population. There is no systematic evidence that this model is more efficient than alternative models. Rather, anecdotal reports suggest that it is plagued by delays in approval, political interference in scientific research, and bureaucracy. Yet this model may be suitable for small countries with few research institutions and limited resources.
**Conclusion**
There is nothing substantially unethical about research that are conducted in developing countries; in fact, efforts to discourage research in developing countries are themselves inherently unethical because, among other factors, they deny the citizens of these countries a potential benefit on account of uncertain risks. Ethics development programmes need to move beyond the mere training of individuals towards a systems approach that takes account of the eventual working environment of their trainees. Programmes should extend their activities to include a closer working relationship with national authorities in order to institutionalise the ethics review process. Where they do not exist, development of legal instruments within countries to support ethics review of all research, whether sponsored or local-investigator led should be considered an urgent task. Existing codes and guidelines represent a distillate of current standards that can be modified and gradually built upon. There is also a need for international cooperation in monitoring health research ethics given the globalisation of health research. While the recent ruling by the United States Office for Public Health Research in Africa Health and Science, Department of Health and Human Services stating that non-U.S. institutions must satisfy its regulations as it has not found any that is equivalent to the common rule is understandable, there is a need to move beyond this and consider development of common minimum standards and compliance procedures accompanied by greater cooperation between ethics regulatory agencies throughout the world.
References
01. Van der Sande MAB, Inskip HM, Jaiteh KO, et al. “Changing Causes of Death in the West African Town of Banjul”, 1942-97. Bull WHO 2001; 79:133-41.
02. Heuveline P, Guillot M, Gwarkin DR. “The Uneven Tides of the Health Transition”, Soc Sci Med 2002; 55(2):313-22.
03. Narashimhan V, Artaran A. “Roll Back Malaria? The Scarcity of International Aid for Malaria Control”, Malaria Journal, 2003; 2:8.
04. Varmus H, Klausner R, Zerhouni E, Acharya T, Daar AS, Singer PA. Grand Challenges in Global Health Science, 2003; 302:398-9.
05. Guerrant RJ, Blackwood BL. “Threats to Global Health and Survival: the Growing Crises of Tropical Infectious Diseases – Our ‘Unfinished Agenda”, Clin Infect Dis 1999; 28(5):966-86.
06. DeRiemer K, Garcia-Garcia L, Bobadilla-del-Valle M, et al., “Does DOTS work in Populations with Drug-resistant Tuberculosis?” Lancet, 2005;365(9466):1239-45
07. International HapMap Consortium. “The International HapMap Project”, Nature, 2003; 426:789-96.
08. Tishkoff SA, Williams SM. “Genetic Analysis of African Populations: Human Evolution and Complex Disease”, Nat Rev Gnet, 2002; 3(8):611-21.
09. Engen RM, Marsh S, Van Boaven DJ, McLeod HL. “Ethic Differences in Pharmacogenetically Relevant Gens”, Curr Drug Targets, 2006; 7(12):1641-8.
10. Rehnquist, J. The Globalization of Clinical Trials: A Growing Challenge in Protecting Human Subjects. Washington DC: Office of the Inspector General, Department of Health and Human Services; 2001, September 2001.
11. Benata SR. “An Examination of Ethical Aspects of Migration and Recruitment of Health Care Professionals from Developing Countries”. Clinical Ethics, 2001; in press.
12. Kirigia JM, Wambebe C, Baba-Moussa A. “Status of National Research Bioethics Committees in the WHO African Region”, BMC Medical Ethics, 2005;6:10.
13. Moazam, F. “Research and Developing Countries: Hopes and Hypes”, East Mediterr Health, 2006; 12 Suppl. 1:S30-6.
14. Benatar SR. “Reflections and Recommendations on Research Ethics in Developing Countries”. Soc Sci Med, 2002; 54:1131-41.
15. WHO. Operational Guidelines for Ethics Committees that Review Biomedical Research. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2000.
16. UNESCO. Bioethics Committees at Work. Paris: UNESCO; 2005.
17. Http://www.ectp.org. (Accessed 11 April, 2007)
18. Http://www.fic.nih.gov/programs/training_grants/bioethics/index.htm. (Accessed 11 April, 2007).
19. Moodley K, Myer L. “Health Research Ethics Committees in South Africa 12 Years into Democracy”, BMC Med Ethics, 2007; 8(1):1.
20. Kerrigan JM, Wambebe C, Baba-Moussa A. “Status of National Research Bioethics Committees in the WHO African Region”, BMC Med Ethics, 2005; 6:E10.
21. Kass NE, Hyder AA, Ajuwon A, et. al., “The Structure and Function of Research Ethics Committees in Africa: A Case Study”. PloS Med, 2007; 4(1):e136.
22. Kass NE, Hyder AA, Ajuwon A, et. al., “The Structure and Function of Research Ethics Committees in Africa: A Case Study”. PloS Med, 2007; 4(1):e.3.
23. Anon. “Testing Drugs Abroad”, Washington Post, 2000 24 Dec 2000.
24. Http://www.nhrec.net. 2007 (Accessed 11 April, 2007)
25. Http://www.wesafricanbioethics.net. 2007 (Accessed 11 April, 2007).
26. Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects (Basic DHHS Policy for Protection of Human Subjects) 45 CFR Part 46 (1991).
27. Abdullahi v. Pfizer Inc. In: S.D.N.Y; 2005.
28. Sugerman J. “The Role of Institutional Support in Protecting Human Research Subjects”. Acad Med, 2000; 75(7):687-92.
29. DeBruin DA, Scholder SL, Kahn J, et. al., “Educational Approaches to the Responsible conduct of Clinical Research: An Exploratory Study”. Acad Med, 2007; 82(1):32-9.
30. Cohen J. IRB “Roles and Responsibilities: An Outline of Duties for Institution, IRB, Administrator, and Investigator”. Prot Hum Subj, 2001:11-3.
31. Malakoff D. “Agency wants to stop Shopping for Best Deal”. Science, 2002; 296:1953.
32. Goodyear-Smith F, Lobb B, Davies G, Nachson I, Seelau S. “International Variation in Ethics Committee Requirements: Comparisons Across Five Westernised Nations”. BMC Medical Ethics, 2002;3:2.
33. Wood A, Grady C, Emanuel EJ. “Regional Ethics Organizations for Protection of Human Research Participants”. Nature Medicine, 2004; 10(12):1283-8.
34. Hyder AA, Wali SA, Khan AN, Theo NB, Kass NE, Dawson L. “Ethical Review of Health Research: A Perspective from Developing Country Researchers”. J Med Ethics, 2004:30(1):68-72.
35. Rugemalila JB, Kilam WI. “Proceedings of the Seminar on Health Research Ethics in Africa”. Acta Tropica, 2001:78:S1-S126.
36. Gherisi D, Campbell EG, Pentz R, Cox Macpherson C. “The Future of Institutional Review Board”, Lancet Oncology, 2004:5:325-9.
37. Emanuel EJ, wood A, Fleischam A, et al. “Oversight of Human Participants Research: Identifying Problems to Evaluate Reform Proposals”. Ann Intern Med, 2004; 141(4):282-91.
38. Emanuel EJ, Wendler D, Grady C. “What Makes Research Ethical”. JAMA 2000; 283:2701-11.
39. Emanuel EJ, Wendler D, Killen J, Grady C. “What Makes Clinical Research in Developing Countries Ethical?” The Benchmarks of Ethical Research, JID 2004; 189:930-7.
40. Marshall P, “Informed Consent in International Health Research”. J. Empir Research Human Subj Research Ethics, 2006; 1(1):25-42.
41. Caniza MA, Clara W, Maron G, et al. “Establishment of Ethical Oversight of Human Research in El Salvador: Lessons Learned”, Lancet Oncology 2006; 7:1027-33.
42. Oyeleran-Oyeyinka B. Partnerships for Building Science and Technology Capacity in Africa. London: Africa-Canada-UK Exploration: Building Science and Technology Partnerships with African Partners. 30 January 2005.
43. Benatar SR, Landman WA. “Bioethics in South Africa”, Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 2006; 15:239-47.
44. United State Department of Health and Human Services. Protection of Human Subjects: Interpretation of Assurance Requirements. Clarification Notice; 2006. Ethical Issues in Scientific Research
Adebayo O Adejumo
Introduction
Scientists use the scientific method to explain the relationship between cause and effect in nature. Such investigations could be conducted in all aspects of human life - clinical, social, and technology sciences. Scientists ask questions; construct and test hypotheses; conduct experiment; analyse data; draw conclusions; and disseminate the outcomes of their studies.
The challenges facing humankind make the need for scientific enquiry imperative. Considerable efforts are therefore made to subdue human and environmental problems which have resulted in tremendous improvement in the quality of life in various societies (Lenhard, Lawrence, and Makenna, 1995).
The process of conducting scientific research is guided by regulations (Slutsman, Buchanan, and Grady, 2007). But quite a number of studies have, by historical accounts, resulted in harm to those that are targeted. As an example, the method of recruiting those who will participate in studies including the research process could be coercive and exploitative (Barry, 1988). All of these and others have necessitated the development of the various ethical codes that guide scientific studies today.
Historical Overview
The history of research ethics could be traced to the tragic abuse by Nazi doctors during World War II. Sixteen German physicians conducted unethical medical experiments, using Jews, gypsies, and political prisoners. Out of these horrors came the Nuremberg Code and other international codes of ethics written to protect the participants in research. The Nazi doctors were convicted of crimes against humanity under this Code. The trial introduced standards, part of which underscores voluntary participation in research and the avoidance of risks (Katz, 1996).
The scandal over the 40 year Tuskegee Syphilis Study by the US Public Health Service in Macon County (Alabama) which came to light in 1932 is another milestone in the study of research ethics. The American Government promised 400 African American men free treatment for “bad blood” which had become an epidemic in the county. However, the government did not provide the standard treatment for them despite the fact that penicillin was available in the course of the study. The participants were also not fully briefed on the research design and the possible risks to them.
There is also the experiment by Milgram (1961) on the conflict between obedience to authority and one’s personal conviction. The researcher examined the justification for acts of genocide by those who were accused at the post-world war II Nuremberg trials who claimed that they acted under orders from their superiors (Jones, 1981). Thirdly, a group of children with mental retardation who lived at Willowbrook State Hospital in Staten Island in New York were made to participate in the “Willowbrook Study” between 1963 and 1966. These innocent children/subjects were fed with extracts of stools from infected individuals and later injected with more purified virus preparations. The children were deliberately infected with the hepatitis virus. However, the researchers claimed in defense of their investigation that the vast majority of them would have in any case acquired the infection while at Willowbrook, and it was better for them to be infected under carefully controlled research conditions (Rothman, 1991; Katz, 1972).
Humphreys, a sociologist, conducted a research tagged "Tearoom Sex" study in the mid-1960s. He hypothesised that the public and the law enforcement agents and agencies held stereotypical beliefs about men who committed impersonal sexual acts with one another in public restrooms. "Tearoom sex", as fellatio in public restrooms, accounted for majority of homosexual arrests in the US. Humphreys argued that it was important for society to gain a better understanding of the identity of the men as well as what motivated them to seek quick impersonal sexual gratification. He set out to answer this question by the methods of participant/observation and structured interviews. Humphreys stationed himself in "tearooms" and offered to serve as a "watchqueen". The "watchqueen" had the duty to be on the lookout for law enforcement agents or deliberately cough if strangers were approaching the area.
During the study, he observed hundreds of acts of “tea-room sex” and gained the confidence of some of the men he observed. He disclosed his role as a scientist and persuaded them to tell him about their personal lives and motives. To avoid bias, Humphreys secretly followed some men and recorded the license numbers on their vehicles. A year later, Humphreys showed up at their private homes and claimed to be a health service interviewer. He asked them questions about their marital status, race, job, and other personal questions (Seiber, 2001).
Humphreys’ findings destroyed many stereotypes. He found that 54 per cent of the men were married and 38 per cent were neither bisexual nor homosexual. Most of the men were successful, well educated, economically stable, and highly praised in the community. Only 14 per cent of the men that he observed were homosexuals and part of the gay community. Humphrey’s research was carried out in the mid-1960's before the existence of Institutional Review Boards (IRB).
These studies led to the creation of the Belmont Report and the Institutional Review Board (IRB) for the protection of human subjects that are targeted in research.
**Ethical Issues in Scientific Research**
Virtually every scandal in research involving humans has been followed by attempts to codify the rules that should govern research. Whereas human experimentations can be traced back to several centuries, organised efforts to protect human subjects who participate in experiments started only 60 years ago (Caballero, 2002).
Emanuel et. al., (2000) identified the benchmarks for determining the ethical validity of research. Considerations were given to:
1. socio-cultural value;
2. contributions to science;
3. informed consent process;
4. ethical review process, and
5. risk-benefits ratio. But Nigeria’s National Code for Health Research (NCHR) offers a more practical and culturally adaptive dimension. Section F of the Code contains a detailed analysis of what clinical investigators should consider when conducting human research (Federal Ministry of Health, 2007). The guidelines are readily applicable in social science research. The document stresses that ethical research must have social or scientific value to the:
- participants;
- population they represent;
- local community, and
- host country or the world in order to justify the use of finite resources and avoid exposing the participants to harm.
**Key Issues**
1. Research should evaluate issues that lead to improvements in the socio-psychological and health conditions of participants and the research community. It must also contribute meaningfully to knowledge. Such knowledge should be disseminated to all the relevant stakeholders during and after research. Research that lacks the following is unethical:
- clear scientific objective(s);
- valid methodology;
- equipoise (in clinical studies);
- adequate operational plans within the context of the environment where research is to be conducted;
- plausible data analysis plan (including a specific role for a Data and Safety Monitoring Board [DSMB] in clinical trials), and
- unbiased measurement(s) of outcome(s).
2. There must be fairness in the selection of participants, based on the scientific objective(s) of the research while minimising risks. This requirement refers to those who are included/excluded and the strategies for recruiting participants (including the choice of research sites and communities). Regardless of this requirement, participants who are at excessively increased risk of harm should be excluded. Children, pregnant women, socially, culturally, economically, politically, educationally, physically and psychologically disadvantaged sub-groups or those with constrained autonomy and other vulnerable subgroups in the populations should not be excluded from research without explicit reasons for doing so from studies that can advance their health and wellbeing. However, specific safeguards should be included to protect the vulnerable appropriate to degree of risks. Groups, communities, participants, and researchers who bear the burden of research should share in the benefits.
3. Effort must be made to minimise risks and maximise health related benefits. Harm can be defined as both physical and psychological. There are two standards that are applied in order to protect the privacy of research participants: confidentiality and anonymity. Researchers must assure that information that identifies the subject is not made available to anyone who is not directly involved in the study. Anonymity implies that the participant will remain anonymous throughout the study in order to guarantee the privacy of participants. This is sometimes difficult to accomplish in situations where participants are seen at multiple time points (e.g., a pre-post study).
4. Protocol/project must undergo independent review. A research ethics committee or independent review board is a panel of persons who reviews grant proposals with respect to ethical implications and decides whether additional actions should be taken to assure the safety and rights of the participants. By reviewing proposals for research, the committee protects the organisation and the researcher against potential legal implications of neglecting important ethical issues.
5. Informed consent which provides adequate information at an educational level that is not higher than that of individuals with at most 9 years of education is required. Essentially, this means that prospective research participants must be fully briefed about the procedures and the risks that are involved in research and must also give their consent to participate.
6. Respect for potential and enrolled participants should be guaranteed. This is related to informed consent. It requires that participants should not be coerced to participate in studies. This is especially relevant where researchers previously relied on 'captive audiences' for their subjects (e.g., prisons, universities).
7. A trust relationship between investigator(s) and potential participants should be assured. This necessitates transparency in all matters relating to the research enterprise including a clear description of the goals, risks, benefits, alternatives to participation and voluntariness. This trust principle encourages the engagement of individual participants and communities, respect for local socio-cultural values, and it also encourages the provision of relevant and timely feedback to communities.
8. The interest of participants, researchers, communities, and sponsors must be accommodated. This is to ensure that the research has lasting impact; transfers technology where appropriate; contributes to capacity building; and demonstrates respect for socio-cultural and other differences. Risks, benefits, and the responsibilities of research must be shared during the development, planning, conduct, and the dissemination of results. Intellectual property, indigenous knowledge and the contributions of all parties must be taken into consideration, adequately protected, and compensated.
9. It is vital to conduct research in accordance with the principles of good clinical and laboratory practices. These are international standards for designing, conducting, and reporting clinical trials that involve human subjects. Compliance with these standards is additional assurance that the rights, safety, and well-being of participants are protected in a manner that is consistent with the highest ethical and scientific standards.
Conclusion
Research is the pivot for elucidating information otherwise not obtainable (Lefor, 2003). It is relevant because it helps to describe, explain, predict and control interventions and practices in science. Concurrent with the rapid growth of scientific research in many regions of the world, there are unending reports of lapses and challenges that are related to ethical, cultural, and social concerns as exemplified by the activities of Nazi physicians between 1935 and 1945 (Pace and Sullivan-Fowler, 1996). Studying and understanding these issues will promote the science and ethics of planning, implementing, and utilisation of scientific research. With these, the research enterprise will contribute to generalisable knowledge with which the bio-psychosocial challenges of man and his environment can be surmounted. Added to these, scientific investigations will minimise their potential adverse impacts on those who participate in them irrespective of the setting, race, or status if researchers give adequate attention to local and international ethical standards.
The nuances of researchers as well as conflicts of interest are often explicated in their dual roles as service providers and researchers (Levine, 1986). The usual power imbalance between researchers and the resource limited members of the society that are targeted in research heightens the potential vulnerability of the latter and could compromise their autonomy in decision making.
It is vital for researchers to adhere to ethical standards in their relationship with the less advantaged members of the society. This becomes imperative due to the growing appreciation of the rights of patients and the global quest for the protection of human subjects who are included in investigative procedures. Without these, the gains that are already recorded in the growth of science would be reversed. Research activities in whichever discipline and professional practice that do not adhere to ethical standards amount to mere exploitation of the less-advantaged fellow human beings as was the case in the days of the Tuskegee syphilis study.
References
Barry, M. (1988) “Ethical Considerations of Human Investigation in Developing Countries: the AIDS Dilemma”, New England Journal of Medicine, 319:1083-6.
Caballero, B. (2002) “Ethical Issues for Collaborative Research in Developing Countries”, American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Vol. 76, No. 4: 717-720.
Emanuel, E.J., Wendler D., and Grady, C. (2001) “What Makes Clinical Research Ethical?”, Journal of American Medical Association, 283:2701–11.
Federal Ministry of Health (2007) National Code for Health Research Ethics (NCHR). Federal Ministry of Health, Abuja, Nigeria (Downloaded on April 6, 08 via http://www.nhrec.net/nhrec/code.html).
Jones, J. (1981) Bad Blood, New York: The Free Press.
Katz, J. (1972) Experimentation with Human Beings, New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Katz, J. (1996) The Nuremberg Code and the Nuremberg Trial: A Reappraisal, Journal of American Medical Association, 276(20): 1662-1666.
Lefor, A. (2003) “Scientific Misconduct and Unethical Human Experimentation: Historic Parallels and Moral Implications”, Nutrition, 21(7-8): 878 -882.
Lenhard, R.E., Lawrence, W, Makenna, R.J. (1995) “General Approach to the Patient” In: Murphy GP, Lawrence Jr. W, eds. American Society Textbook of Clinical Oncology, 2nd ed. American Cancer Society, 64-74.
Levine, R. (1986) Ethics and Regulations of Clinical Research, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Pace, B.P, & Sullivan-Fowler, M. (1996) “JAMA 50 years ago: The Brutality of Nazi Physicians”, Journal of American Medical Association, 276(20): 1692.
Rothman, D. (1991) Strangers at the Bedside, New York: Basic Books.
Seiber, J. (2001) Laud Humphreys and the Tearoom Sex Study, Downloaded via http://web.missouri.edu. Consent Seeking and the Principles of Distributive Justice in Field Laboratory Health Projects in Non-Literate Societies
Adeyinka Falusi
Introduction
Research ethics deals with the application of moral rules and professional codes of conduct in the collection, collation, analysis, reporting, and dissemination of information on research subjects (whether they are individuals or groups) as regards the right to privacy, confidentiality, and informed consent. The literature is replete with reports on unethical practices in health research. Among the major ones are the: Tuskegee Syphilis experiments (1932); Nazi experiments (1930-45); Leary and Richard Alpert Hallucinogenics (1960-63); Jewish Cancer Research Experiments (1963); Mississippi Appendectomies (1907-1941) and the Pfizer Trovan Drug Trial involving children in Kano, Nigeria in 2001 (Falusi, 2004). The abuses in these studies created public perception that researchers cannot be trusted with the safety of research participants. They also undermined the integrity of the scientific community.
The following research ethics are now formulated to guide the conduct of research worldwide: Nuremberg Code (1964); Belmont Report (1978); Helsinki Declaration (1964); 45 CFR 46 – Federal Oversight FWA; and the WHO/TDR Operational Guidelines for Biomedical Ethics Committees (2001) which led to the derivation of the three key principles of autonomy (i.e. respect for persons), beneficence/non-maleficence, and distributive justice. All the foregoing now guide research in the clinical, social, engineering, veterinary, and physical sciences that are committed to the well-being of humankind.
Respect for persons is about giving research subjects the freedom to decide whether or not to take part. Comprehending the consent process is key to participation. Special regulations are also put in place for vulnerable subgroups like pregnant women/foetuses/neonates, prisoners, children and others in the population who might be decisionally impaired including the poor, non-literates, employees, and students (Delvin, 2001).
Beneficence must be maximised while maleficence is minimised. In other words, research should benefit individual participants, their class, community or society. Research should also enhance the capacity of the targeted communities. It must also be clearly stated whether the participants will have access to proven research benefits after the study. Overall, research is expected to be responsive to local needs.
The third which is distributive justice is aimed at tackling the following questions:
1. “Is justice done? and if so, is it distributive?
2. Are the benefits of research likely to accrue to those bearing its burdens?
3. Is there fairness to individual participants, their class, and/or the community?”
Informed Consent The consent process spells out the responsibilities of investigators, sponsors, and participants. Informed consent is about the decision to participate in research, taken by a competent individual who has received the necessary, and adequately understands the information; and who after considering the information arrives at a decision (voluntarily) without being subjected to coercion or undue influence or intimidation (CIOMS, 2002). Understanding and voluntary decision are essential components of the informed consent process. A written consent is normally required in internationally funded projects while a verbal or tape recorded consent is admissible in country studies. Studies on minors require parental or surrogate consent.
There is minimal risk and no need for informed consent in studies on the review of medical record and decisionally impaired and/or unconscious patients. But the permission of those who keep records must be obtained and assurance must be given that their records will not be disclosed to third parties. The data that emanate should be properly stored and only shared with the members of the research team and other relevant authorities to the benefit of participants.
Informed consent is about the protection of the well-being and safety of participants. It deals with the risks and benefits of the trial, their rights as participants, and their choice on whether or not to participate. However, the citizens of many communities in developing countries are very much unaware of the notion of informed consent. Informed consent process has often been evaded while a large pool of uninformed participants is enrolled for research in these countries.
Violating informed consent process is complete disregard for the value of human life and the inherent rights of the participants in research. The governments of developing countries usually look the other way as the informed consent process is regularly evaded because research projects are perceived as the only way to obtain otherwise unaffordable benefits for their communities.
**Consent Seeking and Its Challenges in Non-Literate Societies**
The challenges in consent seeking in developing countries include poor the handling of:
1. the informed consent process;
2. confidentiality;
3. conflict of interest issues;
4. the standard of care;
5. reporting of data, and
6. the handling of misconduct and plagiarism offences.
Moreover, the professional competence of researchers might not be adequate at the onset of projects. Finally, the selection of subjects and choice of sites could be flawed while the benefit to the research communities might not be clearly stated.
Sometimes, the perception is that it is a waste of time because the researchers or their assistants in developing countries are under pressure to recruit as many study participants as possible within a short period of time and are not inclined to spend sufficient time on the consent process with participants and their community leaders. They also believe that the study populations do not know their rights and therefore need not be unduly worried. There is also the perception that researchers are doing the targeted individuals a favour especially if health care is a component in their project.
Voluntary decision is a challenge in research settings in developing countries. Sometimes medical doctors and other researchers are regarded as little ‘gods’ and there is lack of will to challenge or question their authority. Physicians have credibility and great influence over patients because of the belief that a doctor will always “do good” for his/her patient. Furthermore, the innocent participants are gullible and are inclined to comply with any terms for participation. The distinction between care and research might also not be clearly spelt out when the physician is also a researcher. Finally, the poverty along with undue pressure to bring participants into research are also important factors.
**Stages in Consent Seeking in Non-Literate Societies**
Consent seeking involves various gatekeepers in communities like chiefs, participants’ husbands, parents, and in-laws whose consent counts prior to individual consent. Abuses occur in the process of reaching these key players in research.
**Literacy and Culture as a Challenge**
While it is imperative to present all the necessary information in order to ensure that a potential participant makes an informed decision, non-literate participants in developing countries may have difficulty comprehending and retaining lengthy and often complicated research protocols. The translation of scientific terms like genes, recombinant DNA etc. into several local languages are also challenging.
Africa’s customs relegate women to the background and they are usually not in a position to take unilateral decisions without the covering approval of their spouse and/or parents. Poverty wears a female face, hence the tripartite relationship of poverty, child labour, and daily struggle does not augur well for confidentiality or individual consent by women (World Bank, 2004). This notwithstanding, many studies are targeted at women and children. Besides, many Nigerians/Africans are usually skeptical or wary of written documents for a variety of reasons and would prefer to give verbal rather than written consent. Yet, internationally funded research projects insist on informed consent in writing by participants.
**Confidentiality as a Challenge**
Confidentiality is about full disclosure of the goals of research and the protection of data that are gathered. The researcher is expected to dialogue with participants and community. The participating individuals and communities should not be exposed to unnecessary risks. Nor should their access to other beneficial opportunities be jeopardised.
Confidentiality is usually conveyed in writing. It is a categorical statement and indeed a legally binding one concerning the fact that the information that is obtained will not be disclosed to third parties only in exceptional circumstances. But can confidentiality be effective or sincere in communities where women are rated as second class citizens or in context in which they can only be approached through a third party (e.g., spouse or parents) as earlier discussed?
**Conflict of Interest**
Conflict of interest can be defined as situations where the primary professional judgment on patient care or scientific knowledge in research is unduly influenced by secondary interest of financial and/or other personal gains/benefits such as promotion or publications or academic recognition. Conflict of interest could occur in all research processes including consent seeking. Conflict of interest between sponsors and researchers on the one hand and between the researcher and the community on the other should be avoided. The effect of poverty in developing countries sometimes makes researchers and communities to jump at all manners of research without giving much thought to conflict of interest.
**Researchers’ Responsibilities**
The professional competence of researchers must be adequately addressed. There must be honest in reporting data while misconduct and plagiarism should be discouraged through stiff and deterrent disciplinary measures whenever they occur.
Researchers should target appropriate participants bearing in mind the inclusion and exclusion criteria in order to maximally benefit participants. The targeted individuals and communities should be given the opportunity to decline or withdraw from study. Moreover, researchers should report adverse events in their locality within 48 hours of occurrence to the Research Ethics Committee (REC) to their sponsors in order to facilitate appropriate steps that will minimise further risks to participants. But what is likely to happen in a system where communication is almost non-existent like rural and inner city communities and/or where large numbers of non-literate individuals are targeted? This constitutes a great challenge.
**Access to Research Communities**
Entering “communities” for health research requires special skills if research is to be conducted in an ethically sound manner. The problems that researchers face differ from one community to another. There are different types of communities – some are easy to reach (e.g., students) while others are hard to (e.g., drug users). Factors like social organisation, political system, and worldview shape mode of access. There are other factors like belief-system, gender, family structure, and social networking. Overall, the extent to which the targeted individuals and communities comprehend perceived benefits and harm including the researcher’s, and/or sponsor’s reputation as well as institutional integrity play a role in access to community and procurement of consent.
**Other Challenges**
Who pays the piper? What motivates the sponsors of research? Who sets the priorities for research? These are reasonable questions to sort out in pursuance of research in poor and non-literate societies. Africans communities are suspicious of documentation because of their low literacy level and the fear that the information that is gathered could be used for tax purposes in view of their previous experiences during colonial era. They therefore prefer verbal consent which is non-committal.
Researchers in developing countries have to be mindful of these factors and assist the sponsors of research from the North to optimise best practices in spite of these challenges and fears. Harmonising ethics across disciplines and diverse populations of the world is not easy. As mentioned above, there are grey areas that ought to be addressed (Plattner, 2002).
**Way Forward**
It is unacceptable to embark on research without initially identifying efficacious interventions that are locally available to the control group. Consequently, the following are proposed:
1. Developing countries researchers must secure post-trial access to effective interventions for the benefits of participants in all clinical trials.
2. Negotiation on the introduction and sustenance of successful treatment regimen for the wider benefit of communities should be outlined prior to research and also discussed at the ethical review stage.
3. Researchers and sponsors should provide ample justification of their claims to RECs prior to the commencement of research.
4. It is vital to monitor research in order to ensure that ethics are not breached. This should be the responsibility of REC and sponsors most especially in developing countries that lack functional RECs (NEBRA, 2005). Developing countries should therefore establish National and the Institutional Research Ethics Boards/Committees (RECs) that are active and functional (Falusi et al., 2007). These Committees should be empowered to adopt basic ethical principles and universal minimum standards of care in research.
5. The governments of developing countries should train and empower their researchers in their respective institutions. The active participation of the Legislative and Executive arms of governments in the identification and selection of relevant projects in developing countries should be encouraged.
6. The complementary role of RECs in developing appropriate consent process for research in developing countries cannot be overemphasized (EDCTP, 2007).
7. Field and laboratory health projects in non-literate societies can only be successfully implemented if logistical issues in research are adequately addressed.
References
British Medical Journal (1996) “Nuremberg Doctor’s Trial”, 313 (7070), 1445-75; also http://www.cirp.org/library/ethics/Nuremberg/.
British Sociological Association (2003) Statement of Ethical Practice, http://www.britsoc.org.uk/about/ethic.htm.
Chima, S.C. (2006) “Regulation of Biomedical Research in Africa”, British Medical Journal, April 8, 332 (7545): 848-851.
Council for International Organisations of Medical Sciences International Ethical Guidelines for Biomedical Research involving Human Subjects (2002) Geneva, Switzerland, CIOMS.
Delvin, E. (2001) “Human Research must Protect Participants”, Network, Vol. 21, No. 2: 4-9.
EDCTP Project Ibadan, Nigeria (2007) Strengthening the Capacity of Research Ethics Committees in Africa” Coordinated by the University of Ibadan, Proceedings in Press 2007.
Falusi, A.G., Olopade, O.I, Olopade, C.O. (2007) “Establishment of a Standing Ethic/ Institutional Review Boards in Nigerian University: A Blueprint for Developing Countries”, Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, Vol. 1: 21- 30.
Falusi, A.G. (2004) Ethical Issues in the Academia, Ibadan: University of Ibadan.
Newton, L.H. (1990) “Ethical Imperialism and Informed Consent”, IRB A Review of Human Subjects Research, May-June 12 (3): 10-11.
National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioural Research (1979) Belmont Report: Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research, Washington, DC: US DHEW. NEBRA 2005/2006 Research on 15 African Countries REC Survey, http://tree.org/site/nebra.phtml.
Stephens J. “Panel Faults Pfizer in ’96 Clinical Trial in Nigeria: Unapproved Drug Tested on Children”, Washington Post, May 7, A1, A21, 2006.
Plattner, S. (2003) “Human Subjects Protection and Anthropology” Anthropological Quarterly, Spring, 76(2): 287-97.
“The Body Hunters: Exporting Human Experiments”, The Washington Post, Dec 17 – 22, 2002.
World Bank (2004) Nigeria Strategic Country Gender Assessment Report, Washington: World Bank. Consent Seeking in Social and Behavioural Research in Non-Literate Communities
Ayodele Samuel Jegede
Introduction
Consent seeking in social and behavioural health research is a difficult task in non-literate societies for three reasons. Firstly, unlike in biomedical research, studies in social and behavioural science do not demonstrate immediate material benefits in the form of therapeutic services or the provision of infrastructures for the targeted participants and communities. Yet, the participants in such studies would like to know direct or indirect benefits of such research to them. Secondly, it involves questioning participants on issues that invade their privacy which they would ordinarily not like to discuss. Lastly, the participants exist in communal contexts where the autonomy of the individual is understood in a wider context of layers of social relationships as indicated, “we are persons through other persons” (Ayantayo, n.d). The communal system of living in non-literate societies protects the interest of people and raises the question concerning the autonomy of an individual in decision-making.
This paper examines the ethical challenges in consent seeking in social and behavioural studies in largely non-literate communities.
Ethical Challenges
The ethical challenges in doing social and behavioural research in non-literate communities revolve around:
1. respect for persons;
2. sharing of benefits of research;
3. fairness in Sample Selection;
4. technical inaccuracies;
5. privacy of the individual;
6. community exploitation;
7. deception, and
8. competence of field assistants.
Respect for Persons
The respect for, and the protection of autonomy, rights and dignity of participants is a major ethical challenge in patriarchal societies with large numbers of non-literate persons. Patriarchy undermines voluntary decision-making in such societies in two ways. In the first place there is imbalance in the power relation between the male and female gender in largely non-literate patriarchal societies. Females cannot give informed consent on important issues without the consent of their husbands (in the case of married women) and fathers in the case of unmarried girls. Consequently, it is difficult to obtain consent from a woman whether married or single. Fathers and/or husbands could influence girls and/or women which in turn implies that the researcher are merely obtaining involuntary consent. Importance is attached to age and authority usually flows from the top (i.e., older age groups) to the bottom (i.e., lower ones) in patriarchal societies and this is obvious in non-literate settings. Consequently, respect is the basis of social relation in parts of Africa. Age grade is an important determinant social status and authority in these societies. Those who are born about the same time bound together, move up the social ladder together, and they also exercise considerable influence over those in the lower age grades. Important issues or decisions are delayed in order to obtain the consent of elders who are the custodians of wisdom or the sources of authority. Getting consent from a community member could therefore be difficult where the elderly members are present and/or not around to give their assent.
Paradoxically, research that involves human subjects must not only respect but also protect the autonomy, rights, and the dignity of all participants. The participation of the targeted individuals must be voluntary and based on informed consent which is often required in writing. How this can be achieved in patriarchal societies where the female gender is not expected by tradition to make informed decision that is independent of their fathers (viz., if unmarried) and husbands (if they are married) is a challenge. Also, how the decision-making role of elders can be addressed in this context because age is the basis of social relations and source of authority is another challenge to researchers. Generally, individual autonomy is at stake in this context and this could mar the research process if the autonomy of the individual most especially of the vulnerable subgroups in the population such as women is required.
Sharing of Benefits
The sharing of benefits is an important aspect of the research enterprise. Communities are interested in the outcomes of the research that is conducted in their milieus (Fernandez et. al., 2003b, 2005, 2007; Schulz et. al., 2003; Fong et. al., 2004; Moutel et. al., 2005; Dinnett et. al., 2006). Non-literate communities may not enjoy the benefits of research that is conducted in their settings due to lack of proper negotiation because of the wide socio-economic gap between the researcher and the targeted participants. Benefit sharing may not be a fair process in such communities where there is no level playing field.
Fairness in Sample Selection
Fairness in the selection of the participants in research could be difficult in non-literate communities. For instance, people might not know their age since record keeping is a major problem in non-literate communities. Although age could be estimated through important symbols or historical events in their communities, such estimates are not always accurate. Bias could be introduced if participants are not randomly selected. For instance, the over-representation of highly placed or older people in the sample could influence decisions on the underprivileged.
Technical Inaccuracies
Technical inaccuracies are major issues in social and behavioural research in non-literate communities. Research designs could exclude communities’ contextual knowledge, and observations including the local knowledge and experiences that are reported by community members. This can lead to inadequate information about diet, lifestyle, and other important details especially in cross-cultural communities that have different subsistence patterns (Frohmberg, 1999). Privacy of the Individual
The privacy of participants is another ethical challenge in consent seeking in social and behavioural research in non-literate communities. It is often difficult to manage the principle of confidentiality in non-literate communities because researchers are sometimes inclined to use interpreters or are forced to cope with next of kin and significant others who cannot be easily kept at a distance during interview sessions. The result is that researchers are forced to deal with third parties in the course of their interaction with respondents in non-literate settings.
Community Exploitation
The exploitation of communities and inducement of participants to participate in studies are important ethical challenges in consent seeking in social and behavioural research in non-literate communities. Socio-economic inequalities between researchers and participants play a coercive role in the recruitment of participants (Benatar, 1998; Lindegger and Richter, 2000). This often leads to difficulty in applying the widely recommended bioethics principles (Loue, Okello, and Kawama, 1996). For instance, the participants in poor-resource settings might not have adequate information on the subject matter of the research once they are given what amounts to generous incentives. Although incentives are allowed in research, they could be unethical if they influence judgment in a manner that undermines the autonomy and worth of participants. Resource-poor societies are confronted with the problem of choosing between informed knowledge of the subject matter of research and the incentives that are offered by researchers. The targeted individuals are mostly blinded by incentives and are inclined to overlook many things or even struggle to participate because of the incentives that are offered to them.
Consequently, community exploitation is also a possible factor in consent seeking in social and behavioural research in non-literate communities due to the divergence between the socio-economic statuses of researchers vis-à-vis the targeted individuals. Usually, researchers have economic advantage and the power of scientific knowledge over participants. Researchers could use these to their advantage by manipulating non-literate communities to open their gates to hazardous social and behavioural studies. Researchers may fail to compensate communities appropriately once they are able to gain the support of gatekeepers. The gatekeepers could in turn open the ‘gate’ of their communities on the basis of monetary reward that is not commensurate with the magnitude of research activities. Or they could sell out their communities through deals with researchers. The participants may be induced to give their consent to participate in a study through financial compensation that is more than what they could earn in their daily economic activities or in the form of material things that look precious to them.
Deception
Deception is another critical issue in consent seeking in social and behavioural research in non-literate communities. Researchers might not provide complete information on the subject matter of their research if it will hinder them from getting the consent of participants (Varmus, 1997). In such circumstances, participants are deceived to give their consent to harmful studies. For instance, certain cultural practices may be difficult to study due to taboos surrounding them or their beliefs could deter them from responding to questions on such issues. Some researchers may willingly apply the ‘cover’ approach which is permitted in social and behavioural research where it is not necessary in order to get their work done quickly and easily at a little cost. Competence of Field Assistants
The capacity of field assistants to work in an ethical manner is another challenge. The field assistants have the same ethical responsibilities as investigators. But do they in practice have adequate skill in research ethics in such settings? Although they are expected to be trained on how to adhere to ethical details in research, it is doubtful if they can satisfy this requirement as members of the same community where they are collecting data without using their personal influence to coerce participants to give their consent to participate in a study.
The Way Forward
Conducting social and behavioural research in non-literate communities requires proper skill and monitoring. Training in ethical reasoning is the first step in addressing this issue in order to ensure that things are done correctly. Knowledge and skill on ethical practice are currently low among social scientists in developing countries even though research ethics is taught as a topic or two in research methods classes. The following steps must be taken in order to tackle the foregoing lapses.
First, the social science disciplines should incorporate ethics into their curricula. This should be taught as a required course at the undergraduate and postgraduate levels. Second, all social and behavioural researchers should be trained in research ethics. Evidence of this training should be a condition for research grant and approval for any protocol. Third, public educational programmes should be promoted in order to close the gap in knowledge between researchers and communities. Researchers should not only collect data and leave communities, they should share their experiences with them because this will build trust and also ensure support for future research (Richards et. al., 2003; Partridge et. al., 2003; 2005; Hoeyer et. al., 2004; Dixon-Woods et. al., 2006; Wendler et. al., 2007; Shalowitz and Miller, 2008). Fourth, verbal consent should be permitted in non-literate communities. This can be recorded in video for record purposes. Asking participants to sign informed consent form in non-literate communities may be taxing while the use of thumb printing could be demeaning. An alternative is to accept verbal consent.
Finally, research protocols should be translated into the local languages of the research communities and used in communication during data collection. This will make it possible for participants to have adequate understanding of what it takes to participate in research.
Conclusion
The paper has highlighted the reasons for increased knowledge in ethics in health research in developing countries. It has also identified and outlined the ethical challenges in consent seeking in studies in non-literate communities. An important consideration for social and behavioural research in non-literate communities is the understanding of the socio-economic and cultural contexts. Non-literate communities are vulnerable. They face severe socio-economic problems and are at the risk of research atrocities. We can therefore not assume that researchers will always do the right thing while working in non-literate communities.
References
Ayantayo, K, (n.d) African Traditional Ethics and Transformation: Innovation And Ambivalence Involved, And Modification Necessary For Sound 21st Century, http://www.codesria.org/Links/conferences/accra/ayantayo.pdf. [Accessed 15 May 2008]. Benatar, S.R., (2004) “Towards Progress in Resolving Dilemmas in International Research Ethics, *Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics*, 32(4): 574-582.
Dinnett, E.M., Mungall, M. M., Gordon, C., Ronald, E.S. Gaw, A. (2006) “Offering Results to Research Participants, *BMJ*, 332: 549-550.
Dixon-Woods, M., Jackson, C., Windridge, K.C., Kenyon, S., (2006) Receiving a Summary of the Results of a Trial: Qualitative Study of Participants Views”, *BMJ*, 332: 206-210.
Fernandez, C.V., Kodish, E., Shurin, S., Weijer. C. (2003a) “Offering to Return Results to Research Participants: Attitudes and Needs of Principal Investigators in the Children’s Oncology Group, *J Pediatr Hematol Oncol*, 25, 704-708.
Fernandez, C.V., Kodish, E., Taweel, S., Shurin, S., Weijer, C (2003b) “Disclosure of the right of Research Participants to Receive Research Results: An Analysis of Consent Forms in the Children’s Oncology Group”, *Cancer* 97, 2904-2909.
Fong, M., Braun, K.L., Chang, R.M., (2004) Native Hawaiian Preferences for Informed Consent and Disclosure of Results from Research Using Stored Biological Specimens”, *Pac Health Dialog*, 11, 154-159.
Hoeyer, K., Olofsson, B.O., Mjorndal, T., Lynoe, N. (2004) “Informed Consent and Biobanks: A Population-based Study of Attitudes towards Tissue Donation for Genetic Research”, *Scand J Public Health* 32, 224-229.
Lindegger, G. and Richter, R., (2000) “HIV Vaccine Trials: Critical Issues in Informed Consent”, *S Afr J Sci.*, 96, 313-317.
Loue, S., Okello, D., and Kawama, M., (1996) “Research Bioethics in the Ugandan Context: A Program Summary”, *J Law Med Ethics*, 24, 47-53.
Moutel, G., Duchange, N., Raffi, F., Sharara, L.I., Theodorou, I., et al., (2005) “Communication of Pharmacogenetic Research Results to HIV-infected Treated Patients: Standpoints of Professionals and Patients”, *Eur J Hum Genet.* 13, 1055-1062.
Partridge, A.H., Burstein, H.J., Gelman, R.S., Marcom, P.K., Winer, E.P., (2003) “Patients Participating in Clinical Trials Want to Know Study Results?” *J Natl Cancer Inst.* 95, 491-492.
Partridge, A.H., Wong, J.S., Knudsen. K., Gelman, R., Sampson, E. (2005) “Offering Participants Results of a Clinical Trial: Sharing Results of a Negative Study”, *Lancet* 365, 963-964.
Richards, M.P, Ponder, M, Pharoah, P, Everest S, Mackay, J. (2003) “Issues of Consent and Feedback in a Genetic Epidemiological Study of Women with Breast Cancer”, *J Med Ethics*, 29, 93-96.
Schulz, C.J, Riddle, M.P, Valdimirsdottir, H.B, Abramson, D.H, Sklar, C.A. (2003) “Impact on Survivors of Retinoblastoma When Informed of Study Results on Risk of Second Cancers”, *Med Pediatr Oncol.*, 41, 36-43. Shalowitz, D.I, Miller, F.G. (2008) “Communicating the Results of Clinical Research to Participants: Attitudes, Practices, and Future Directions”, *PLoS Med*, 5(5), e91. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0050091.
Varmus, H, and Satcher, D. (1997) Ethical Complexities of Conducting Research in Developing Countries”, *NEJM*, 337, 1003-5.
Wendler, D, Pentz, R. (2007) “How Does the Collection of Genetic Test Results Affect Research Participants?”, *Am J Med Genet.*, A 143, 1733-1738. Ethical Challenges and Code in Study Design in Social and Behavioural Research in Vaccine Testing in Non-Literate Communities
Abraham Alabi
Introduction
Vaccine testing through clinical trials poses ethical challenges even in literate communities but the problem is compounded in the non-literate due to ignorance, cultural beliefs, and lack of proper understanding of the concept of vaccine.
Clinical trials that lacked appropriate scientific basis and ethical justification were conducted predominantly on the disadvantaged, usually non-literate subgroups at different times in past century. For instance, the Nazi doctors conducted gruesome medical experiments in German concentration camps during the Second World War. Similarly, some 400 poor black men in the rural south of USA who were diagnosed with syphilis were left untreated as part of a study that was designed to observe the natural course of untreated syphilis in the Tuskegee syphilis study that came to light in the 1970s (Jones, 1981). Such trials which were deliberately designed to exploit the ignorance of participants were accompanied by serious injuries, permanent disability, and the death of the research subjects.
The establishment of internationally recognised ethical codes and standards for conducting clinical trials on human subjects was as a result of public outcry and condemnation and as part of the concerted efforts of the scientific community to prevent future occurrence. A few examples of codes and regulatory frameworks that are conceived to prevent occurrence are the: Nuremberg Code (1949), International Ethical Guidelines for Biomedical Research Involving Human Subjects (CIOMS, 1993), World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki (2000; 1964), and Belmont Report (1979).
This paper will attempt to outline main ethical challenges in study design in vaccine testing in non-literate communities and/or resource-limited settings in Africa.
Study Design
Non-literate communities are unique settings in which the concept of vaccine testing or trials could easily be misunderstood or misinterpreted at any stage of the process. Hence the study design must be simple with in-built mechanisms for monitoring, dissemination of outcomes, investigator-community interaction, and conflict resolution. Other important factors that must be carefully considered in the design of a vaccine trial in non-literate communities are the objectives of the trial; the Phase (whether Phase I, II, or III); mode of delivery; cold-chain requirements; data analysis; cultural beliefs; leadership structures; confidentiality; and community mobilisation (i.e., how to communicate effectively with all strata in a given community). It is important to pay attention to post-trial events such as plan for the dissemination of results and how the tested vaccine will be made available to the participating communities if successful.
Ethical codes in vaccine testing consist of a set of clear guidelines for community-based vaccine trials in accordance with internationally acceptable standards. This is without prejudice to the type of community, (i.e., literate or non-literate) because ethical codes should not be based on social or educational status. However, special efforts must be made to ensure that the ethical codes are simple and unambiguous when vaccine trial is conducted in non-literate communities. In addition, the codes should be translated into local languages and clearly explained to staff in a way that they understand the rules and procedures that guide the conduct of trials if they are to be directly involved (i.e., as field workers or interpreters).
Ethical codes in vaccine trials must provide guidance to all staff on the likely ethical issues that may arise in the course of trial. These will include respect for participants and the cultural values of the participating communities; informed consent; enrollment of volunteers; procurement of vaccine; storage and transportation; recommended dosage and the route of administration; health and safety (i.e., the favourable risk/benefit ratio); sample and data collection procedures; analysis and dissemination of results; including independent ethical review of protocols. All professional staff such as doctors and nurses must comply with the ethical codes of their professional bodies throughout trials.
**Ethical Challenges in Vaccine Testing in Non-Literate Communities**
The guidelines for ethics in scientific research involving human subjects are informed by the principles of:
a. respect for persons;
b. beneficence/non-maleficence, and
c. justice (Marshall, 2007).
While these ethical guidelines are now widely publicised, their implementation and acceptance has remained largely voluntary (Bhutta, 2002). This is true in many developing countries where the regulatory bodies and institutions that are charged with the responsibility of ensuring compliance with international standards lack the capacity to do so. However, many of these countries are now making effort to have functional National Ethics Review Committees (NERCs) and Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) with the support of funding agencies.
Carrying out vaccine trials in non-literate communities often involves an act of balancing universally recognised ethical standards for research with the local. Marshall (2007) concluded that the disconnection between ideal standards and their application in the real world of structural imperfections and social, political, and economic inequities contributes to the moral complexity that surrounds research design and implementation in resource-poor settings. It is desirable to adapt ethical requirements to the reality in non-literate communities without compromising internationally acceptable standards. The main ethical challenges in vaccine trials in non-literate communities are as follows:
**Informed Consent**
The concept of informed consent is crucial to the credibility of any vaccine trial. The participants in trials should voluntarily agree to participate after they are given all relevant information pertaining to the trial; (i.e., they have well-informed knowledge upon which they can independently take a decision to participate without any fear of intimidation or denial of any potential benefits of the trial). But the challenges in non-literate communities include:
- how to explain the concept of informed consent to non-literates to sufficiently understand and make informed decisions;
- how independent is the decision to participate in a vaccine trial (i.e., autonomy);
- the motive for participation, and
- whether the head of a household or community can give consent on behalf of members of his/her household or community.
Therefore well-informed consent is a challenge. The question is: “how informed is informed consent among non-literate respondents?”
In a study of informed consent in an influenza vaccine trial among children in The Gambia, Leach et al., (1999) reported that, although 90 per cent of the 189 consenting parents knew that the aim of the vaccine was to prevent disease, only 10 per cent understood the placebo in the control design. Similarly, Pace et al., (2005) found that even though most respondents in their study of comprehension of consent in a randomised drug trial among HIV-positive individuals in Thailand said that they were well informed, only one third correctly reported that half of the participants would receive the experimental therapy. Finding words in local languages to explain scientific terms such as placebo, randomisation, and confidentiality without distorting their meanings is also a great challenge.
**Community Consultation and Mobilisation**
Recognised heads/leaders (i.e., traditional rulers, village heads, chiefs, etc) wield enormous powers in non-literate communities and securing their support is essential to achieving a successful vaccine trial in their communities because they enjoy substantial respect and followership. The challenge is how best to approach these leaders to make them buy into the idea that participating in a vaccine trial is good for their communities. The support of such community leaders is also vital in resolving potential misconceptions or conflicts during trials. For instance, The Medical Research Council (MRC) has been operating in The Gambia for over sixty years with good and mutually beneficial relationship with Gambians and their Government. This cordial relationship has been very useful in resolving misconceptions about research activities. Consequently, community involvement should be an ongoing process in which the community is kept abreast of research activities and findings (Marshall and Rotimi, 2001).
**Conclusion**
Internationally recognised ethical codes and standards are well-established for scientific research involving human subjects. Social and behavioural research must always uphold mutual respect and trust between participants and investigators and also adhere to the principles of beneficence and non-maleficence (do no harm). Ethical code must strike a balance in the obligations to study participants, professionalism, funding agencies, and the society at large.
The debate goes on whether ethical codes and standards should be universally sacrosanct and followed strictly by the letter irrespective of the location of a study. While strongly arguing against promoting double standards under any guise, it is advisable to adapt ethical codes and standards to the need and practical realities of the different communities across the globe. References
Bhutta, Z. A. (2002) “Ethics in International Health Research: A Perspective from the Developing World”, Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 80(2): 114-20.
CIOMS (1993) International Ethical Guidelines for Biomedical Research Involving Human Subjects, Geneva: WHO.
Jones, J. (1981) Bad blood: The Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment: A Tragedy of Race and Medicine, New York: The Free Press.
Leach A. et al., (1999) An Evaluation of the Informed Consent Procedure Used During a Trial of a Haemophilus influenzae Type B Conjugate Vaccine Undertaken in The Gambia, West Africa”, Social Science & Medicine, 48(2): 139–148.
Marshall, P.A. (2007) Ethical Challenges in Study Design and Informed Consent for Health Research in Resource-poor Settings, http://www.who.int/tdr/publications/publications/pdf/ethical_challenges.pdf (accessed on 04/04/08).
Marshall, P. A. and Rotimi, C. (2001) “Ethical Challenges in Community Based Research”, American Journal of Medical Sciences, 322(5): 259–263.
Nuremberg Code, (1949) From Trials of War Criminals Before the Nuremberg Military Tribunals Under Control Council Law, Vol. 2, No. 10, 181-182. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Pace, C. et. al., for the ESPRIT Group (2005) “The Quality of Informed Consent for a Clinical Research Study in Thailand”, IRB: Ethics and Human Research, 27(1): 9-17.
The Belmont Report (1979) http://www.impactcg.com/docs/BelmontReport.pdf (accessed on 14/04/08).
WMA (1998) “Declaration of Helsinki”, In A. R. Jonsen, R.M. Veatch, L. Walters (eds.) Source Book in Bioethics, Washington DC: Georgetown University Press, 13-15. Ethical Issues and Research Code in Social Science Methodology in Africa
Olayiwola Erinosho
Introduction
Scientific inquiry is about observation, objectivity, rigorous interrogation, analysis, and interpretation of data on the basis of probability theory. Testable propositions may be confirmed or refuted on the basis of carefully assembled verifiable facts. Every outcome of scientific enquiry has a character of hypothesis. As such, today’s outcomes may be refuted tomorrow if newly discovered facts indicate otherwise. The core principles underlying science methodology transcend all human societies regardless of their colour, creed, or spatial location.
Pioneer social scientists also shared the epistemological standpoint of biological and physical scientists in the production of knowledge. Social scientists are therefore expected to be detached in the study of human behaviour (i.e., value –free) as well as display an open rather a closed mind on outcomes. Outcomes may be modified or dismissed depending on new facts/data.
The orientation of the founders of the social sciences was eclectic because they were inclined to utilise wide ranging strategies severally and collectively in data collection. They recognised a holistic approach to the production of grand scientific theories. Positivism was not strictly defined in terms of the quantitative method, or by simply quantifying data/information but in a broad inclusive way. They reasoned that grand theories could only enjoy scientific credence if all possible useful and relevant techniques are used in data collection in the study of social problems and society.
The classical works of pioneer social scientists bear testimony to this orientation. Works by Smith’s (1976), Comte’s (1776), Durkheim (1951), Weber (1958), and Marx (1906) underscore an eclectic orientation in social research because both the quantitative and qualitative including the historical methods were used by these writers to gather data that are required to support their paradigms.
The pioneer social anthropologists invented the participatory/observational method in order to understand/analyse human behaviour/communities. They lived, ate, drank, played, worked etc with groups/communities. They studied the local languages before they embarked on research. It is painstaking because researchers are required to spend several months or years observing and taking notes before analysing and interpreting what they observe. This enables them to understand the history, social life and structure of the groups/communities were (or are being still) studied.
This paper will attempt to provide an overview of the ethical issues and research code including challenges/dilemmas in social science research projects in largely non-literate societies in Africa.
Ethics and Code in Social Science Research
Ethics and research code are extremely important in the work of social scientists because the rights of human beings that are targeted in their studies must be respected. It is desirable for them to: • obtain informed consent from participants prior to the studies that focus on them; • handle them with dignity during study; • assure confidentiality of the information, most which might be personal, that is obtained from them; • provide feedback to them on the completion of study, and • ameliorate their conditions if possible (Nuffield Council on Bioethics, 2002; Marshall, 2007).
One of the practical ways of highlighting what is proper in the context of social research is to focus on methods of social investigation which include: • survey research (viz., which may be retrospective, cross-sectional or longitudinal); • experimental; • quasi-experimental; • participatory/observational; • non-participatory/observational; • focus group discussion; • In-depth interviews; • case study, and • documents/records.
Informed consent is required in order to access documents/records in retrospective surveys and in the procurement of information from respondents that are targeted in all manners of social research. Written permission is required while respondents and organisations are free to participate or opt out from studies. Permission provides the covering approval for data collection on a wide range of issues including those that are of personal and/or sensitive nature. Also, the respondents that are targeted must be given adequate information on the objectives of the study.
The permission to ask any question or obtain any record including the opportunity to use the precious time of respondents is a privilege and not a right. As such, researchers are expected to seek their cooperation before embarking on their study.
Entry into organisations and/or small communities can be facilitated if permission is sought and obtained from their heads/elders. The heads/elders of organisations are the gatekeepers of records/documents, their co-operation will facilitate data gathering. Researchers should give assurance that on keeping the information that is provided confidential. It is also necessary to enlighten respondents/communities on the risks and benefits of their studies. Finally, they should express their gratitude to them on the completion of interviews/studies.
Researchers were inclined in the past to report the outcomes of their studies in journals/books which are usually not accessible to their respondents or the organisations that are targeted for study. But sharing outcomes through policy briefs and/or workshops with respondents/organisations that are targeted for study is vital for two reasons. Firstly, it gives them an insight into outcomes and also ample opportunity to make input into them (i.e., the outcomes) even when researchers are unable to solve the problems of respondents and communities. Information sharing also reassures the targeted respondents/organisations/subgroups that they are not merely used and dumped by researchers. Finally, feedback clear the way for prospective researchers in same group/community/organisation in the future.
It is vital to draw attention to ethical issues in participatory/observational studies of sensitive groups such as cults or secret societies etc. While such groups could grant researchers the permission to study their activities, they might not take kindly to the dissemination of what they do in secret to the public at large (Brink, 1993). This implies that those who work on sensitive issues ought to seek clarification before disseminating the outcomes of their studies.
**Research Code in Social Research**
Studies must be conducted in accordance with extant guidelines/rules in scientific work. Among the extant guidelines are to:
- select adequate/representative sample;
- maintain affective neutrality;
- apply appropriate statistical techniques where required;
- interpret outcomes dispassionately, and
- draw reasonable conclusions based on facts.
Researchers should recognise the limitations in the use of records and documents that are kept by those that do not have the researchers in mind. Secondly, records/documents are not necessarily sufficiently rich for the analyses that social researchers envisage. Thirdly, they might have been deliberately distorted by their recorders/keepers. Fourthly, records and documents provide an eye bird view of issues/problems (e.g., hospital records or crime records) and are therefore not sufficiently comprehensive. These and other shortcomings should be recognised in retrospective surveys based on records and documents.
Researchers ought to exercise caution in the interpretation of findings, bearing in mind that there are chance errors. Besides, they ought to be honest and transparent in their work as well as acknowledge the contributions of co-authors, field workers, and other collaborating institutions in the implementation of their studies.
**Ethical Challenges and Dilemmas in Non-literate Communities**
One of the major challenges facing researchers in non-literate communities is how to obtain informed consent in writing as demanded by international ethical review boards. Non-literate respondents are always unwilling to append their signature to, or thumb print consent form because of its legal implications. However, they are inclined to give oral consent. The key issue is whether oral consent is adequate for ethical clearance by boards that are not acquainted with the socio-cultural context of research in Africa. A solution that is worth considering is to procure oral consent on tapes provided it is with the permission of respondents.
Another challenge revolves around entry into communities. Communities are now becoming hostile to researchers and are also equally inclined to demand some sort of monetary gratifications before collaborating with them. The participants in focus group discussions would like to be reimbursed for money spent to travel to the venue of discussions and/or for abandoning their sources of livelihood in order to take part in discussions. Chiefs would like to be settled in cash or in kind up front before garnering the support of members of their communities. Some areas or sub-regions like the Niger Delta in Nigeria are proving dangerous for research work.
There is now a loud and demand from the public for the benefits of research in view of the failure to use the outcomes from past studies to improve lives. A certain degree of cynicism has crept in and this is accounting for blackmail and/or outright hostility toward social research and researchers. But researchers usually lack the funds for dissemination seminars/workshops at the end of their study. Research Code and Its Challenges in Non-Literate Communities
There are misconceptions about social science methodology in Africa’s institutions of higher learning resulting in a situation in which students tenaciously hold to the viewpoint that the quantitative is the most effective and important method. Teachers and students appear to be incapable of showing appreciation for developing and/or acquiring appropriate skill in qualitative including the historical methods that can yield the data that enrich quantitative studies. There is an erroneous but widely shared view that social science work cannot really be regarded as scientific or earn respect unless:
- questionnaires are designed and administered;
- data are processed using computers, and
- mathematical models/equations and other sophisticated statistics are flaunted with commendable ease.
This orientation presumably explains why the dominant social science methodology among scholars obfuscates the understanding/analysis of Africa’s problems.
Africa is still largely rural and noted for oral tradition and large numbers in the population are still non-literate. Surveys in which questionnaires are administered among largely non-literate respondents in Africa often fail to uncover critical aspects of behaviour patterns, resulting in superficial analysis, interpretation, and recommendations. Although researchers usually indicate that they intend to gather qualitative data through focus group discussions or in-depth interviews, they hardly make use of them in the final analysis.
The importance of an eclectic orientation in social science methodology in the understanding of Africa’s problems cannot be glossed over in view of the outcomes from recent HIV/AIDS studies. African countries are still carrying a heavy burden of the disease in view of the pervasiveness of high risk behaviours despite the efforts that have been made to understand the factors that account for its spread. Two studies, one from East Africa (Soma-Net, 2006) and the other from Malawi (Tawfik & Watkins, 2007) in which the researchers used the participatory/observational and community dialogue methods in their investigation of behaviour patterns that are conducive to the spread of HIV/AIDS, are however providing significant insights. These studies demonstrate the need to bring a fruitful approach to the study of social problems in Africa.
The challenges in field research at the macro standpoint can be briefly examined in the context of the study of sensitive problems like secret societies or sexuality or reproductive health matters most especially among non-literate or Muslim subgroups and bland/ non-sensitive ones (e.g., job satisfaction and motivation or use of health facilities etc). Researchers are likely to face more difficulties or taxing challenges in the studies on the sensitive than in those that are not.
The design of instrument for field studies in multi-ethnic and largely non-literate societies could be challenging because they (i.e., the instruments) are expected to be translated into local languages/dialects by experts who are also acquainted with commonly used words and/or inoffensive concepts (e.g., studies on sensitive issues/subgroups). Back and forward translations could be problematic and is also the recoding of responses by field workers. Field assistants must be well trained to administer the instrument in the most effective way. They must also possess the capacity to relate in an accustomed way to respondents/communities. For instance, accessing women who live in Purdah in Muslim communities in surveys is by no means an easy task because the permission of their husbands must be sought and obtained. The husbands of these women could also insist on being around while the interview is taking place. Getting such women to participate in focus group discussions away from their homes could also pose a problem to researchers.
Another dilemma facing researchers is how to compensate participants during data collection without paying them. Respondents are nowadays unwilling to participate in studies unless they are compensated in one way or another partly because the:
- societies have become materialistic;
- respondents are wary of researchers who tend to breeze in and out and take their cooperation and support for granted, and
- cynicism over the possible benefits of research to them/communities.
Consequently, everyone is anxious to know what is in the research for them which they would like to collect “up front”.
Data like age is difficult to gather in non-literate populations. The National Population Commission in Nigeria has devised the means of estimating age during national censuses by using uses important historical events. Occupation is another variable that defies reliable classificatory scheme because it is difficult to distinguish trader from business man or woman. Another is income and researchers are forced to estimate or use proxies.
Researchers are also likely to confront different challenges in urban vis-à-vis rural settings. While entry into rural areas could easily be facilitated by community leaders, this could prove to be difficult in large urban settings that incorporate heterogeneous ethnic groups. Researchers might have to enter urban communities through age grade associations, civil society organisations, faith-based organisations etc. or use the media to educate the public about the impending study in order to secure their support.
**Concluding Remarks**
This paper has addressed key ethical issues and challenges in social science methodology in the context of Africa. As can be seen from the discussion, African countries are unique in a number of ways. They are multi-religious, multi-cultural, multi-racial, and non-literate. Secondly, vast numbers of their citizens are still non-literate and poor. Thirdly, the gap between researchers and the populace is wide because the former who are literate and ‘westernized” are inclined to carry patriarchal nuances into their relationship with those that are targeted in research who are largely non-literate and unacquainted with the logic and process in social research. The paper has highlighted the dimensions of ethics in research in such settings.
**References**
Brink, P.J. (1993) “Studying African Women’s Secret Societies”, In C.M. Renzetti & R.M. Lee eds. *Researching Sensitive Topics*, London: Sage Publications, 235-248
Comte, A. (1855) *The Positive Philosophy*, Free trans. and condensed by Harriet Martineau, 3 Vols. New York: Calvin Blanchard.
Durkheim, E. (1951) *Suicide: A Study in Sociology*, trans. J.A. Spaulding and G. Simpson and ed. With introduction by G. Simpson, New York: The Free Press of Glencoe.
Marshall, P. (2007) *Ethical Challenges in Study Design and Informed Consent for Health Research in Resource-poor Settings*, Geneva: World Health Organisation. Marx, K. (1906) *Capital: A Critique of Political Economy*, New York: The Modern Library.
Nuffield Council on Bioethics (2002) *The Ethics of Research Related to Health care in Developing Countries*, London: Nuffield Council on Bioethics.
Smith, A. (1776) *An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of Wealth of Nations*, edited by E. Canaan with Preface by George Stigler, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Soma-Net, (2006) *Re-Thinking Research and Intervention Approaches that Aim at Preventing HIV Infection among the Youth*, ed. Anne Pertet, Nairobi, Kenya: Soma-Net.
Tawfik L. & Watkins, S.C. (2007) “Sex in Geneva, Sex in Lilongwe, and Sex in Balaka”, *Social Science and Medicine*, 64, 1090-1101.
Weber, M. (1958) *The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism*, New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons. Introduction
Medical anthropology which seeks to study disease and other health problems as cultural phenomena also pays particular attention to ethical issues. Working with public health specialists often calls for special attention to issues that concern the privacy of patients, confidentiality, conflict of interest, informed consent, beneficence, maleficence, and all ethical issues that focus on cultural concerns. Anthropologists use predominantly qualitative research methods and these ethical issues are part of the process, a process which includes the collection and analysis of data.
The generation or creation of knowledge is often and in most cases the object of research but the practical application of knowledge is often recommended because we seek to improve the quality of health when we deal with health issues. The models below attempt to show how all the ethical issues must be at the back of the mind of researchers as they conduct research.
Figure 1
Behavioural Research: Example of HIV/AIDS programs
- Knowledge
- Existence HIV/AIDS
- Modes of prévention
- Consequences
- Practices
- Sexual learning process
- Multiple Partners
- Use of condom
Risks Sample themes of behavioural research on HIV/AIDS
Stages of Applied Research
Source: Ndonko and Nkwi, 2004
In order to understand and appreciate qualitative methodology, we will provide answers to the following questions: What is qualitative research? Where do qualitative data come from? What do qualitative researchers in health do? Why use qualitative data? What is Qualitative Research?
Qualitative research involves any research that uses data that do not indicate ordinal values. It deals with video, objects, texts, or narratives of a personal life. It could also consist of a list of bars or clubs that are frequented by prostitutes or all articles that mention HIV/AIDS in local newspapers over the last 20 years.
The expression “qualitative research” could be confusing but Bernard (1996) notes that since research consists of data collection and analysis, it is not clear if qualitative research refers to the collection of qualitative data or qualitative data analysis.
Where Do Qualitative Data Come From?
Qualitative data come from two main sources: non-interviewed-based and interview-based sources. First, we need to distinguish data that already exist in those that are procured through interviews. The non-interview-based data include tangible things (artefacts and documents) and observations. Artefacts include all material objects (archaeological findings, goods and tools, etc). Documents include video (films etc.), audio, (music, oral speeches etc.), books, personal letters, newspaper articles, etc. All human historical records belong to this category.
Interview-based data sources can be broken into those that produce free-flowing texts, words and phrases. Interviews that produce free flowing texts can further be distinguished into unstructured (e.g., informal ethnographic materials from participant observation) and the structured (e.g., focus groups). Techniques that produce words and phrases are often referred to as “systematic”. These include free-listing pile sorts, triad tests, paired comparisons, frame substitutions, successive free-listing, ethnographic decision models, face-to-face surveys and questionnaires.
What Do Qualitative Researchers in Public Health Want to Do?
The choice of methods depends on the (a) aims and goals of research; (b) theoretical and conceptual approaches in a research; and (c) feasibility and ethics of the sampling strategy (Miles and Haberman, 1994). In exploring a subject, a researcher hopes to discover themes and patterns and/or build models. An example is a study on the factors that determine high fertility or the prescribing behaviour of family planning products by providers. In the case of description, the researcher will describe a single case, list typical events as well as exceptional idiosyncrasies. The researcher will describe cases and note how individuals are similar and different from one another. Comparison can be made at the individual and group levels.
Why Use Qualitative Data?
There are pragmatic and epistemological reasons for using qualitative data. Researchers who study health and population issues might wish to:
- discover or explore new phenomenon;
- identify new concepts and themes;
- describe and understand complex, dynamic, multidimensional phenomena, and
- bring forth people’s experiences. The Informant
The informant is to the anthropologist just as the patient is to a medical doctor. Medical ethics imposes on the physician a behaviour pattern or guiding principles that are related to the physician’s consultations. The basic values in medical ethics are beneficence, non-maleficience, autonomy, justice, dignity, trustworthiness and honesty. Informed consent is also important.
Informants are the oral sources of information and the repositories of knowledge from which researchers retrieve information which they transcribe into books and monographs. They have special knowledge. They are articulate and full of insight in many areas that are of interest to social scientists. We return to key informants on many occasions in social research and build knowledge on issues that are of interest on such occasions. We document what they say including their names, dates, and settings of interviews. Sometimes we forget to quote them as we quote other authors.
Interviewing Ethics
Some basic ethical considerations must be respected in order not to cause any emotional or physical harm to informants in the data collection process. The researcher must decide at the initial stage of the interview what kind of data he/she wishes to collect. He/she must protect the identity of informants if the information that is being collected is sensitive. Protection means that the researchers must protect informants from emotional disturbances (Bernard, 1994).
The possible harms to the informants are:
- violation of informant’s right to privacy by asking sensitive questions;
- violation of informant’s right to privacy by having access without his/her permission to records or files that contain personal and confidential information;
- secretly observing the behaviour of informant;
- disclosure of information from your informant to other persons, and
- failure to observe or respect certain cultural values, traditions, and taboos. (This could occur when the researcher lives in the community).
In order to avoid attitudes that could tarnish the image of a researcher in the community and/or jeopardise the future for others, researchers must:
- obtain the consent of the informant before asking sensitive questions. (This should be obtained before the interview starts);
- respect the informant’s privacy;
- ensure that the data are protected against third party, and
- avoid misrepresentation of the information that is obtained from informants (i.e., must be reported verbatim without identifying by name unless this is waived by informants).
Cultural concerns are paramount in all of these. The cultural perceptions of diseases may not necessarily correspond to modern medical ethics. Many cultures have spiritual or cultural theories about the origins of disease which are not in consonance with the germ theory in western medicine. Often researchers have to reconcile the people’s beliefs with the tenets of Western medicine but this is often very difficult. Indeed, value judgment must be avoided. That is, researchers should avoid classifying cultural practices as good or bad. Although this could lead us to assert the value of cultural relativity, we cannot judge other cultural practices through our prism.
Consent must be obtained in the collection of qualitative data in which key informants are targeted. The informants should be briefed about the purpose of research and shown why their knowledge will contribute to this. Informants should know about the risks that they are taking. Informants can choose to make their own health decisions, and only delegate such decision-making authority to another party when culture does permit them to do so. The decision-making tree-model in terms of health reconstruction is generally made on the basis of experiences and cultural norms and values. The value of informed consent is closely related to the value of autonomy and truth telling. An example: in cultures where people's wives cannot be interviewed without their consent, researchers should not attempt to do so.
Confidentiality
This applies to information that is obtained by researchers from informants/patients. Revealing confidential information that is obtained from informants under oath is unethical.
In order to assess the quality of life of people living with HIV/AIDS, we conducted a series of interviews in several treatment centres and found that almost 40 per cent came from other faraway treatment centres. Many of them came to these centres because they wanted anonymity. We had to assure them of total confidentiality in order to collect data from these patients. Revealing HIV/AIDS status without consent is unethical, especially if this information is obtained confidentially.
Beneficence
This is about the concept of doing good to community in general. Some interventions or the work that we do can bring about positive outcomes while also potentially doing harm. The problem of “double effect.” is possible. Researchers in medical research use experimental drugs for treatment groups while the control groups do not receive treatment. If the experiment proves successful, it will benefit many. During the period of treatment, it is possible that people in the control group may die because of neglect.
Cultural Concerns
Use of emic and etic approaches in the study of health problems in communities is critical in the understanding of how a culture views itself from the inside (emic) as well as the outsiders view of it (etic). Cultures have different perceptions of medical problems. Some cultures have spiritual theories about the origins of disease. Appreciating these theories and considering them from the standpoint of insiders is the beginning of reconciling these beliefs with Western notions of medicine. Value judgments must be avoided. Although this may lead to asserting the value of cultural relativity, we cannot label other cultural practices as bad. Some cultures believe that female genital mutilation (FGM) has the potential of increasing fertility. Understanding the “internal logic” of FGM will constitute the beginning of leading people to consider the risks that are involved.
Studying One’s Culture
Many researchers study their cultures as health providers study their family members. Researchers and health providers who do so must be vigilant not to create conflict of interest or handle issues inappropriately. Studying one’s culture usually has a number of advantages, - the mastery of the language(s), knowledge of the basic cultural tenets (values, norms, beliefs) etc. But the researchers can lose objectivity and take many things for granted. Conclusion
The anthropology of health which studies diseases and medical problems as cultural phenomena focuses on the individual as the reification of cultural concepts, beliefs, and norms. The individual is not just a patient but a carrier of culture or gatekeeper. The key informant or the ordinary sick person who is seeking to reconstruct his/her health goes to a healer who heals, and to the diviner who diagnoses and also heals. Each culture has its own health system with its own cannons, tenets, and code of ethics. If research has need of information, one of the basic norms is to respect culture, values, and norms. The breaking of these rules can be counterproductive and may constitute a constraint to future researchers.
References
Bernard, H.R. (1994) Research Methods in Anthropology: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches, AltaMira: Walnut Creek.
Miles, A. and Huberman, S. (1994) Qualitative Data Analysis, Thousand Oak, CA: Sage Publications.
Nkwi, P., Nyamongo, I. and Ryan, G (2001) Research Guidelines for Socio-cultural Research, Yaoundé: CASSRT Publication.
Ndonko F. and Nkwi, P. (2004) Applying Anthropology: The Study of HIV/AIDS In Cameroon, Yaoundé, Cameroon: CASSRT Publications. HIV/AIDS in Nigeria and its Ethical Challenges
Babatunde Osotimehin
Introduction
Readers might ask: Why the focus on HIV/AIDS? And what makes it so different from other diseases? The true story of the family of Mr. A, a big time cocoa farmer from one of the South Western states of Nigeria, will shed more light on the gravity of the epidemic.
As Mr. A’s business boomed, so did his family which comprised four wives and twenty-two children. In the late 90s, Mr. A, a trader operating in Northern Nigeria, took ill and was taken to his ancestral home to receive treatment. Mr. A’s illness was protracted, and the family was forced to expend a large proportion of its earnings on its breadwinner. The lorries for his cocoa business were sold. Mr. A’s health continued to deteriorate despite the huge amounts that the family spent to look after him.
While Mr. A’s health was failing, his second wife took ill. Local herbs and remedies were applied, but her condition worsened. It was detected that she had tuberculosis when the advice of orthodox medical practitioners was sought. Mrs. A was isolated. Her eating utensils (i.e., cups, plates and spoons) were separated from all others in the household. Word spread around that a strange form of witchcraft had befallen the family of Mr. A. Soon after, a gaunt and very sickly Mr. A gave up the ghost. The family mourned the loss of their patriarch. Shortly after his death, Mr. A’s first wife also took ill. She lost appetite, complained of nausea and diarrhoea and lost weight very rapidly.
This time around the advice of a close family friend was sought. A formally trained nurse noticed a strange trend in the community. Able bodied men were being brought home “close to death’. They presented with symptoms similar to the new and dreaded disease called “AIDS”.
Following trainings at workshops, a next of kin volunteered to offer home-based care to those in critical condition as most health care workers were unwilling to touch these patients.
On one of her home care visits, she was informed about the plight of Mrs. A. Based on her experience, she suspected HIV infection. She visited and found two of the wives in critical condition, one dying of tuberculosis and the other losing weight very rapidly. The nurse invited a doctor to their home and offered voluntary counselling and testing services to the wives. Three of the four wives tested HIV positive. Financial support was provided within the dwindling family resources to take care of the sick wives. However, both wives died within a year.
Caring for sick mothers and a father placed a heavy toll on the children’s education. Some of the children skipped school in order to take care of their sick mothers. Others took turns to oversee their mothers’ petty trading business. As the family income dwindled, so did the prospects of a sound education. Several of their children who ought to sit the West African School Leaving Certificate examination could not do so.
There was simply no money to pay their fees. Others were sent back home as they could no longer afford to pay school fees. The cocoa business gradually crumbled. A once rich family became impoverished by HIV/AIDS. Word got round that Mr. A’s wives were HIV positive. Family and friends were unwilling to associate with the family. The petty trading business also received low patronage as a result of the stigma that is associated with HIV which the family members encountered.
A few ‘bold’ close relatives offered what they could, but it was insufficient to go round everyone. The nurse who became a regular visitor to the family spoke with a few community leaders and development partners to see if some assistance could be offered.
Mr. A was blessed with several sons and daughters. In an interview with a journalist one of the daughters, a sixteen year old, stated that though she wanted to further her education, she did not have any means to do so and did not know what steps to take. HIV infection had suddenly exposed the teenage girl to the harsh realities of life, thus increasing her vulnerability. If the desired help was not forthcoming, it was left to imagination what the girl could do in order to keep body and soul together and ‘make ends meet’. Other children within the family also remained at crossroads. Poverty predisposes HIV and fuels its spread. Mr. A’s family story depicts the challenges that HIV/AIDS presents in various spheres of life on a daily basis.
**Nigeria’s Response to HIV/AIDS**
Nigeria’s journey in addressing HIV/AIDS began when the first case was identified in 1986. There was, however, an initial denial about the infection for four years (viz., 1986 and 1990). HIV infection spread unabated among the ‘at risk populations or vulnerable groups’ including uniformed men, women, girls, long distance truck drivers, youths, and sex workers during this period. The denial of HIV/AIDS fuelled the spread of the epidemic. The stigma and discrimination faced by the few known HIV+ individuals also drove the infection underground. Slowly and steadily, the number of HIV+ cases grew (NACA, 2002; FGN, 2003; FMOH, 2004).
The first sero-prevalence survey was conducted in 1992 when the national prevalence was 1.8 per cent but this exploded to 5.8 per cent by 2001. However, the last two surveys indicate a decline to 5.0 per cent in 2003 and 4.4 per cent in 2005. We are in the middle of another survey and we expect that it will be less than 4.4 per cent.
General awareness about the infection grew between 1991 and 1998 and Nigeria slowly began to acknowledge the seriousness of the epidemic. But has awareness been translated into action aimed at reducing the spread of the epidemic? No.
It took the death of Fela Anikulapo-Kuti, one of Nigeria’s greatest musicians as a result of HIV/AIDS to wake many Nigerians up to the reality of the disease. Fela died in denial of his HIV status. He kept a harem of 27 wives and countless other sex partners. He did not believe in condoms and thought AIDS was a Western invention to discourage sex in Africa, even though his elder brother was Nigeria’s renowned Health Minister and notable health care advocate. It took the courage of Professor Olikoye Ransome-Kuti to announce to the whole world that Fela died of AIDS. Fela was the AIDS role model that Nigeria never had.
Fela’s death presented an opportunity to drive the HIV/AIDS message home. Unfortunately, that opportunity was not efficiently utilised to drive the AIDS message home. That didn’t happen. Eventually, a health sector response to HIV/AIDS was initiated by Professor Olikoye Ransome-Kuti which was energised by the death of his brother. It became apparent over time that a strictly biomedical approach to HIV/AIDS would not work given the fact that a critical element in tackling this infection was and is still “Behaviour Change”. The need to engage all sectors in the response to the epidemic became paramount, hence the adoption of a multi-sectoral response.
While a multi-sectoral approach has yielded results, it still does not present the ‘magic bullet’ solution to the HIV/AIDS burden that Nigeria bears. We are hopeful but we are not yet there. Several scientific breakthroughs in the past two decades indicate that there is light at the end of the tunnel. Several hurdles lie in way in the attempt to nip the burden of HIV/AIDS in the bud.
Questions abound and there are no easy answers but the author will to raise some of issues in the hope that this paper will stimulate discussions.
**Voluntary Versus Routine HIV Testing and Ethical Challenges**
Over the past decade, the case for voluntary testing has been promoted by human rights advocates who are of the opinion that an individual should voluntarily undergo HIV test. On presenting at the centre, the individual is counselled and offered the test. He/she could refuse to undergo the test after counselling. It is a purely voluntary issue. Though VCT has been promoted over the years and continues to be promoted by religious leaders, civil society advocates etc, a major drawback is that the ‘average man on the street’ has strong reservations about going for HIV test. It takes a lot of courage to go for a test! Yet, those living with HIV do not even know it because they have not gone for test.
There is needless death with the advent of antiretroviral drugs (ARVs) for HIV/AIDS. Many HIV related deaths would have been prevented if the affected persons were aware of their condition and were immediately placed on ARV. Because people often delay, there is the likelihood that they may put their health and that of their loved ones at risk.
Routine testing on the contrary implies that HIV tests are done routinely every time persons present themselves at health facilities (i.e., for blood donation, tooth infection, malaria, typhoid etc). If the person tests positive, the individual is promptly counselled and placed on treatment for opportunistic infections (O.Is) or ARVs as the case may be.
Proponents of this approach which is now endorsed by the World Health Organisation (WHO) argue that routine testing presents the opportunity to screen a wider range of people for HIV and is beneficial because cases will be detected early. They also argue that given that HIV/AIDS is a public health issue, it is more important to protect the health of the ‘general public’ than to protect an individual’s right. Efforts to protect an individual’s right to privacy, (i.e., through voluntary counselling etc) should not put the health of a population or community in jeopardy. Here lies the ethical dilemma, - do we promote the right of an individual or do we ignore it in order to protect the larger population from harm?
**Preventing Parent to Child Transmission**
In view of the scientific breakthroughs on HIV, it is now possible for People Living with HIV (PLWH) to marry and bear HIV-children. Several HIV+ women worldwide have through prevention of mother-to-child transmission programmes given birth to healthy children. But it is important that mothers are treated to enable them to take care of their children. Research indicates that breast milk provides one of the routes for HIV transmission. Consequently, HIV+ mothers are encouraged to avoid breastfeeding: rather, they are to provide infant formula for their newborns. Free infant formulae are provided to HIV+ mothers in some of the tertiary health care facilities under the Federal Government treatment programme in collaboration with its partners. Also, free maternal care and infant formula are available in our culture where breastfeeding is strongly promoted as the best means of nutrition for infants. However, a nursing mother who refuses to breast-feed is viewed with suspicion within the community and may be stigmatised for choosing not to breastfeed. How can HIV-positive nursing mothers in the rural areas preserve the health of their children without incurring the wrath of the custodians of culture/tradition who believe that the ‘mother’s milk is best?’
Should an HIV+ mother in a hard to reach rural community in Nigeria watch her newborn child starve because she cannot afford infant formula? Should she breastfeed her baby and unduly expose the infant to HIV? These are tough decisions for any mother to take and they present another dimension in the debate of what is ethical.
The Male Circumcision Debate
Several cultures in Nigeria and other African countries accept male circumcision as part of socio-cultural and/or religious practices long before the outbreak of HIV/AIDS. Recent research findings on male circumcision that were conducted for HIV prevention among young men in the Kisumu District of Kenya indicate that it could protect them against HIV-1 infection. This was a randomised controlled trial of 2784 men aged 18-24 years aimed at determining the relative risk of HIV incidence in men that were randomly assigned to receive circumcision versus those who did not receive such treatment. The study found that male circumcision significantly reduces the risk of HIV infection among them (Lancet, 2007). It concluded that “where appropriate, voluntary, safe, and affordable circumcision services should be integrated into other HIV preventive interventions and also provided as expeditiously as possible”.
While this can be described as a ‘breakthrough’ in Kenya, such findings need to be cautiously disseminated within Nigeria where men have been circumcised from birth. These findings could also be the subject of several interpretations. The man on the street could interpret them to mean Because I am circumcised, I am protected against HIV infection’. It means I can engage in unprotected sex and may not necessarily embrace the ABC of prevention theory. This could also call into question a woman’s ability to negotiate safe sex as some men might now insist that the research findings are now the gospel truth. Should these findings now take pre-eminence over the use of condoms? Is there sufficient evidence as of now to take the male circumcision trial findings hook, line and sinker? Are the risks to HIV infection lower in men who are circumcised in their youth when compared to men circumcised at birth?
Ethical Challenges in New Prevention Technologies in Clinical Trials
Research on HIV/AIDS that is initiated, designed, and/or funded by agencies that are in high income countries but conducted in those that are poor gives rise to important ethical challenges.
Sub-Saharan Africa continues to bear a disproportionate burden of HIV infection, particularly in the marginalised communities. This implies greater imperative for the development of new strategies and technologies to prevent further spread of HIV and also minimise its impact. The conduct of the much needed research in these communities poses ethical dilemmas that are not easily resolvable. Although the clinical trials of HIV vaccines began ten years ago in the United States and Europe, an increasing number of them are now conducted or planned in other countries, including several that are considered “developing” countries which have a high HIV incidence. Safeguarding the rights and welfare of the individuals who are participating as research subjects in developing countries is a priority issue. Researchers are coming under criticism because communities and human rights advocates in the developing countries are concerned about the autonomy and privacy of individuals and respect for their personal, cultural, and social values. This is important in order to maximise the benefits for the targeted participants/communities and also advance the science of HIV prevention in Africa.
Most HIV social and behavioural science investigations are on sensitive issues of prevention on sexual activities (particularly as relates to microbicides), drug use or intervention trials of biomedical technologies that could have unknown physical and psychological outcomes. The ethical requirement for such studies is informed consent from the targeted individuals and communities. But what constitutes “truly” informed consent is a subject of much discussion and disagreement in the scientific community.
The issue is further exacerbated if the targeted participants have little of no formal education, speak different languages from the researchers or have cultural beliefs that do not encourage the questioning medical authority.
The imbalance in the economies among nation-sates also widens this divide. Unlike in the high-income countries where their citizens participate in clinical trials for altruistic reasons, those in the low participate in trials because of some form of material ‘benefits’. Such benefits include free condoms, free treatment for sexually transmitted infections, transport fare, meal allowance etc.
These ‘benefits’ are the catch or inducements and the would-be participants would rather append their signatures and ignore the details that are contained in the informed consent form provided they are assured of the next meal! Should we then discontinue clinical trials in Nigeria/Africa? No. There will be no rapid scientific breakthroughs without these clinical trials.
Better mechanisms should be put in place to safeguard and protect the rights of participants in clinical trials. Efforts to improve sensitivity in culturally and linguistically appropriate ways are essential in order to provide truly informed consent in HIV prevention studies. Hence, there is need for Community Advisory Boards (CABs), comprising members of the community who can critically review research protocols before they are approved for clinical trials. Trial participants should also be given the opportunity to ‘opt out’ at any stage of trials.
**Way Forward**
The opportunity for this presentation before social scientists presents a chance to explore the different ways in which their disciplines can contribute to the understanding of the dynamics of the epidemic and proffer solutions to some of its driving factors.
It is appropriate to suggest that HIV/AIDS and indeed the whole area of sexually transmitted diseases are more of social problems than biomedical ones. We are persuaded that behaviour change is a more effective weapon for fighting the spread of the infection but we sometimes lack the evidence for appropriate messages or interventions that will bring the desired change. Social scientists are challenged to give serious thoughts to the evidence that is required to guide interventions. New technologies also provide a great opportunity for social scientists. Potentially, there are many products which require acceptance before they are unleashed on the population. Thus, well defined population studies will be required to ensure that Nigerians/Africans are not turned into the guinea pigs of multinational pharmaceutical industries whose sole motive is at times to make ethically unacceptable profits.
Finally it is important for us to appreciate that HIV has provided an opportunity to affect the health and the lives of Nigerians/Africans positively since it brings with it resources which are unprecedented in the annals of infectious disease control. We should seize the moment and make a big difference in our engagement with this development process.
References
Federal Government of Nigeria (2003) National Policy on HIV/AIDS, Abuja: Federal Government of Nigeria.
Federal Ministry of Health (2001) A Technical Report on the 2001 National HIV/Syphilis Survey among Pregnant Women Attending Ante-natal Clinics in Nigeria, Abuja: Federal Ministry of Health.
Federal Ministry of Health (2004) Technical Report 2003 National HIV Sero-Prevalence Sentinel Survey, Abuja: Federal Ministry of Health.
Lancet, Vo. 369, February 24, 2007.
National Action Committee on AIDS (2002) HIV/AIDS Emergency Action Plan (HEAP), March Abuja: National Action Committee on AIDS. Ethical Issues in USAID Applied Health Research in Nigeria
Stalin Edegba Ewoigbokhan
Introduction
Ethics are norms for proper or acceptable conduct. They are also about what is morally right in society. Professions such as medicine and law have ethical codes, deviation from which is considered a misconduct or unethical practice.
Unethical practices in health care research include: manipulation and/or changing research design or methodology to achieve predetermined expectations; altering results that contradict one’s previous findings; research that exploits and/or deceives unsuspecting and less privileged subgroups in the population; and falsification of outcomes (Ryan, 2005; Committee on Science, Engineering and Public Policy, 2000). Shamoo and Resnick (2003) describe 29 activities which are deviations from ethical behaviour that are not defined as misconduct by government. Unethical activities can also be due to honest human errors on the part of researchers.
More than 900 codes and declarations have been published around the world (OHRP/USDHHS, 2008). But none of these codes is complete or enjoys universal acceptability or applicability. However, each of the various declarations emerged at different times in history, each aimed at responding to a specific unethical incident. Codes and declarations have no legal status, and to a large extent, serve advisory functions (Nuffield Council on Bioethics, 2004).
Although the Hippocratic Code is regarded as the ground norm for medical practice with its central commandment of do no harm, it makes no specific provisions for the protection of human subjects in research. The forerunner of the ethical codes that exist today is the Nuremberg Code (United States Government, 1949). The Code got its name from the German city of Nuremberg where Nazi doctors and scientists were tried in 1947 for carrying out unethical experiments on prisoners in concentration camps during the Second World War (1939-1945).
The Nuremberg Code was the first to make specific declaration on the protection of human subjects in research, declaring among others that the voluntary consent of human subjects is absolutely necessary”. Also, the World Medical Association (WMA) published the Helsinki Declaration in 1964 (the Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects) which has been amended five times, the latest amendment at Edinburgh, Scotland in 2000 (World Medical Association, 2000).
A series of scandalous experiments in the US such as the: Stanley Milgram’s experiment, Willowbrook study, and Tuskegee Syphilis study prompted the enactment of the National Research Act (1974) and also gave rise to the National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects in Biomedical and Behavioural Research that defined the guidelines in the Belmont Report (The National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects in Behavioural Research, 1979). The Belmont Report established the requirements for Institutional Review Boards (IRBs). The US Department of Health and Human Services (DHSS) sets it out in the code that is known as the Basic Policy for the Protection of Humans Subjects (DHSS, 2005). The Boston University Medical Centre Institutional Review Board (BUMC-IRB)
The Boston University Institutional Review Board (BUMC-IRB) was established in 1996 in compliance with federal regulations and state laws to protect the rights and welfare of human subjects that are participating in research. It is subject to regulation and inspection by all government regulatory agencies such as the Food and Drug Administration and the Office of Human Research Protection of the Department of Health and Human Services. The BU-IRB applies the principles in the Belmont Report (National Commission for the Protection of Human Subject of Biomedical and Behavioural Research, 1979).
Among the functions of BUMC-IRB is the review and approval of protocols and the consent forms for research that is funded by BUMC. The IRB can approve, defer, or cancel a study if it is convinced that ethical requirements for the protection of the rights of subjects are breached.
IRB Registration and Federal Wide Assurance (FWA) Number
Boston University Ethics Committee requires all the institutions that are participating in studies that are funded by the US Government to have a Federal Wide Assurance (FWA) before research activities can begin (OHRP, 2005). An FWA is an institution’s formal commitment to US federal authorities (i.e., the Office of Human Research Protection or OHRP) to protect the rights of subjects.
There are two steps for obtaining an approved assurance from OHRP. First, an application must be submitted for the registration of the institution, followed by the recognition/registration of the IRB of an institution. This is followed by the completion and submission of the assurance application.
The five criteria for registering an Institutional Review Board/Institutional Ethics Committee are:
- membership of at least five;
- at least a member whose primary interest is in the scientific area and at least a member whose primary concern is in the non-scientific area;
- at least a member who is not affiliated to the institution;
- gender balance;
- members are not drawn from a profession, and
- at least a member who should be knowledgeable on ethical issues
IRB provides guidance, review protocols and the consent forms of studies. IRBs have enormous powers but do not necessarily live up to their responsibilities in all cases.
The Applied Research on Child Health Project
The Applied Research on Child Health (ARCH) Project was an international research Initiative, based at the Centre for International Health and Development (CIHD) of the Boston University School of Public Health. The programme supported collaborative research by social and biomedical scientists, aimed at reducing childhood morbidity and mortality in developing countries. It also incorporated training and technical assistance.
The ARCH Project in Nigeria, supported by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), was designed to: • generate new knowledge that will contribute directly to the improvement of the health and survival of children; • build the capacity of individuals and institutions to undertake applied research, and • disseminate new findings to national and international implementing agencies that are operating in Nigeria.
The goals were pursued through a series of activities and strategies in collaboration with federal and state health authorities, and with USAID partners and contractors working in Nigeria coordinating the project.
A national advisory committee of senior scientists and health professionals based in Nigeria’s universities and research institutes provided strategic advice and guidance to the Project. There were 13 research teams of more than 50 researchers in 8 institutions in 4 groups:
- **Universities**: University of Ibadan, Ahmadu Bello University, University of Ilorin and the University of Nigeria
- **Research Institutes**: Nigeria Institute of Medical Research and Nigerian Institute of Social and Economic Research
- **Non-governmental organisations**: Centre for Economic Development and Conflict Management, Ile-Ife and Centre for Family Health, Ile-Ife, and
- **Government**: the Federal Ministry of Health.
Four teams conducted multi-site studies on congenital malaria, using basic clinical and laboratory procedures while nine teams used the social and behavioural research methods.
The topics of research were chosen after a priorities-setting seminar that was organised by the national advisory committee of the Project. The Committee identified six priority areas in child health research and publicly invited proposals in the following areas:
- HIV/AIDS in young children;
- nutrition and feeding in children;
- fever and household decision-making;
- patent medicine sellers and health;
- quality of health care, and
- the effectiveness of traditional medicine sellers.
A technical team in Boston along with the advisory committee in Nigeria assessed the letters of intent and invited fifteen teams to submit full proposals. Eleven proposals that are listed below were funded.
- **Dynamics in Household Decision-making on Febrile Illnesses in Children in a Nigerian Rural Community.**
- **Comparison of Household Decisions for the Treatment of Childhood Fevers in Rural and Urban Communities in Enugu State, South-eastern Nigeria.**
- **Father's Involvement in Child Health Behaviour in Nigeria: Implications for Child Health Care Delivery.**
- **Antenatal VCT among Women in Southwest Nigeria: A Case Study of Ijebu North LGA of Ogun State.**
- **Social Outcomes of HIV/AIDS on Children in Selected States of Southwest Nigeria.** • Feeding and Care of Low Birth Weight Babies in Rural Communities in Ekiti State. • Feeding and Care of Low Birth Weight Babies in Epe LGA of Lagos State. • PMS: How important are they in the management of sick children in Kaduna, Northern Nigeria? • The Role of PMS in Identifying and Treating Childhood Illnesses in Oyo State, Nigeria. • The Epidemiology of Congenital Malaria Ibadan (A Multi-Site Study in Ibadan, Ilorin, Enugu and Kaduna). • Introduction to the Study of the Burden of Diseases among Children in Nigeria.
Ethical Issues in Nigeria’s ARCH Studies
The ARCH Project provided Nigerian scientists, most especially the junior ones the opportunity to collaborate with scholars and institutions at the international level at a time when research grants were scarce.
The BUMC-IRB ensured adherence and did not hesitate to withdraw grant if ethics were breached. IRB (a) monitored adherence to protocols; (b) facilitated the procurement of Federal Wide Assurance Number (FWA) according to US Code of Federal Regulation (CFR 45 Part 46), and (c) ensured commitment to respect for human subjects (OHRP, 2005).
The IRB regulations underscore:
- **Respect for persons**: the autonomy of the individual.
- **Beneficence**: ensuring that no harm is done to the individual and the maximisation of benefits and minimisation of risks.
- **Justice**: equality of individuals and that the benefits and risks should be distributed fairly.
The applications of these principles are:
- **Informed consent**: subjects must be allowed free choice; consent must be voluntary and based on correct information and a clear understanding of the issues (45 CFR 46.111(a)(4), 21 CFR 56.111(a)(4).
- **Assessment of risks and benefits**: There must be a systematic assessment of benefits and risks to participants (45 CFR 46.111(a)(1), 21 CFR 56.111(a)(1).
- **Selection process**: This entails fairness and no bias in the selection process (45 CFR 46.111(a)(3), 21 CFR 56.111(a)(3).
- It was only after the IRBs/IECs of the grantees’ institutions were registered that application could be made for FWA number. Only one of the institutions (the University of Ibadan) had FWA number prior to grant. However, the Project assisted other participating institutions to apply for, and obtain FWA number before funds were released to teams.
Deviation from Protocols
The approval for two studies on HIV/AIDS was delayed by BU-IRB on account of ethical issues. This led to significant revision of the study design. Some studies were also suspended because teams made changes in their study designs without the approval of IRB.
Informed Consent
There is always contention as to who gives consent in an African setting. For example, a community leader might give blanket consent on behalf of members of his community. The IRB requires an individual to sign the consent form. In some cases, there were threats to stop studies in places where the community leader’s approval was not sought. The spouse or older members of the family or household also exercised great influence over approval. Thus, it took a husband to agree or disagree for the wife to give consent.
Signing and/or thumb-printing consent form generated concern among respondents because they were worried about its legal implications and the following clause: *by signing this document it means you have agreed to voluntarily participate in this study...* This aroused suspicion. Many respondents were willing to answer questions but not inclined to sign the consent form. It took persistent persuasion bordering on coercion for them to sign up.
The patent medicine sellers in two studies were uneasy and hesitated to sign the consent form. The process for seeking consent in this group began with advocacy and sensitisation meetings with the officials of their association.
The requirement to sign the consent forms therefore introduced bias because only those who signed. Research assistants were presumably inclined to seek those who they knew would sign up.
A 17-year-old married girl who was enrolled in one of the centres in the multi-centre study on congenital malaria and who gave consent was defined by IRB as a minor because she was under 18 years of age (a child is defined as any person that is below the age of 18 years). She needed the consent of an older member of her family and a child accent form was required.
In the same study and at another site, it was required to determine the level of paracetamia in placenta, thus placentas were harvested for aspiration. But this was a cultural setting where the families of the delivered women go home with placenta. Some women and/or their families objected. Since the placentas were required in the study, investigators faced the added challenge of convincing the family of mothers to allow their placentas to be released to investigators. Some consented while others refused.
Views defer on the necessity for informed consent. Pedroni and Pimples (2001) opined that although the historic basis for seeking informed consent stems from the atrocious experiments in Nazi concentration camps, it is unnecessary to extend consent to “risk free” research such as surveys and interviews. Others share this view and cannot see the risk in answering “a few questions”. However, granting interviews and disclosing personal and private information to a complete stranger (researchers) carries certain amount of risk. Some questions could be embarrassing and cause discomfort among respondents. Informed consent has two perspectives: moral and socio-legal (Petroni and Pimples, 2001).
**Anonymity, Privacy, and Photographs**
Two research teams that studied feeding and care of low birth weight infants in South West Nigeria hit ethical brick walls for different reasons. They first ran into hitches when BUMC-IRB, during the review of their protocols, found listed in the budget, an item for the purchase of cameras and photographic films. A query asking what the cameras and photo films would be used for was posed. The investigators responded that they intended to take the photographs of the environment where low-birth weigh infants and their mothers lived. The IRB differed and reminded the investigators that this was a violation of the privacy of the participants. The grantee was requested to expunge the items from the budget before the IRB allowed the study to proceed. In an attempt to demonstrate the effects of their intervention and also enrich as well as provide contrast to the readability of their interim report, another team of investigators inserted the before and after photos of low birth weight babies. Someone spotted the pictures before the report was forwarded to IRB. The pictures were removed because they violated the rules governing the anonymity of research subjects. Furthermore, there was no evidence that the research subjects granted consent for the pictures that were to be taken. A written consent is required for photographs that identify research subjects or patients (American College of Medical Genetics, 2000). The person whose photograph is to be taken should give consent and in the case of children, consent should be given by their parents and guardians. In addition to protecting the rights of individuals that are involved in research, Paulson (2006) expressed the need for more attention to the protection of the privacy of family and community members when genetic or other matters are part of study.
**Reporting Adverse Events (AE) Involving Research Subjects**
Adverse Event (AE) is defined as any untoward occurrence in research participants. The occurrence need not have clear causal relationship with an individual's participation in research. An AE can be any unfavourable and unintended sign, symptom, event, or occurrence that affects a participant's physical, mental, social, financial, legal, or psychological well-being. Adverse events also take the form of domestic violence, occasioning the forced withdrawal of a subject from a study.
It is the requirement of the Office of Human Research Protection (OHRP) of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the BUMC-IRB to continuously review research. Included in the review is the monitoring of adverse reactions and unexpected events (21 CFR 56.108 and 45 CFR 46.103). Additionally, adverse events can and should be reported at any time during any study. One of the infants in the feeding of low-birth weight infants died but not as a result of being enrolled in the study. This was reported to IRB as part of the review process.
A Voluntary Counselling and Testing (VCT) component in the study was changed to “investigating the knowledge and perception of voluntary HIV and counselling among women attending antenatal care”. The women in the study were to recruit their husbands. The IRB was concerned about confidentiality, anonymity, and the likely adverse events (e.g., domestic violence or divorce) should one or both test positive. A study by Family Health International (2002) found that the women who disclosed their positive HIV status to their husbands after informed consent either were beaten or chased away by them. What are the guarantees that spouses or employers will not have access to the research records as affirmed in the consent form by the investigator?
A woman who opted for HIV test as required of pregnant women who were attending antenatal care in furtherance of the prevention of mother-to-child transmission of HIV at one of the congenital malaria sites was thrown out of the matrimonial home by her husband when she tested positive.
One of the issues raised by the IRB was that a research institution had no FWA number, making it a non-starter because it had no commitment to protecting the participants in the study. The other issues were confidentiality, privacy, and voluntariness. The study was to utilise FGDs. How do you secure confidentiality and anonymity in a group? Benefits of Participation in Research
It was stated clearly in the consent form that the individuals would not benefit personally if they participated in the studies, but that the community stood to benefit from their outcomes. One investigator also indicated in the consent form that knowledge of HIV status is a benefit. But BUMC-IRB pointed out that knowledge of HIV status could only be beneficial if she/he was willing to undergo test.
It was customary for community leaders to expect or demand beneficial interventions that were outside the scope and/or budget of the study. The direct benefit to the communities was the recruitment of research assistants from host communities. One of the teams that investigated the role of patent medicine vendors in health care organised feedback seminars for members of their Association.
Consent is required in a case control studies in which participants are made to feel that they were receiving active beneficial ingredients but turns out to placebo (Hill et al., 2008; Wenger and Shapiro, 1997). Such studies are in consonance with the Tuskegee experiments. The benefits that the participants are expecting are really not there.
Conclusion
The USAID Child Health Research Project was an opportunity for Nigerian scientists to collaborate with international scholars and institutions. It also provided an opportunity for better understanding of ethical issues and the application of universally acceptable ethical standards.
The ethical issues arising from the studies provide useful lessons that will guide future studies. Although all the grantee institutions registered IRBs, their institutions could not provide technical or ethical guidance to their research teams. Consequently, capacity building of IRB members on ethical issues in research is extremely important in Nigeria.
References
Department of Health and Human Services (2005) Title 45, Part 46, Protection of Human Subjects (http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/45cfr46.htm).
Dhai, A (2005) Module Five: Implementation of Ethics Review - Developing World Bioethics ISSN 1471-8847(online) Vol.5, No.1, United Kingdom: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Family Health International: Network (2002) FHI Case Studies on Ethics and Informed Consent, Vol. 21, No. 2.
Hill, et. al., (2008) “Informed Consent in Ghana: What do Participants Really Understand?”, Journal of Medical Ethics, 34, 48-53.
National Commission for the Protection of Human Subject of Biomedical and Behavioural Research (1979): Ethical Principles and Guidelines for Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioural Research.
Nuffield Council on Bioethics (2004) The Ethics of Research in Developing Countries. A Follow-up Discussion Paper on the Workshop Held in Cape Town, South Africa12-14th February. Paulson, J.A. (2006) *An Exploration of Ethical Issues in Research in Children’s Health and Environment*, A Mini-monograph; Environmental Heath Perspectives.
Pedroni, J.A. and Pimple, K.D. (2001) *A Brief Introduction to Informed Consent in Research with Human Subjects*, Indiana: The Trustees of Indiana University.
Shamoo, A. and Resnik, D. (2003) *Responsible Conduct of Research*, New York: Oxford University Press.
United States Government (1949) “Nuremberg Code: Directives for Human Experimentation”, *Trials of War Criminal before the Nuremberg Military Tribunal under Control Council Law*, Vol. 2, No. 10, 181-182, Washington D.C. U.S. Government Printing Office.
Wenger, N. S. and Shapiro, M. F. (1997) “Consent and Discontent”, *Canadian Medical Association*, (December) 15, 157(12).
World Medical Association (1964) *Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects*, The Declaration of Helsinki, Document 17.C. Perspective of the WHO Research Ethics Review Committee on Ethical Issues in Socio-Behavioural Research Projects in Public Health
Abha Saxena
Introduction
It is increasingly recognised that in order to improve health, the bio-medical approach must be twinned with the socio-behavioural in order to formulate policies that will have a positive impact on health outcomes. WHO has established a Commission on Social Determinants of Health (CSDH) in recognition of the growing importance of the socio-behavioural in public health. The Commission recognises that the social determinants of health (SDH) must be addressed through effective policies based on sound global and local evidence. Though there are abundant global data on the social determinants of health, nonetheless, there is a growing need to generate data for local needs, mainly because data are context-specific, and not easily transferable from one country to another or even within a country from one region to another or one community to another. In recognition of this growing need, various technical departments of the WHO support countries in carrying out socio-behavioural research not only on health care delivery but also tropical diseases. There is also support for studies on reproductive and sexual health, chronic life-style related diseases, child and adolescent related diseases etc. The WHO Research Ethics Review Committee (WHO ERC) is increasingly asked to review research protocols that are either primarily on socio-behavioural or bio-medical projects.
This paper will discuss some of the challenges and issues in socio-behavioural research, based on the experience of WHO ERC. This is not meant to be an exhaustive discussion in relation to socio-behavioural research, but on the common 'problems' that the WHO ERC faces.
Insufficient Expertise in Ethics Committees
Because of the growing demand for socio-behavioural research on health determinants, the ethics committees of many organisations and universities that traditionally review bio-medical research are now challenged to review social science projects or those that have social science components. Traditionally, the social sciences are described as 'soft sciences', because they do not use the rigorous quantitative approach that is used by bio-medical researchers that can be reliably reproduced. The social scientists conventionally use qualitative approaches and also combine quantitative approaches which few bio-medical researchers sometimes (incorrectly) consider 'fuzzy'. Therefore the ethics committees that often have a predominance of medical researchers or no social scientists on their panels, often, misunderstand these projects. It is important that such ethics committees should include social scientists on their panel or at least have them as advisers. Nine of the 26 members of the WHO ERC are social scientists, and the current Chair is a social scientist. This allows the WHO ERC to evaluate most of the social science projects adequately, without having to call in external experts. This was, however, not necessarily the case in the past. We had a paucity of social scientists and were blamed for being too rigid! The Research Protocol
The social scientists claim that because they use sufficiently different methodologies as compared to bio-medical scientists, they cannot use the same format for writing their protocols. For example, items like the sample size and inclusion and exclusion criteria cannot be defined in the social sciences. What this really means is that they cannot be defined in precise quantitative terms; however they can be described qualitatively (e.g., that a snowballing technique will be used or that ‘enough persons will be selected till a point of saturation is reached’ etc.). It is the opinion of the WHO ERC that all research protocols can be and should be described using a similar format. This allows for easy reading and review of protocols.
Ethics Committees need to know the details about the way research will be conducted in order to identify the ethical issues in projects. One of the commonest problems that is seen at the WHO ERC is that enough methodological details are not provided in many social science projects. For example, many social science projects just mention that focus group discussions will be conducted in the research communities. The WHO ERC (as should other ERCs) requires information about how many FGDs, with whom, why, where, how etc. This type of information is required for all interventions.
Data analysis - It may not be enough to say that qualitative approaches will be used to analyse the data, - the analytical tools and methods in the social sciences are sufficiently refined to be described - and should be described, as is done for bio-medical research.
Adequate peer review - like any bio-medical research, any socio-behavioural research project must have been reviewed by at least two independent peer reviewers who provide comments on the technical and scientific aspects of projects.
Risks to Participants
While most socio-behavioural research projects do not have a risk of physical harm (though gender based violence is a definite but an under-estimated risk in many situations), they cannot all be considered as low-risk projects. The potential for harm may be much higher, partly because it may be hidden and unrecognised. It is the responsibility of the ethics committee to be cognizant of such potential risks. In the experience of the WHO ERC, some of the common causes for the potential for harm can occur through:
1. Psychological trauma – discussion of traumatic experiences or private experiences that the participants might not wish to discuss.
2. Breach of confidentiality and privacy.
3. Stigmatisation, either through breach of confidentiality or inadequate attention to gender issues.
4. Increasing vulnerability through inadequate attention to confidentiality and privacy issues.
Socio-behavioural research is often of greater interest in groups of individuals who are already very vulnerable (which is usually the basic premise for studying these individuals) like displaced persons, the impoverished or illiterate population, deviant personalities, those indulging in illegal activities, etc. Often, the safeguards for protecting them and their rights are not sufficiently explained in the protocol, and this is of concern to Ethics Review Committees.
Privacy and confidentiality issues are so important that they deserve a special section. The social science methods often include taping interviews, taking photographs, asking intimate questions, observing practices, and spending long periods of time with research participants thus becoming privy to some very personal and intimate knowledge about them. Often the participants forget that they are engaged in research and the boundaries between the professional and private may become blurred, increasing the risk of breaching confidentiality. These issues deserve more discussion in protocols in order to demonstrate that they have been considered by the investigators, and they are aware of the issues and are taken seriously.
**Data Ownership**
In the course of conducting social science projects, the investigators may become privy to local knowledge and customs that may have the potential for intellectual property rights (IPR) and be subject to IPR issues (for example collecting information on methods of traditional healing). Who will own the data and who will have IP rights should be a concern raised by the ethics committees.
**Care Provision in the Context of Socio-Behavioural Health Research**
This is a common issue. While social scientists may not have the professional duty to provide or even make arrangements for health care provision, where it is lacking, but by entering into a collaborative relationship (and sometimes an intimate collaborative relationship with the communities), they do incur a moral obligation to do so. It is not a requirement that they have to take responsibility for improving health care services or provide care and treatment for a disease that they are studying. However, by being in a dominant position, they can make a difference by:
1. providing information;
2. ensuring that research participants have access to counselling;
3. exploring various avenues, and
4. forming networks with civil society organisations and public health officials in order to provide care and treatment etc.
Ethics committees (like the WHO ERC) can insist that these moral obligations are fulfilled. It is equally important that these arrangements are discussed with the research communities prior to initiation of research and also ensure that a clear understanding of roles and responsibilities by all concerned.
**Formative Research**
Increasingly, many bio-medical research projects carry out formative research prior to initiating large-scale clinical trials. Formative research often combine qualitative and quantitative methods, but is often not adequately described in protocols, except to do a lip-service. Very often, the protocols have single sentences mentioning that formative research will be carried out. At least the WHO ERC likes to see greater details on this aspect of the study.
**Dissemination of Research Results to Communities**
The WHO ERC is increasingly concerned that communities that take part in research study are not always informed about research outcomes. While it may be easier to communicate the outcomes of bio-medical research, one must be more careful in social science research lest the vulnerabilities of individuals are exposed or harm to some families might occur. It is therefore advisable to think carefully on how to disseminate the research results in a responsible and balanced manner. This is not an exhaustive list of ethical issues that the WHO ERC is concerned about but they are the most frequently encountered ones. I do not think that we are alone in being challenged by these issues. Other ethics committees that review socio-behavioural research projects probably also have similar concerns. Greater communication is required between social scientists and ethics committee members to resolve some of these issues. These problems do not occur due to lack of concern by social scientists but because of lack of the understanding of the requirements of the WHO ethics committee. Participants
01. ADDO, K.K. (Dr.) Noguchi Memorial Institute for Medical Research, University of Ghana, Legon, Ghana [email protected]
02. ADEBAMOWO, Clement (Professor) College of Medicine, University of Ibadan, Ibadan, Nigeria [email protected]
03. ADEJUMO, ‘Bayo (Dr.) Department of Psychology, University of Ibadan, Ibadan, Nigeria [email protected]
04. ADERINTO, Adeyinka Abideen (Dr.) Department of Sociology, University of Ibadan, Ibadan, Nigeria [email protected]
05. ADUAGBA, Usman Bolaji (Mr.) Department of Health Planning & Research, Federal Ministry of Health, Shehu Shagari Way, Abuja, Nigeria. [email protected]
06. AGOMOH, Uche (Ms.) Legal Practitioner, JB Daudu & Co., Abuja, Nigeria. [email protected]
07. AKPOVETA-NIEMOGHA, M.T. (Dr.) Nigerian Institute of Medical Research, 6 Edmund Crescent, Off Murtala Muhammed Way, PMB 2013, Yaba, Lagos, Nigeria [email protected]
08. ALABI, Abraham (Dr.) Medical Research Laboratory, Banjul, Gambia [email protected]
09. ALI, Ahmed Gubio (Mr.) Department of Health Planning & Statistics, Federal Ministry of Health, Shehu Shagari Way, Abuja, Nigeria. [email protected]
10. ALUBO, Ogoh (Professor) Department of Sociology, University of Jos, Jos, Nigeria. [email protected]
11. ARINZE-ONYIA, Susan (Dr.) Faculty of Science, Enugu State University of Science & Technology, Enugu, Nigeria [email protected]
12. BABALOLA, Chinedum (Dr.) IMRAI, College of Medicine, University of Ibadan, Ibadan, Nigeria. [email protected]
13. DJOKAM, Tamo R.R. (Dr.) University of Yaoundé I, Cameroon [email protected]
14. EDICHA, Jibril Abdullahi (Mr.) Department of Geography, University of Abuja, Abuja, Nigeria. [email protected]
15. EGUAEVON, Agatha N. T. (Dr.) Department of Sociology, Ambrose Alli University, Ekpoma, Nigeria. [email protected]
16. EKWUNIFE, C.C. (Dr.) Nnamdi Azikiwe University, Awka, Nigeria [email protected]
17. ERINOSHO, Layi (Professor) Department of Sociology Olabisi Onabanjo University Ago-Iwoye, Ogun State, Nigeria [email protected] or [email protected]
18. EWOIGBOKHAN, Stalin (Mr.) COMPASS, 35 George Sowemimo Street, Abuja, Nigeria [email protected] or [email protected]
19. FADEYI, O. (Dr.) Department of Sociology, Lagos State University, Ojo, Lagos, Nigeria [email protected]
20. FAKEYE, Tolu (Dr.) Department of Planning, Research & Statistics, Federal Ministry of Health, Shehu Shagari Way, Abuja, Nigeria [email protected]
21. IGUN, Uvie A. (Professor)\
Department of Sociology, Delta State University, Abraka, Delta State, Nigeria\
[email protected]
22. IVHARUE, John Ogie (Mr.)\
Department of Sociology, Post Graduate School, University of Abuja, Abuja, Nigeria.\
[email protected]
23. JEGEDE, Ayodele Samuel (Dr.)\
Department of Sociology, University of Ibadan, Ibadan, Nigeria\
[email protected]
24. JESANI, Amar (Dr.)\
Trustee Anusandhan Trust, Sai Ashray, Aaram Society Road, Vakola, Santacruz, East, Mumbai, 400055, India\
[email protected]
25. MAFE, Margaret (Dr.)\
Department of Planning, Research & Statistics, Federal Ministry of Health, Shehu Shagari Way, Abuja, Nigeria\
[email protected]
26. MAMMAN, Aisha Indo (Dr.)\
Department of Haematology, Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria, Nigeria\
[email protected]
27. NKWI, Paul (Professor)\
Centre for Training and Research, BP 1862, Yaoundé, Cameroon.\
[email protected]
28. NNODU, O.E. (Dr.)\
Department of Haematology, College of Medicine, University of Abuja, Abuja, Nigeria\
[email protected]
29. NWOKE, Bertram E. B. (Professor)\
Department of Parasitology, Imo State University, Owerri, Nigeria\
[email protected]
30. NYANDAITI, Yakub (Dr.)\
Department of Medicine, University of Maiduguri, Maiduguri, Nigeria\
[email protected]
31. ODEKUNLE, Femi (Professor)\
Department of Sociology, University of Abuja, Abuja, Nigeria\
[email protected]
32. ODUNUGA, Segun (Professor)\
Faculty of Arts, Olabisi Onabanjo University, Ago-Iwoye, Ogun State, Nigeria\
[email protected]
33. OGUNJUYIGBE, P.O. (Dr.)\
Department of Demography & Statistics, Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife, Nigeria\
[email protected]
34. OKUMAGBA, Mamodesan T. (Dr.)\
Department of Preventive/Community Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, College of Health Sciences,\
Delta State University, Abraka, Delta State, Nigeria.\
[email protected]
35. OLURODE, Lai (Professor)\
Department of Sociology, University of Lagos, Yaba, Lagos, Nigeria\
[email protected]
36. OWUMI, B.E. (Dr.)\
Department of Sociology, University of Ibadan, Ibadan, Nigeria\
[email protected]
37. PETU, Amos (Dr.)\
World Health Organization, UN House, Abuja, Nigeria.\
[email protected]
38. SAXENA, Abha (Dr.)\
World Health Organization, Section on Review of Protocols, Geneva, Switzerland\
[email protected]
39. SCHMIDT, H (Dr.)\
Nuffield Bioethics Council, 28 Bedford Road, London, UK\
[email protected]
40. SOMMERFELD, Johannes (Dr.)\
Manager/Social Scientist, TDR/WHO, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland\
[email protected]
41. TAIWO, Abigail O. (Dr.)\
Department of Psychology, University of Ibadan, Ibadan, Nigeria\
[email protected]
42. TINUOLA, Femi (Dr.)\
Department of Sociology, Kogi State University, Anyigba, Kogi State, Nigeria.\
[email protected]
43. UZUEGBUNAM, Anthonia (Dr.) School of General Studies, University of Nigeria, Nsukka, Nigeria. [email protected]
44. YAKUBU, Aminu Adamu (Mr.) Department of Health Planning & Research Federal Ministry of Health, Shehu Shagari Way, Abuja, Nigeria. [email protected]
Secretariat
45. AMASSEY, Grace (Mrs.) Social Science Academy of Nigeria, Flat 99, Crescent 12, Kado Housing Estate, Abuja, Nigeria [email protected]
46. AUDU, Hannah (Ms.) Social Science Academy of Nigeria, Flat 99, Crescent 12, Kado Housing Estate, Abuja, Nigeria [email protected]
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/2526-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 79,
"total-input-tokens": 181920,
"total-output-tokens": 47900,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
79,
1
],
[
79,
486,
2
],
[
486,
486,
3
],
[
486,
2492,
4
],
[
2492,
5772,
5
],
[
5772,
8442,
6
],
[
8442,
11833,
7
],
[
11833,
14739,
8
],
[
14739,
17843,
9
],
[
17843,
21245,
10
],
[
21245,
25009,
11
],
[
25009,
28508,
12
],
[
28508,
31846,
13
],
[
31846,
35042,
14
],
[
35042,
38291,
15
],
[
38291,
42519,
16
],
[
42519,
46357,
17
],
[
46357,
50550,
18
],
[
50550,
54820,
19
],
[
54820,
58939,
20
],
[
58939,
63215,
21
],
[
63215,
66448,
22
],
[
66448,
69506,
23
],
[
69506,
72234,
24
],
[
72234,
75647,
25
],
[
75647,
79047,
26
],
[
79047,
83079,
27
],
[
83079,
85254,
28
],
[
85254,
88078,
29
],
[
88078,
91647,
30
],
[
91647,
94983,
31
],
[
94983,
98168,
32
],
[
98168,
101154,
33
],
[
101154,
101694,
34
],
[
101694,
104144,
35
],
[
104144,
107627,
36
],
[
107627,
111350,
37
],
[
111350,
114777,
38
],
[
114777,
117430,
39
],
[
117430,
117908,
40
],
[
117908,
121017,
41
],
[
121017,
124221,
42
],
[
124221,
127488,
43
],
[
127488,
129120,
44
],
[
129120,
132171,
45
],
[
132171,
135361,
46
],
[
135361,
138751,
47
],
[
138751,
142498,
48
],
[
142498,
145662,
49
],
[
145662,
146477,
50
],
[
146477,
147671,
51
],
[
147671,
148035,
52
],
[
148035,
150992,
53
],
[
150992,
154423,
54
],
[
154423,
157630,
55
],
[
157630,
158848,
56
],
[
158848,
162025,
57
],
[
162025,
165528,
58
],
[
165528,
168987,
59
],
[
168987,
172741,
60
],
[
172741,
176373,
61
],
[
176373,
177760,
62
],
[
177760,
180936,
63
],
[
180936,
183883,
64
],
[
183883,
186555,
65
],
[
186555,
189359,
66
],
[
189359,
192946,
67
],
[
192946,
196491,
68
],
[
196491,
199284,
69
],
[
199284,
200229,
70
],
[
200229,
203414,
71
],
[
203414,
206855,
72
],
[
206855,
210032,
73
],
[
210032,
210631,
74
],
[
210631,
211953,
75
],
[
211953,
213238,
76
],
[
213238,
214682,
77
],
[
214682,
216116,
78
],
[
216116,
216711,
79
]
]
} |
89774373392fbecbd0f46b285f75e2bc9f54f715 | EU Exit: Update
For further information [email protected] or [email protected]
1. Summary
1.1 This paper updates the Board on the FSA’s preparations for EU exit and outlines how we plan to deliver, through a managed programme of work, the next phase of exit activity and responding to the challenges and opportunities of the post-exit environment, as it affects the FSA’s statutory remit.
2. Introduction
2.1 In September 2017, the Board discussed the FSA’s approach to planning for EU Exit and agreed the principles against which the FSA should assess whether the future regulatory regime for food safety will meet the FSA’s statutory objective of protecting public health and consumers’ other interests in relation to food. As set out in the September 2017 Board paper, the current regulatory regime for achieving food safety within the UK relies substantially on the EU framework and so a significant programme of work has been required to prepare the food and feed safety regulatory regime to be as effective as it is now outside of the EU.
2.2 In 2018 and 2019, the Board received several updates on the FSA’s preparation for EU Exit including on the FSA’s post exit approach to incident management and our arrangements for risk analysis.
2.3 In June 2019, the FSA Board’s Business Committee Meeting received a report setting out how each of the main no deal projects within the FSA’s EU Exit Programme had delivered the core outcomes required to ensure that there would be an effective food safety regime in place for the protection of consumers when the UK exits the EU. Work across the FSA has subsequently continued to review, test, pilot and continue the preparations for operating post EU Exit.
2.4 On the 31 January 2020 the UK will exit the EU under the terms set out in the Withdrawal Agreement, this means that the UK will enter into a transition period that will run until the end of December 2020. The FSA is ready to ensure that the high food and feed safety standards consumers enjoy in the UK will be maintained.
3. Strategic Aims
3.1 Leaving the EU doesn’t change our top priority which is to ensure that food remains safe and what it says it is. The high standard of food safety and consumer protection we enjoy in this country will be maintained and the FSA will ensure the regulatory regime remains effective at protecting public health in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Delivering an effective EU Exit programme is a priority aim of the FSA and underpins the FSA’s mission of developing and operating the regulatory system to incentivise the organisations responsible for food production and sale, to create food that can be trusted.
3.2 The FSA Board agreed that the FSA should assess whether the post exit regulatory regime for food safety will meet the FSA’s statutory objective of protecting consumers’ interests in relation to food against the following principles:
- Effectiveness in protecting public health.
- Maintaining confidence in food safety and the regulatory regime.
- Minimising disruption for consumers and industry.
- Alignment with the principles of the FSA’s Regulatory Strategy.
4. Update on The Withdrawal Agreement
4.1 In October 2019, the UK Government and the European Commission reached an agreement at European Council on the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland’s withdrawal from the European Union.
4.2 The Withdrawal Agreement contains provisions for a Transition Period that currently runs from when we exit the EU on 31 January 2020 until the end of December 2020. During this period Union food and feed safety law would continue to apply in the UK. The FSA will continue to have the same statutory objectives that we have now which are to protect public health from risks which may arise in connection with the consumption of food (including risks caused by the way food is produced or supplied), and to protect the interests of consumers in relation to food.
4.3 During (and after) a Transition Period, the FSA will continue to ensure it meets its statutory objective of protecting consumers by ensuring that there is a robust and effective regulatory regime which maintains the safety and authenticity of food, for the benefit of our consumers and our industry. This will include bringing online some of the work that the FSA has delivered to prepare for EU Exit across surveillance, risk analysis, incidents and the compliance regime. We will continue to monitor for new and emerging food and feed safety risks as we do now and advise others on these risks. Finally, we will continue to work closely with our counterparts in FSS, the EU Union, Member States and Third Countries to further the protection of UK Consumers through our work both domestically and internationally.
4.4 The Withdrawal Agreement also includes the Northern Ireland Protocol, which sets out arrangements to address the unique circumstances on the island of Ireland. The Northern Ireland Protocol does not change the FSA’s statutory purpose or role in NI, but it will have consequences for the FSA and how it organises and arranges its work across three countries to ensure an effective food and feed safety regime. To ensure that the future regulatory regime for food safety remains effective for protecting public health in NI, the FSA will be working closely with other Government departments and colleagues in NI as discussions are taken forward around the implementation of the Northern Ireland Protocol.
5. Update on The FSA's EU Exit Preparations
5.1 As reported to the FSA’s Business Committee in June 2019, the FSA had completed the core work required under its EU Exit programme to be ready for EU Exit ahead of the UK’s potential exit dates from the EU in April and October 2019. However, the FSA’s EU Exit work did not stop because it had achieved its core outcomes for EU Exit. The extensions to the UK’s departure date have provided the FSA additional time to review, refine and pilot the creation or enhancement of systems and processes and embed the recruitment of new FSA officials to increase our capacity in key areas. Much of the work that the FSA has undertaken to prepare for previously for a no deal EU exit departure is required under the terms of the Withdrawal Agreement.
5.2 Since the Board was last updated, the FSA has revisited plans based on the new date for EU Exit to ensure that we remain ready. The most recent extension also allowed us time to take forward work not seen as critical for day one delivery but still necessary to ensure that food safety and authenticity are not compromised. In summary:
1. We have continued to work with FSS to refine and embed the UK wide food and feed safety risk analysis mechanism which we have developed. The additional time has been used to refine the detailed operational procedures underpinning the process and adapt ways of working so that it is embedded and functions effectively within the organisation. We have developed a new IT programme for tracking issues through the risk analysis process allowing the FSA to have oversight of all issues in the risk analysis process at any one time. It has also allowed new recruits such as the experts working on the FSA’s three new Scientific Advisory Committee joint expert groups to become familiar with both their new roles and the Governance within which they operate.
2. An effective import/exports regime that provides assurance as to the safety and authenticity of food imports is a key part of our EU Exit programme. During the extension periods the FSA has continued to work with Defra to test development of the UK’s new import control systems for the Import of Animals, Food and Feed System (iPAFFS). It provides traceability of movements, speeds up necessary administrative procedures and facilitates the exchange of information between traders and competent authorities. The FSA has a high dependency on the Defra system due to our remit to protect the public health of consumers in relation to food and feed. The additional time provided by the transition period will allow the FSA to progress its plans for pre-notification of high- risk food and feed through IPAFFS enabling us to have a higher degree of confidence that this could be delivered.
3. FSA Statutory Instruments (SIs) have been laid and made to ensure operability of retained EU law. The programme of no deal Statutory Instruments (SIs) is an example of an area where all necessary work had been completed to ensure the operability of food and feed law on day one, but where additional work will be required due to changes that have subsequently taken effect or will be undertaken during the transition period. Further work may also be needed depending on the outcome of the UK-EU negotiations during the transition period.
4. The FSA has enhanced its capacity and ongoing resilience to respond effectively to food incidents and food crime through delivery of a significantly enhanced National Food Crime Unit, new surveillance systems, increased incident response capacity, a new system for managing food and feed safety alerts, and a stronger relationship management system.
5. **Update on Common Frameworks**
6.1 As part of the UK Government - Devolved Administrations (UKG-DA) Common Frameworks Programme, the FSA has been engaged in the development of three common frameworks:
- Food and feed safety (FSA lead);
- Food compositional standards and labelling¹; and
- Nutrition health claims, composition and labelling.
6.2 The Frameworks have been developed in line with guidance from constitutional teams in UKG and the DAs and strategic oversight of the frameworks programme has been provided by JMC(EN) at Ministerial level. As Frameworks form part of the broader landscape of intergovernmental relations, all frameworks governance structures are informed by the overarching MoU on Devolution.
6.3 The three Frameworks of interest to the FSA are progressing to slightly different critical pathways dependent on the cohort they are part of in the overall Framework Programme. The Nutrition framework is reaching the conclusion of phase 3 and is approaching the point where provisional agreement /endorsement will be sought to the Framework from Health Ministers / JMC(EN); that is why the Board is reviewing this Framework in January. The Food and Feed Safety Framework is on track to conclude phase 3 in late spring of 2020, and the Food compositional standards and labelling Framework is in phase 2 and running to a slower schedule.
¹ Two separate frameworks on food compositional standards and food labelling which are always considered in tandem. 7. **Next Steps – EU Exit Programme**
7.1 The Withdrawal Agreement provides clarity on the arrangements during the transition period during which time the FSA will need to input into the UK Government work on the future relationship with the EU, manage the food and feed safety regulatory regime under the terms set out in the Withdrawal Agreement and prepare for the end of transition period arrangements.
7.2 In light of the changed context in which the FSA is delivering its EU Exit preparations and the stage at which our preparations have reached, a revised EU Exit Programme is being established that will encompass both ongoing development and service delivery across our EU Exit work as we transition from the EU. This will ensure that the EU Exit Programme Board is able to look holistically across the work that the FSA is taking forward to manage delivery of an effective post exit regulatory regime under different scenarios at the end of December 2020 and enable the outcomes of future negotiations to be accounted for in the FSA’s planning.
7.3 The new EU Exit Programme is a different type of programme to the previous programme. Unlike the previous programme which predominantly focused on no deal and consisted of projects building a minimum viable project, the new programme will consist of design, cross cutting and delivery/service workstreams that will have to adapt and respond to changes emanating from other workstreams and external factors. At the end of this programme of work the changes emanating from the programme will become the business as usual of the FSA so the programme must ensure that changes are fully embedded into the wider business.
7.4 The changes that will need to be designed and implemented by FSA’s EU Exit Programme are not yet all known and will not be known for certain until negotiations are complete with the EU. Depending on negotiations, we may need to be prepared for no negotiated outcome having been agreed on the future relationship with the EU by the end of December 2020. The work may also be impacted by any concurrent trade negotiations with other countries. Much of the work that will lead to design changes that impact across the FSA’s work to prepare for the end of the transition period will be driven by the cross-cutting projects (where often the FSA will not be the overall lead).
7.5 In line with previous practice, it is our intention to bring back to the FSA Board the aims, objectives and tests of the new EU Exit Programme. The FSA will continue to report to HMT on the additional ring-fenced funding (£19m in 19/20 and £14.6m in 20/21) that we have for the FSA’s EU Exit programme of work in 19/20 and 20/21.
8. **Conclusions**
8.1 The FSA is ready to maintain the food and feed safety regime and our high-standards of food and feed safety as we exit the EU and will continue to do so by continuously improving and reviewing our arrangements. We are taking forward work to refresh the EU Exit programme in the FSA to ensure an agile approach can be taken to the EU Exit transition period.
8.2 The Board is asked to:
- Note the FSA’s ongoing preparations for EU Exit; and
- Comment on plans for the EU Exit programme.
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/2528-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 6,
"total-input-tokens": 29711,
"total-output-tokens": 3083,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
2392,
1
],
[
2392,
5255,
2
],
[
5255,
8164,
3
],
[
8164,
10658,
4
],
[
10658,
13525,
5
],
[
13525,
13857,
6
]
]
} |
54c65c1667d3c857691cd030f28a6e86a1c368d6 | EU Exit
Report by Rod Ainsworth For further information contact Rod Ainsworth on 07768602495 Email: [email protected]
1. Summary
1.1 The main purpose of this paper is to record to the Business Committee the substantial completion of the FSA’s Programme of work to prepare for the UK’s Exit from the EU. The paper also explains the way in which the various Programme outcomes are being dealt with, in light of the continuing delay to the UK’s EU Exit.
2. Evidence and Discussion
2.1 As the annexed slide illustrates, each of the workstreams within the FSA’s EU Exit Programme had reached a satisfactory conclusion before 29 March 2019 so that had the UK left the EU on that date, the FSA’s overriding objective – ensuring that there would be an effective food safety regime in place for the protection of UK consumers (whatever the terms of the UK’s departure) – had been achieved.
2.2 The Programme Team worked with colleagues across the FSA to ensure that prior to 29 March all of the work preparing for Exit – the creation or enhancement of systems and processes and the recruitment of new FSA officials to increase our capacity in key areas – had been integrated into the ongoing day to day work of the organisation, so that by the time of Exit, our preparations could form part of “business as usual”.
2.3 Having reached that stage, and notwithstanding the continuing delay to the UK’s Exit, the decision was taken that the work of the EU Exit Programme itself was finished. A decision will be taken as to the appropriate way to approach future EU Exit-related work – whether to have a new Programme, or some other approach – in the light of future developments.
2.4 In the meantime, all of the work carried out under the EU Exit Programme, and the Programme outcomes, have been reviewed. They will be treated in one of three ways:
- “Banked”: some outcomes, for example the organisational changes to create separate Science and Policy Directorates, and the development of a full-function Food Crime Unit, are measures the FSA would have wanted to take at some stage in any event and it would make no sense to contemplate “undoing” them. These features of the FSA now form part of the organisation for the future, regardless of the eventual relationship between the UK and the EU; • “Put on the shelf”: some measures – the programme of “no deal” Statutory Instruments (SIs) is an example – are not needed at the moment but might be in future, depending on events in the UK and the outcome of negotiations with the EU. They will be held in readiness in case they are necessary;
• “Keep warm”: some preparations – the best example is the FSA’s emergency response readiness – might need to be re-activated at short notice, again depending on how other matters progress. The FSA must avoid allowing its state of readiness to grow too stale, or knowledge of its processes to dissipate. Although the teams who were involved have been “stood down”, there will be regular checks to ensure that we can escalate our readiness again very rapidly should we need to.
2.5 In addition to the above, work is continuing, at the request of the Cabinet Office, further to develop the UK Framework for Food and Feed Safety, and to respond to requests from other Departments working on various parts of their own EU Exit Preparations. Given ongoing uncertainties we have so far held off commencing any thorough “lessons learned” exercises, (although this will undoubtedly be undertaken in due course) but we have already, within the Executive team, committed to seek to build some of the successful features of the FSA’s approach to EU Exit into our continuing work. We have, over the last two years, learned new ways of working together across the FSA. We are keen not to “unlearn” them.
Rod Ainsworth Director of Strategy, Legal and Governance June 2019 | Imports | Apr – Jun 18 | Jul – Sep 18 | Oct – Dec 18 | Jan – Mar 19 | Day 1 Ready | |---------|--------------|--------------|--------------|--------------|-------------| | Changes to business processes for import controls identified | Pre-Notification (EU high risk products) principles agreed & Govt | Recruitment for additional FSA capacity started | Resource available to ensure parts of FSA to deliver new processes | Start calls for Pre-Notification confirmed by DEFRA | Industry / Officials understand changes required from Day 1 & beyond | Additional FSA imports capacity in place | Systems and processes for MVP in place | Law is ready to encourage import control regime | | Incidents | Solution being for handling food alerts started | Recruitment for additional capacity started | Substitution strategy implemented | Start calls for Pre-Notification confirmed by DEFRA | Solution in place for handling food alerts | Additional FSA incidents capacity in place | Roles and responsibilities clear for incident handling | Law is ready to enable incident response / action | | Legal Consents | Inoperabilities identified | Fitting M’s Drafted (seconds through to Sec) | Consultations started | Parliamentary process started | Consultations complete | Parliamentary process complete | Law is ready to undertake regulatory regime from Day 1 | | Risk Assmt | Day 1 Lab capacity in place | Recruitment for additional FSA capacity started | Additional FSA RA capacity in place | Scientific committees expanded | Risk Communication methods agreed | Risk Assmt Principles in place | Law is ready to undertake RA responsibilities | | Risk Mgmt | XConf agreement to new premises | Ministerial response to new premises | Shadow Regulatory Roles established | Governance for decision making developed | Process for decision making agreed | Resources in place to undertake new responsibilities | FSA Board Agreement to Governance & Process | Food Safety RM Forum Operational (in shadow form) | Law is ready to undertake RA responsibilities | | Surv/Jan Co | Specific case studies agreed | Methods & processes in place | Case studies completed | Successful outcomes operationalized | | Enhance Reg | Discovery complete | Alpha complete | Private Beta Phase | Initial Delivery Agents understand requirements | Enhanced Reg System in use (18/05) | | NFCU | HMIT approved business case | FSA Board Approval | NFCU Recruitment Launch | Senior Management recruited | Middle Management recruited | Staff Trained | Case Management System Live (16 April) | Law ready to allow full range of activity | | Exports | New risks Mark agreed by FSA | INTRINIS consultation with Industry | Plan in place for listing premises with EC | Consultation on health marks complete | Industry / Officials understand requirements | Reprocessed meat stamps issued |
ANNEX
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/2529-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 3,
"total-input-tokens": 7898,
"total-output-tokens": 1513,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
2302,
1
],
[
2302,
3859,
2
],
[
3859,
6698,
3
]
]
} |
47862668c357b1671e5af0f48c5d5cf46fbb9778 | EU passenger and freight licences and SNRPs from 1 January 2021
4 January 2021
Changes to The Railway (Licensing of Railway Undertakings) Regulations 2005 Contents
Foreword 3
Affected legislation 4 The Railways (Licensing of Railway Undertakings) Regulations 2005 4 Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/171 4
Changes from 1 January 2021 5 Railway undertakings and licensing legislation 5 Actions required by railway undertakings 5 Recognition of European operator licences 5 Foreword
On 31 January 2020, the United Kingdom (UK) withdrew from the European Union (EU) and stopped being a Member State. The EU Withdrawal Agreement provides for a transition period ending on 31 December 2020 during which the UK is required to implement EU law. After that date, new EU legislation will not apply in the UK.
This document describes the changes to the licensing regime for passenger and freight railway undertakings and in particular to The Railway (Licensing of Railway Undertakings) Regulation 2005 (hereinafter “the 2005 Regulations”) and associated legislation that are required to ensure that the regime that supports the licensing system for railway undertakings (generally speaking, the operators of train services on the mainline railway) continues to work effectively beyond 1 January 2021.
The domestic regulations making changes to the 2005 Regulations and associated EU legislation are referred to as EU Exit amending regulations. These are:
- The Railway (Licensing of Railway Undertakings) (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.
ORR will amend its licensing guidance on how to apply for operator licences and licence exemptions as soon as possible after 1 January 2021. Until we do so, the relevant aspects of the guidance should be considered in conjunction with this document.
More detailed information on the effect of the EU exit amending regulations on railway regulations is contained in guidance Rail transport from 1 January 2021, issued by the Department for Transport.
This guidance reflects significant elements of the legislation that infrastructure managers, railway undertakings and service providers need to be aware of. However, it does not seek to cover every aspect of the legislation. It is the responsibility of individual businesses to ensure that they are compliant with the law. We advise businesses to refer to the EU Exit amending regulations as the primary source of information, as this document is not intended to cover every amendment to legislation. Affected legislation
The Railways (Licensing of Railway Undertakings) Regulations 2005
1. The Railways (Licensing of Railway Undertakings) Regulations 2005 (“the 2005 Regulations”) define the regime for licensing the operators of passenger and freight trains on the mainline railway in Great Britain.
2. The 2005 Regulations are domestic law, which will continue to have effect in Great Britain, subject to amendments made by the EU Exit amending regulations to prevent, remedy or mitigate any deficiencies arising as a result of the withdrawal of the UK from the EU.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/171
3. This Implementing Regulation relates to certain aspects to the procedure of licensing railway undertakings. This includes the requirement for a common licence template, aspects pertaining to information requirements on civil liability or insurance cover, and certain aspects of the procedure for granting a licence. The Implementing Regulation will cease to have effect in the UK from 1 January 2021. Changes from 1 January 2021
Railway undertakings and licensing legislation
4. There are no substantive changes to the scope of requirements on railway undertakings when applying for or holding an operating licence. After 1 January 2021, each passenger and freight railway undertaking will still be required to have a licence in order to operate trains on the mainline railway.
5. There are minor changes to the format of new licences issued to railway undertakings (and the corresponding application form) to reflect that these are now UK documents rather than EU documents.
Actions required by railway undertakings
6. No action is necessary for holders of European licences and their associated statements of national regulatory provisions (“SNRPs”) issued by ORR. They will continue to be valid for operations in Great Britain and holders are not required to reapply.
7. However, current European licences and SNRPs issued by ORR will no longer be valid for train operations in the EU. Any railway undertakings that rely on such documents will need to replace them with the new licences issued by an EU licensing authority if they wish to operate in the EU after 1 January 2021.
Please Note this guidance does not relate to Northern Ireland – owners of licences issued by the Department for Infrastructure should seek information from the relevant authority in Northern Ireland.
8. Applicants of new, updated or renewed railway undertaking licences after 1 January 2021 will need to ensure their applications refer to and comply with the domestic legislation in force at the time.
Recognition of European operator licences
09. European licences issued by a licensing authority in the EU (not by ORR), will remain valid in Great Britain until 31 January 2022. After this date, holders of EU-issued licences will need to apply to ORR for the necessary licence to operate in Great Britain.
10. It is the responsibility of the licence/SNRP holder to ensure they hold the necessary documentation to comply with the relevant legislation.
11. For further information on licences for Channel Tunnel rail operators, please see DfT guidance Rail transport from 1 January 2021.
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/2530-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 6,
"total-input-tokens": 8842,
"total-output-tokens": 1469,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
157,
1
],
[
157,
503,
2
],
[
503,
2529,
3
],
[
2529,
3555,
4
],
[
3555,
5453,
5
],
[
5453,
5733,
6
]
]
} |
5b68505aeda53d76959355dac228d39704d18667 | COMMISSION DECISION of 13 December 2006
establishing a mechanism for cooperation and verification of progress in Romania to address specific benchmarks in the areas of judicial reform and the fight against corruption
(notified under document number C(2006) 6569)
(2006/928/EC)
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty on European Union,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to the Treaty of Accession of the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania, and in particular Article 4(3) thereof,
Having regard to the Act of Accession of the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania, and in particular Articles 37 and 38 thereof,
Having regard to the opinions expressed by the Member States,
Whereas:
(1) The European Union is founded on the rule of law, a principle common to all Member States.
(2) The area of freedom, security and justice and the internal market, created by the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty establishing the European Community, are based on the mutual confidence that the administrative and judicial decisions and practices of all Member States fully respect the rule of law.
(3) This implies for all Member States the existence of an impartial, independent and effective judicial and administrative system properly equipped, inter alia, to fight corruption.
(4) On 1 January 2007, Romania will become a Member of the European Union. The Commission, whilst noting the considerable efforts to complete Romania’s preparations for membership, has identified remaining issues in its Report of 26 September 2006, in particular in the accountability and efficiency of the judicial system and law enforcement bodies, where further progress is still necessary to ensure their capacity to implement and apply the measures adopted to establish the internal market and the area of freedom, security and justice.
(5) Article 37 of the Act of Accession empowers the Commission to take appropriate measures in case of imminent risk that Romania would cause a breach in the functioning of the internal market by a failure to implement the commitments it has undertaken. Article 38 of the Act of Accession empowers the Commission to take appropriate measures in case of imminent risk of serious shortcomings in Romania in the transposition, state of implementation, or application of acts adopted under Title VI of the EU Treaty and of acts adopted under Title IV of the EC Treaty.
(6) The remaining issues in the accountability and efficiency of the judicial system and law enforcement bodies warrant the establishment of a mechanism for cooperation and verification of the progress of Romania to address specific benchmarks in the areas of judicial reform and the fight against corruption.
(7) If Romania should fail to address the benchmarks adequately, the Commission may apply safeguard measures based on Articles 37 and 38 of the Act of Accession, including the suspension of Member States’ obligation to recognise and execute, under the conditions laid down in Community law, Romanian judgments and judicial decisions, such as European arrest warrants.
(8) This Decision does not preclude the adoption of safeguard measures at any time on the basis of Articles 36 to 38 of the Act of Accession, if the conditions for such measures are fulfilled.
(9) The present Decision should be amended if the Commission’s assessment points at a need to adjust the benchmarks. The present Decision should be repealed when all the benchmarks have been satisfactorily fulfilled, HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Article 1
Romania shall, by 31 March of each year, and for the first time by 31 March 2007, report to the Commission on the progress made in addressing each of the benchmarks provided for in the Annex.
The Commission may, at any time, provide technical assistance through different activities or gather and exchange information on the benchmarks. In addition, the Commission may, at any time, organise expert missions to Romania for this purpose. The Romanian authorities shall give the necessary support in this context.
Article 2
The Commission will communicate to the European Parliament and the Council its own comments and findings on Romania’s report for the first time in June 2007.
The Commission will report again thereafter as and when required and at least every six months.
Article 3
This Decision shall enter into force only subject to and on the date of the entry into force of the Treaty of Accession.
Article 4
This Decision is addressed to all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 13 December 2006.
For the Commission
Olli REHN
Member of the Commission
ANNEX
Benchmarks to be addressed by Romania, referred to in Article 1:
1. Ensure a more transparent, and efficient judicial process notably by enhancing the capacity and accountability of the Superior Council of Magistracy. Report and monitor the impact of the new civil and penal procedures codes.
2. Establish, as foreseen, an integrity agency with responsibilities for verifying assets, incompatibilities and potential conflicts of interest, and for issuing mandatory decisions on the basis of which dissuasive sanctions can be taken.
3. Building on progress already made, continue to conduct professional, non-partisan investigations into allegations of high-level corruption.
4. Take further measures to prevent and fight against corruption, in particular within the local government.
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/2531-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 2,
"total-input-tokens": 4278,
"total-output-tokens": 1228,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
3554,
1
],
[
3554,
5456,
2
]
]
} |
dc4a839878fedc73c82c77b328ce76d9a23c358f | COMMISSION DIRECTIVE 2005/79/EC of 18 November 2005 amending Directive 2002/72/EC relating to plastic materials and articles intended to come into contact with food (Text with EEA relevance)
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Regulation (EC) No 1935/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 October 2004 on materials and articles intended to come into contact with food and repealing Directives 80/590/EEC and 89/109/EEC (1), and in particular Article 5(2) thereof,
After consulting the European Food Safety Authority,
Whereas:
(1) Commission Directive 2002/72/EC (2) establishes a list of monomers and other starting substances, which may be used for the manufacture of plastic materials and articles. On the basis of new information related to the risk assessment of such substances, certain monomers provisionally admitted at national level as well as new monomers should be included in the Community list of permitted substances in that Directive.
(2) Directive 2002/72/EC also contains an incomplete list of additives which may be used in the manufacture of plastic materials and articles. That list should be amended so as to include other additives evaluated by the European Food Safety Authority (the Authority).
(3) For certain substances, the restrictions already established at Community level should be amended on the basis of the new information available. In particular for epoxidised soybean oil (ESBO) the Authority recommended to decrease its specific migration limit (SML) for PVC gaskets containing that substance which are used to seal glass jars containing infant formulae and follow-on formulae or containing processed cereal-based foods and baby foods for infants and young children. In fact the Authority noted that the exposure of infants who regularly eat such foods may exceed the TDI. Therefore the SML for ESBO is decreased for these particular applications from 60 to 30 mg/kg of food or food simulant while it remains unchanged for all other applications.
(4) A transitional period should be provided for in respect of PVC gaskets containing epoxidised soybean oil, used to seal glass jars, which are brought into contact with food before the 19 November 2006.
(5) Directive 2002/72/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.
(6) The measures provided for in this Directive are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:
Article 1
Annexes II, III, V and VI of Directive 2002/72/EC are amended in accordance with Annexes I to IV to this Directive.
Article 2
PVC gaskets containing epoxidised soybean oil, with reference number 88640 in section A of Annex III to Directive 2002/72/EC, which are used to seal glass jars containing infant formulae and follow-on formulae as defined by Commission Directive 91/321/EEC (3) or containing processed cereal-based foods and baby foods for infants and young children as defined by Commission Directive 96/5/EC (4), filled before 19 November 2006 and which comply with the restrictions and/or specifications provided for in Section A of Annex III to Directive 2002/72/EC as amended by Directive 2004/19/EC, may continue to be placed on the market provided that the date of filling appears on the materials and articles.
The date of filling may be replaced by another indication, provided that that indication permits the identification of the date of filling. Upon request the date of filling shall be made available to the competent authorities and any person enforcing the requirements of this Directive.
The first and second subparagraphs shall apply without prejudice to Directive 2000/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (5).
(1) OJ L 338, 13.11.2004, p. 4. (2) OJ L 220, 15.8.2002, p. 18. Directive as last amended by Directive 2004/19/EC (OJ L 71, 10.3.2004, p. 8). (3) OJ L 175, 4.7.1991, p. 35. Directive as last amended by Directive 2003/14/EC (OJ L 41, 14.2.2003, p. 37). (4) OJ L 49, 28.2.1996, p. 17. Directive as last amended by Directive 2003/13/EC (OJ L 41, 14.2.2003, p. 33). (5) OJ L 109, 6.5.2000, p. 29. Directive as last amended by Directive 2003/89/EC (OJ L 308, 25.11.2003, p. 13). Article 3
1. Member States shall adopt and publish, by 19 November 2006 at the latest, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive. They shall forthwith communicate to the Commission the text of those provisions and a correlation table between those provisions and this Directive.
They shall apply those provisions in such a way as to:
(a) permit the trade in and use of plastic materials and articles intended to come into contact with food and complying with this Directive, from 19 November 2006;
(b) prohibit the manufacture and importation into the Community of plastic materials and articles intended to come into contact with food and which do not comply with this Directive, from 19 November 2007.
When Member States adopt those provisions, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication. Member States shall determine how such reference is to be made.
2. Member States shall communicate to the Commission the text of the main provisions of national law which they adopt in the field covered by this Directive.
Article 4
This Directive shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.
Article 5
This Directive is addressed to the Member States.
Done at Brussels, 18 November 2005.
For the Commission Markos KYPRIANOU Member of the Commission ANNEX I
Annex II to Directive 2002/72/EC is amended as follows:
1. point 2 of the general introduction is replaced by the following:
2. The following substances are not included even if they are intentionally used and are authorised:
(a) salts (including double salts and acid salts) of aluminium, ammonium, calcium, iron, magnesium, potassium and sodium of authorised acids, phenols or alcohols. However, names containing “… acid(s), salts” appear in the lists, if the corresponding free acid(s) is (are) not mentioned;
(b) salts (including double salts and acid salts) of zinc of authorised acids, phenols or alcohols. For these salts a Group SML = 23 mg/kg (expressed as Zn) apply. The same restriction for Zn applies to:
(i) substances whose name contains “… acid(s), salts” which appear in the lists, if the corresponding free acid(s) is (are) not mentioned,
(ii) substances referred to in note 38 of Annex VI;
2. section A is amended as follows:
(a) the following lines are inserted in the table in numerical order:
| Reference No | CAS No | Name | Restrictions and/or specifications | |--------------|--------------|-------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------| | 11005 | 012542-30-2 | Acrylic acid, dicyclopentenyl ester | QMA = 0,05 mg/6 dm² | | 11500 | 000103-11-7 | Acrylic acid, 2-ethylhexyl ester | SML = 0,05 mg/kg | | 12786 | 000919-30-2 | 3-Aminopropyltriethoxysilane | Residual extractable content of 3-aminopropyltriethoxysilane to be less than 3 mg/kg filler. To be used only for the reactive surface treatment of inorganic fillers | | 13317 | 132459-54-2 | N,N′-Bis[4-(ethoxycarbonyl)-phenyl]-1,4,5,8-naphthalenetetra-carboxydiimide | SML = 0,05 mg/kg. Purity > 98,1 % (w/w). To be used only as co-monomer (max 4 %) for polyesters (PET, PBT) | | 14260 | 000502-44-3 | Caprolactone | SML = 0,05 mg/kg (expressed as the sum of caprolactone and 6-hydroxyhexanoic acid) | | 16955 | 000096-49-1 | Ethylene carbonate | Residual content = 5 mg/kg of hydrogel at a maximum ratio of 10 g of hydrogel to 1 kg of food. The hydrolysate contains ethyleneglycol having an SML = 30 mg/kg | | 21370 | 010595-80-9 | Methacrylic acid, 2-sulphoethyl ester | QMA = ND (DL = 0,02 mg/6 dm²) | | 22210 | 000098-83-9 | alpha-Methylstyrene | SML = 0,05 mg/kg | | 22932 | 001187-93-5 | Perfluoromethyl perfluorovinyl ether | SML = 0,05 mg/kg. Only to be used for anti-stick coatings | | 24903 | 068425-17-2 | Syrups, hydrolysed starch, hydrogenated | In compliance with the specifications laid down in Annex V | | 25540 | 000528-44-9 | Trimellitic acid | SML(T) = 5 mg/kg (T³) | | 25550 | 000552-30-7 | Trimellitic anhydride | SML(T) = 5 mg/kg (T³) (expressed as trimellitic acid) | (b) in the following lines the content of the columns 'CAS No' or 'Restrictions and/or specifications' is replaced by the following:
| Reference No | CAS No | Name | Restrictions and/or specifications | |--------------|------------|-------------------------------------------|------------------------------------| | (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | | '10690 | 000079-10-7| Acrylic acid | SML(T) = 6 mg/kg (36) | | 10750 | 002495-35-4| Acrylic acid, benzyl ester | SML(T) = 6 mg/kg (36) | | 10780 | 000141-32-2| Acrylic acid, n-butyl ester | SML(T) = 6 mg/kg (36) | | 10810 | 002998-08-5| Acrylic acid, sec-butyl ester | SML(T) = 6 mg/kg (36) | | 10840 | 001663-39-4| Acrylic acid, tert-butyl ester | SML(T) = 6 mg/kg (36) | | 11470 | 000140-88-5| Acrylic acid, ethyl ester | SML(T) = 6 mg/kg (36) | | 11590 | 000106-63-8| Acrylic acid, isobutyl ester | SML(T) = 6 mg/kg (36) | | 11680 | 000689-12-3| Acrylic acid, isopropyl ester | SML(T) = 6 mg/kg (36) | | 11710 | 000096-33-3| Acrylic acid, methyl ester | SML(T) = 6 mg/kg (36) | | 11830 | 000818-61-1| Acrylic acid, monoester with ethyleneglycol| SML(T) = 6 mg/kg (36) | | 11890 | 002499-59-4| Acrylic acid, n-octyl ester | SML(T) = 6 mg/kg (36) | | 11980 | 000925-60-0| Acrylic acid, propyl ester | SML(T) = 6 mg/kg (36) | | 13720 | 000110-63-4| 1,4-Butanediol | SML(T) = 5 mg/kg (36) | | 20020 | 000079-41-4| Methacrylic acid | SML(T) = 6 mg/kg (37) | | 20080 | 002495-37-6| Methacrylic acid, benzyl ester | SML(T) = 6 mg/kg (37) | | 20110 | 000097-88-1| Methacrylic acid, butyl ester | SML(T) = 6 mg/kg (37) | | 20140 | 002998-18-7| Methacrylic acid, sec-butyl ester | SML(T) = 6 mg/kg (37) | | 20170 | 000585-07-9| Methacrylic acid, tert-butyl ester | SML(T) = 6 mg/kg (37) | | 20890 | 000097-63-2| Methacrylic acid, ethyl ester | SML(T) = 6 mg/kg (37) | | 21010 | 000097-86-9| Methacrylic acid, isobutyl ester | SML(T) = 6 mg/kg (37) | | 21100 | 004655-34-9| Methacrylic acid, isopropyl ester | SML(T) = 6 mg/kg (37) | | 21130 | 000080-62-6| Methacrylic acid, methyl ester | SML(T) = 6 mg/kg (37) | | 21190 | 000868-77-9| Methacrylic acid, monoester with ethyleneglycol| SML(T) = 6 mg/kg (37) | | 21280 | 002177-70-0| Methacrylic acid, phenyl ester | SML(T) = 6 mg/kg (37) | | 21340 | 002210-28-8| Methacrylic acid, propyl ester | SML(T) = 6 mg/kg (37) | | 21460 | 000760-93-0| Methacrylic anhydride | SML(T) = 6 mg/kg (37) | | 24190 | 008050-09-7| Rosin wood | See “Rosin” (Reference No 24100) | (c) the following line is deleted:
| Reference No | CAS No | Name | Restrictions and/or specifications | |--------------|--------------|-------------------------------------------|------------------------------------| | 11000 | 050976-02-8 | Acrylic acid, dicyclopentadienyl ester | QMA = 0.05 mg/6 dm² |
3. in section B the following lines are deleted:
| Reference No | CAS No | Name | Restrictions and/or specifications | |--------------|--------------|-------------------------------------------|------------------------------------| | 11500 | 000103-11-7 | Acrylic acid, 2-ethylhexyl ester | | | 14260 | 000502-44-3 | Caprolactone | | | 21370 | 010595-80-9 | Methacrylic acid, 2-sulphoethyl ester | | | 22210 | 000098-83-9 | alpha-Methylstyrene | | | 25540 | 000528-44-9 | Trimellitic acid | QM(T) = 5 mg/kg in FP | | 25550 | 000552-30-7 | Trimellitic anhydride | QM(T) = 5 mg/kg in FP (expressed as trimellitic acid) | ANNEX II
Annex III to Directive 2002/72/EC is amended as follows:
1. point 2 is replaced by the following:
‘2. The following substances are not included even if they are intentionally used and are authorised:
(a) salts (including double salts and acid salts) of aluminium, ammonium, calcium, iron, magnesium, potassium and sodium of authorised acids, phenols or alcohols. However, names containing ‘... acid(s), salts’ appear in the lists, if the corresponding free acid(s) is (are) not mentioned;
(b) salts (including double salts and acid salts) of zinc of authorised acids, phenols or alcohols. For these salts a Group SML = 25 mg/kg (expressed as Zn) apply. The same restriction for Zn applies to:
(i) substances whose name contains ‘... acid(s), salts’ which appear in the lists, if the corresponding free acid(s) is (are) not mentioned,
(ii) substances referred to in note 38 of Annex VI;
2. section A is amended as follows:
(a) the following lines are inserted in numerical order:
| Reference No | CAS No | Name | Restrictions and/or specifications | |--------------|--------|------|-----------------------------------| | 30340 | 330198-91-9 | 12-(Acetoxy)stearic acid, 2,3-bis (acetoxy)propyl ester | | | 30401 | — | Acetylated mono- and diglycerides of fatty acids | | | 31542 | 174254-23-0 | Acrylic acid, methyl ester, telomer with 1-dodecanethiol, C\_{16-18} alkyl esters | QM = 0,5 % (w/w) in FP | | 43480 | 064365-11-3 | Charcoal, activated | In compliance with the specifications laid down in Annex V, Part B | | 62245 | 012751-22-3 | Iron phosphate | For PET polymers and copolymers only | | 64990 | 025736-61-2 | Maleic anhydride-styrene, copolymer, sodium salt | In compliance with specifications laid down in Annex V | | 66905 | 000872-50-4 | N-Methylpyrrolidone | | | 66930 | 068554-70-1 | Methylsilsesquioxane | Residual monomer in methylsilsesquioxane: < 1 mg methyltrimethoxysilane/kg of methylsilsesquioxane | | 67155 | — | Mixture of 4-(2-Benzoxazolyl)-4’-(5-methyl-2-benzoxazolyl)stilbene, 4,4’-bis(2-benzoxazolyl) stilbene and 4,4’-bis(5-methyl-2-benzoxazolyl)stilbene | Not more than 0,05 % w/w (quantity of substance used/quantity of the formulation). In compliance with the specifications laid down in Annex V | | 76415 | 019455-79-9 | Pimelic acid, calcium salt | | | Reference No | CAS No | Name | Restrictions and/or specifications | |--------------|--------|------|-----------------------------------| | 76815 | — | Polyester of adipic acid with glycerol or pentaerythritol, esters with even numbered, unbranched C\_{12}-C\_{22} fatty acids | In compliance with the specifications laid down in Annex V | | 76845 | 031831-53-5 | Polyester of 1,4-butanediol with caprolactone | In compliance with the specifications laid down in Annex V | | 77370 | 070142-34-6 | Polyethylene glycol-30 dipolyhydroxystearate | | | 79600 | 009046-01-9 | Polyethylene glycol tridecyl ether phosphate | SML = 5 mg/kg. For materials and articles intended for contact with aqueous foods only. In compliance with the specification laid down in Annex V | | 80000 | 009002-88-4 | Polyethylene wax | | | 81060 | 009003-07-0 | Polypropylene wax | |
(b) in the following lines the content of the columns ‘Name’ and ‘Restrictions and/or specifications’ is replaced by the following:
| Reference No | CAS No | Name | Restrictions and/or specifications | |--------------|--------|------|-----------------------------------| | 30080 | 004180-12-5 | Acetic acid, copper salt | SML(T) = 5 mg/kg ((^7)) (expressed as Copper) | | 35760 | 001309-64-4 | Antimony trioxide | SML = 0.04 mg/kg ((^{39})) (expressed as Antimony) | | 40580 | 000110-63-4 | 1,4-Butanediol | SML(T) = 5 mg/kg ((^{26})) | | 42320 | 007492-68-4 | Carbonic acid, copper salt | SML(T) = 5 mg/kg ((^7)) (expressed as Copper) | | 45195 | 007787-70-4 | Copper bromide | SML(T) = 5 mg/kg ((^7)) (expressed as Copper) | | 45200 | 001335-23-5 | Copper iodide | SML(T) = 5 mg/kg ((^7)) (expressed as Copper) | | 53610 | 054453-03-1 | Ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid, copper salt | SML(T) = 5 mg/kg ((^7)) (expressed as Copper) | | 81515 | 087189-25-1 | Poly(zinc glycerolate) | SML(T) = 25 mg/kg ((^{38})) (as Zinc) | | 81760 | — | Powders, flakes and fibers of brass, bronze, copper, stainless steel, tin and alloys of copper, tin and iron | SML(T) = 5 mg/kg ((^7)) (expressed as Copper) | | 88640 | 008013-07-0 | Soybean oil, epoxidised | SML = 60 mg/kg. However in the case of PVC gaskets used to seal glass jars containing infant formulae and follow-on formulae as defined by Commission Directive 91/321/EEC or containing processed cereal-based foods and baby foods for infants and young children as defined by Directive 96/5/EC, the SML is lowered to 30 mg/kg | | 89200 | 007617-31-4 | Stearic acid, copper salt | SML(T) = 5 mg/kg ((^7)) (expressed as Copper) | | 92030 | 010124-44-4 | Sulphuric acid, copper salt | SML(T) = 5 mg/kg ((^7)) (expressed as Copper) | | 96190 | 020427-58-1 | Zinc hydroxide | SML(T) = 25 mg/kg ((^{39})) (as Zinc) | | 96240 | 001314-13-2 | Zinc oxide | SML(T) = 25 mg/kg ((^{39})) (as Zinc) | | 96320 | 001314-98-3 | Zinc sulphide | SML(T) = 25 mg/kg ((^{39})) (as Zinc) | 3. section B is amended as follows:
(a) the following lines are inserted in numerical order:
| Reference No | CAS No | Name | Restrictions and/or specifications | |--------------|------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------| | (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | | '31500 | 025134-51-4| Acrylic acid, acrylic acid, 2-ethylhexyl ester, copolymer | SML(T) = 6 mg/kg (16) (expressed as acrylic acid) and SML = 0.05 mg/kg (expressed as acrylic acid, 2-ethylhexyl ester) | | 38505 | 351870-33-2| cis-endo-Bicyclo[2.2.1]heptane-2,3-dicarboxylic acid, disodium salt | SML = 5 mg/kg. Not to be used with polyethylene in contact with acidic foods. Purity ≥ 96 % | | 38940 | 110675-26-8| 2,4-Bis(dodecylthiomethyl)-6-methylphenol | SML(T) = 5 mg/kg (16) | | 49595 | 057583-35-4| Dimethyltin bis(ethylhexyl mercaptoacetate) | SML(T) = 0.18 mg/kg (16) (expressed as Tin) | | 63940 | 008062-15-5| Lignosulphonic acid | SML = 0.24 mg/kg and to be used only as dispersant for plastics dispersions | | 66350 | 085209-93-4| 2,2'-Methylenebis(4,6-di-tert-butylphenyl) lithium phosphate | SML = 5 mg/kg and SML(T) = 0.6 (16) (expressed as Lithium) | | 67515 | 057583-34-3| Monomethyltin tris(ethylhexyl mercaptoacetate) | SML(T) = 0.18 mg/kg (16) (expressed as Tin) | | 69160 | 014666-94-5| Oleic acid, cobalt salt | SML(T) = 0.05 mg/kg (16) (expressed as Cobalt) | | 76681 | — | Polycyclopentadiene, hydrogenated | SML = 5 mg/kg (1) | | 85950 | 037296-97-2| Silicic acid, magnesium-sodium-fluoride salt | SML = 0.15 mg/kg (expressed as fluoride). Only to be used in layers of multilayers materials not coming into direct contact with food | | 95265 | 227099-60-7| 1,3,5-Tris(4-benzoylphenyl) benzene | SML = 0.05 mg/kg |
(b) in the following lines the content of the columns ‘Name’ and ‘Restrictions and/or specifications’ is replaced by the following:
| Reference No | CAS No | Name | Restrictions and/or specifications | |--------------|------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------| | (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | | '40020 | 110553-27-0| 2,4-Bis(ocrythiomethyl)-6-methylphenol | SML(T) = 5 mg/kg (16) | | 50160 | — | Di-n-octyltin bis(n-alkyl(C10-C16) mercaptoacetate) | SML(T) = 0.006 mg/kg (17) (expressed as Tin) | | (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | |-----|-----|-----|-----| | 50240 | 010039-33-5 | Di-n-octyltin bis(2-ethylhexyl maleate) | SML(T) = 0.006 mg/kg (17) (expressed as Tin) | | 50320 | 015571-58-1 | Di-n-octyltin bis(2-ethylhexyl mercaptoacetate) | SML(T) = 0.006 mg/kg (17) (expressed as Tin) | | 50360 | — | Di-n-octyltin bis(ethyl maleate) | SML(T) = 0.006 mg/kg (17) (expressed as Tin) | | 50400 | 033568-99-9 | Di-n-octyltin bis(isooctyl maleate) | SML(T) = 0.006 mg/kg (17) (expressed as Tin) | | 50480 | 026401-97-8 | Di-n-octyltin bis(isooctyl mercaptoacetate) | SML(T) = 0.006 mg/kg (17) (expressed as Tin) | | 50560 | — | Di-n-octyltin 1,4-butanediol bis(mercaptoacetate) | SML(T) = 0.006 mg/kg (17) (expressed as Tin) | | 50640 | 003648-18-8 | Di-n-octyltin dilaurate | SML(T) = 0.006 mg/kg (17) (expressed as Tin) | | 50720 | 015571-60-5 | Di-n-octyltin dimaleate | SML(T) = 0.006 mg/kg (17) (expressed as Tin) | | 50800 | — | Di-n-octyltin dimaleate, esterified | SML(T) = 0.006 mg/kg (17) (expressed as Tin) | | 50880 | — | Di-n-octyltin dimaleate, polymers (n = 2-4) | SML(T) = 0.006 mg/kg (17) (expressed as Tin) | | 50960 | 069226-44-4 | Di-n-octyltin ethyleneglycol bis(mercaptoacetate) | SML(T) = 0.006 mg/kg (17) (expressed as Tin) | | 51040 | 015535-79-2 | Di-n-octyltin mercaptoacetate | SML(T) = 0.006 mg/kg (17) (expressed as Tin) | | 51120 | — | Di-n-octyltin thiobenzoate 2-ethylhexyl mercaptoacetate | SML(T) = 0.006 mg/kg (17) (expressed as Tin) | | 67180 | — | Mixture of (50 % w/w) phthalic acid n-decyl n-octyl ester, (25 % w/w) phthalic acid di-n-decyl ester, (25 % w/w) phthalic acid di-n-octyl ester | SML = 5 mg/kg (17) |
(c) The following line is deleted:
| Reference No | CAS No | Name | Restrictions and/or specifications | |--------------|--------|------|-----------------------------------| | 76680 | 068132-00-3 | Polycyclopentadiene, hydrogenated | SML = 5 mg/kg (17) | In Part B of Annex V, the following lines are inserted in numerical order:
| Reference No | OTHER SPECIFICATIONS | |--------------|----------------------| | 24903 | Syrups, hydrolysed starch, hydrogenated\
In compliance with the purity criteria for maltitol syrup E 965(ii) (Commission Directive 95/31/EC (OJ L 178, 28.7.1995, p. 1) as last amended by 2004/46/EC (OJ L 114, 21.04.2004, p. 15)) | | 43480 | Charcoal, activated\
To be used only in PET at maximum 10 mg/kg of polymer. Same purity requirements as for Vegetable Carbon (E 153) set out by Commission Directive 95/45/EC ((OJ L 226, 22.9.1995, p. 1). Directive as last amended by Directive 2004/47/EC (OJ L 113, 20.4.2004, p. 24)) with exception of ash content which can be up to 10 % (w/w). | | 64990 | Maleic anhydride-styrene, copolymer, sodium salt\
MW fraction < 1 000 is less than 0,05 % (w/w) | | 67155 | Mixture of 4-(2-Benzoxazolyl)-4’-(5-methyl-2-benzoxazolyl)stilbene, 4,4’-bis(2-benzoxazolyl) stilbene and 4,4’-bis(5-methyl-2-benzoxazolyl)stilbene\
Mixture obtained from the manufacturing process in the typical ratio of (58-62 %):(23-27 %): (13-17 %). | | 76845 | Polyester of 1,4-butanediol with caprolactone\
MW fraction < 1 000 is less than 0,05 % (w/w) | | 76815 | Polyester of adipic acid with glycerol or pentaerythritol, esters with even numbered, unbranched C12-C22 fatty acids\
MW fraction < 1 000 is less than 5 % (w/w) | | 79600 | Polyethyleneglycol tridecyl ether phosphate\
Polyethyleneglycol (EO ≤ 11) tridecyl ether phosphate (mono-and dialkyl ester) with a maximum 10 % content of polyethyleneglycol (EO ≤ 11) tridecylether | ANNEX IV
Annex VI is amended as follows:
1. the notes (8), (14) and (16) are replaced by the following:
(8) SML(T) in this specific case means that the restriction shall not be exceeded by the sum of the migration levels of the following substances mentioned as Reference Nos 38000, 42400, 64320, 66350, 67896, 73040, 85760, 85840, 85920 and 95725.
(14) SML(T) in this specific case means that the restriction shall not be exceeded by the sum of the migration levels of the following substances mentioned as Reference Nos 44960, 68078, 69160, 82020 and 89170.
(16) SML(T) in this specific case means that the restriction shall not be exceeded by the sum of the migration levels of the following substances mentioned as Reference Nos 49595, 49600, 67520, 67515 and 83599.
2. the following notes are added:
(35) SML(T) in this specific case means that the restriction shall not be exceeded by the sum of the migration levels of the following substances mentioned as Reference Nos 25540 and 25550.
(36) SML(T) in this specific case means that the restriction shall not be exceeded by the sum of the migration levels of the following substances mentioned as Reference Nos 10690, 10750, 10780, 10810, 10840, 11470, 11590, 11680, 11710, 11830, 11890, 11980 and 31500.
(37) SML(T) in this specific case means that the restriction shall not be exceeded by the sum of the migration levels of the following substances mentioned as Reference Nos 20020, 20080, 20110, 20140, 20170, 20890, 21010, 21100, 21130, 21190, 21280, 21340 and 21460.
(38) SML(T) in this specific case means that the restriction shall not be exceeded by the sum of the migration levels of the following substances mentioned as Reference Nos 81515, 96190, 96240 and 96320 as well as of salts (including double salts and acid salts) of zinc of authorised acids, phenols or alcohols. The same restriction for Zn applies to the names containing "… acid(s), salts" which appear in the lists, if the corresponding free acid(s) is (are) not mentioned.
(39) Migration limit might be exceeded at very high temperature.
(40) SML(T) in this specific case means that the restriction shall not be exceeded by the sum of the migration levels of the following substances mentioned as Reference Nos 38940 and 40020.
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/2532-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 11,
"total-input-tokens": 26149,
"total-output-tokens": 10195,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
4296,
1
],
[
4296,
5755,
2
],
[
5755,
8842,
3
],
[
8842,
12312,
4
],
[
12312,
13661,
5
],
[
13661,
16047,
6
],
[
16047,
19101,
7
],
[
19101,
22767,
8
],
[
22767,
24678,
9
],
[
24678,
26349,
10
],
[
26349,
28621,
11
]
]
} |
d8b13228590fe883f8b3fe25fdea3f71edf0ff3e | 2009 European election results for London 2009 European election results for London
For more information please contact:
Gareth Piggott Data Management and Analysis Group Greater London Authority City Hall The Queen’s Walk London SE1 2AA
Tel: 020 7983 4327 e-mail: [email protected]
Copyright © Greater London Authority, 2009 Source of all data: Regional Returning Officers
All maps are © Crown Copyright. All rights reserved. (Greater London Authority) (LA100032379) (2009)
Data can be made available in other formats on request
In some charts in this report colours that are associated with political parties are used. Printing in black and white, can make those charts hard to read.
ISSN 1479-7879
This briefing is printed on at least 70 per cent recycled paper. The paper is suitable for recycling. List of tables, charts and maps
**Turnout**
- Map 1 Turnout 2009, by borough
- Map 2 Change in turnout 2004-2009, by borough
**Result**
- Table 3 Summary of election results 1999-2009, London
- Table 4 Order of winning seats, London 2009
- Figure 5 Shares of votes, 2009, London and UK
- Figure 6 Share of vote for main parties by UK region, 2009
**London voting trends 1999-2009**
- Figure 7 Share of votes for main parties, UK 1999 to 2009
- Figure 8 Share of votes for main parties, London 1999 to 2009
- Figure 9 Total votes for main parties, London 1999 to 2009
**Party performance**
- Map 10 Conservative share 2009, by borough
- Map 11 Change in Conservative share 2004-2009, by borough
- Map 12 Labour share 2009, by borough
- Map 13 Change in Labour share 2004-2009, by borough
- Map 14 Liberal Democrats share 2009, by borough
- Map 15 Change in Liberal Democrats share 2004-2009, by borough
- Map 16 Green Party share 2009, by borough
- Map 17 Change in Green Party share 2004-2009, by borough
- Map 18 UKIP share 2009, by borough
- Map 19 Change in UKIP share 2004-2009, by borough
- Map 20 BNP share 2009, by borough
- Map 21 Change in BNP share 2004-2009, by borough
**Detailed tables**
- Table 22 Share of votes by borough, 2009
- Table 23 Share of votes by borough, 2004
- Table 24 Summary of party votes with share, 2004 and 2009
- Table 25 Summary of party votes, UK and London, 2009
**Appendices**
- Appendix Table A1 Candidates in London
- Appendix Map A2 The London boroughs The 2009 European Election
The European Parliamentary Election took place on 4 June 2009 in the UK. The results were announced on 7 June to coincide with the other results around Europe. Over 15 million UK residents voted in the election, while around 1.75 million Londoners voted. Initial results were published on the Regional Returning Officer’s website, and this briefing gives further detail of the results, and compares them with those from recent European elections.
Voting data for each of the London boroughs and the City are available, though unlike 2004, there is no ward data available. This is simply because in 2004 there were other elections taking place on the same day that required ward data to be collected, but in 2009, when the election was the only one running on that day, there was no reason to collect this data. Indeed, London is a single constituency in this election.
In 2004 London’s representation reduced from ten to nine seats from 1999, and in 2009, it reduced further to eight seats. In England, Scotland and Wales the voting system for the European elections is proportional representation - regional closed list. This means that political parties put forward names of candidates in rank order, the number of candidates being no more than the number of seats allowed for each region. In each region the allocated seats are awarded using a quota system. The quota is the total number of votes received by a party or independent candidate divided by the number of seats already gained in that region plus one. Further details of nominated candidates and parties are listed at the back in Table A1.
Turnout
Turnout for the election in London was 33.5 per cent - just slightly lower than the UK overall (34.7 per cent). The highest turnouts at a regional level were in Northern Ireland (42.8 per cent), South West (39.0 per cent) and the East of England (38.0 per cent), while the lowest were in Scotland (28.6 per cent), Wales (30.5 per cent) and the North East (30.5 per cent).
The London turnout was down on the 2004 figure of 37.6 per cent, but much higher than in 1999 when it was just 23.0 per cent. There were around 134,000 fewer voters from London than 2004 (eight per cent down), though that was expected since the 2009 European election did not take place at the same time as other elections, as it did in 2004.
The highest poll was in Richmond (41.5 per cent), while four other boroughs were over 38 per cent - Harrow, Barnet, Kingston and Merton. The lowest was in Newham (27.3 per cent), followed by Westminster, and Kensington and Chelsea (Map 1).
Kensington and Chelsea (minus eight percentage points), Westminster and Tower Hamlets (both minus seven points) and had the biggest drop in turnout compared with the previous election (Map 2). These boroughs have both diverse and mobile populations, and this could have affected turnout in certain areas. Barking and Dagenham was the only borough to have an increase in turnout, even though the increase was very small (0.1 per cent), while Islington’s poll barely altered. The Conservatives had the highest share of the vote at 27 per cent, and they gained three seats, the same as 2004, though their share increased slightly over the previous election. The only change in seats won, compared with 2004, was by the Labour party who lost a seat (there was no gain to balance this out due to the loss of one seat in the London region) (Table 3). Labour’s share fell in 2009 by 3.5 percentage points to 21 per cent, while the Liberal Democrats’ share fell by two percentage points to 14 per cent. The Green Party share increased again, as it did between 1999 and 2004, though they remain with one seat. UKIP also kept one seat even though their share decreased by 1.5 percentage points.
Table 3 Summary of election results 1999-2009, London
| Party | 2009 Votes | 2009 % | 2009 Seats | 2004 Votes | 2004 % | 2004 Seats | 1999 Votes | 1999 % | 1999 Seats | |------------------------|------------|--------|------------|------------|--------|------------|------------|--------|------------| | Conservative Party | 479,037 | 27.4 | 3 | 32.7 | 4 | | Labour Party | 372,590 | 21.3 | 2 | 35.0 | 4 | | Liberal Democrats | 240,156 | 13.7 | 1 | 11.7 | 1 | | Green Party | 190,589 | 10.9 | 1 | 7.7 | 1 | | UKIP | 188,440 | 10.8 | 1 | 5.4 | 0 | | Others | 280,214 | 16.0 | 0 | 7.5 | 0 | | Total | 1,751,026 | 100 | 8 | 100 | 10 | Table 4 Order of winning seats, London 2009
| Party | Conservative | Labour | Liberal Democrat | Green | UKIP | BNP | CPA | Janan-ayagam | Others | Elected party | Elected candidate | |-------|--------------|--------|------------------|-------|------|-----|-----|--------------|--------|---------------|------------------| | Votes | 479,307 | 372,590| 240,156 | 190,589| 188,440| 86,420| 51,336| 50,014 | 92,446 | Conservative | Charles Tannock (M) | | Elected round 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Conservative | Charles Tannock (M) | | 2 | 239,654 | 372,590 | 240,156 | 190,589 | 188,440 | 86,420 | 51,336 | 50,014 | 92,446 | Labour | Claude Moraes (M) | | Elected round 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Labour | Claude Moraes (M) | | 3 | 239,654 | 186,295 | 240,156 | 190,589 | 188,440 | 86,420 | 51,336 | 50,014 | 92,446 | Liberal Democrat | Sarah Ludford (F) | | Elected round 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Liberal Democrat | Sarah Ludford (F) | | 4 | 239,654 | 186,295 | 120,078 | 190,589 | 188,440 | 86,420 | 51,336 | 50,014 | 92,446 | Conservative | Syed Salah Kamall (M) | | Elected round 4 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Conservative | Syed Salah Kamall (M) | | 5 | 159,769 | 186,295 | 120,078 | 190,589 | 188,440 | 86,420 | 51,336 | 50,014 | 92,446 | Green | Jean Lambert (F) | | Elected round 5 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Green | Jean Lambert (F) | | 6 | 159,769 | 186,295 | 120,078 | 95,295 | 188,440 | 86,420 | 51,336 | 50,014 | 92,446 | UKIP | Gerard Batten (M) | | Elected round 6 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | UKIP | Gerard Batten (M) | | 7 | 159,769 | 186,295 | 120,078 | 95,295 | 94,220 | 86,420 | 51,336 | 50,014 | 92,446 | Labour | Mary Honeyball (F) | | Elected round 7 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Labour | Mary Honeyball (F) | | 8 | 159,769 | 124,197 | 120,078 | 95,295 | 94,220 | 86,420 | 51,336 | 50,014 | 92,446 | Conservative | Marina Yannakoudakis (F) | | Elected round 8 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Conservative | Marina Yannakoudakis (F) |
NB Gender of the candidate shown in brackets after their name The European elections are conducted on the basis of proportional representation within regions using a pure form of the d’Hondt formula (there was no lower limit on the percentage of the vote required to gain seats). Thus the Conservatives won the first seat with the highest overall vote, and their total was then divided by two (1 seat plus 1) for the second round. The first person on the Conservative list, Charles Tannock, was thus elected. All other party votes were divided by one (0 seats plus 1). The Labour Party won the second round and so their vote was divided by two for the third round, and so on. Table 4 traces the whole process.
UK Independence Party (UKIP) was the party with the fewest votes to win a seat (188,440 votes or 11 per cent of share). After UKIP, the British National Party (BNP) had the next highest number of votes (86,420 votes, a five per cent share), though there would have had to have been 16 seats available in London before the BNP would have won a seat in London with this number of votes.
London compared with UK voting
As Figure 5 shows the proportion that voted for either the Conservatives or Liberal Democrats was about the same in London as in the UK as a whole. The Conservatives gained share slightly both in London and the UK, while the Liberal Democrats lost a little in both locations since 2004. The Conservative share was highest in the South East but lowest in Scotland and the North East. The Liberal Democrats were relatively consistent across the regions but were highest in the North East and lowest in Wales.
Figure 5 Shares of votes, 2009, London and UK Labour’s share was almost six percentage points higher in London compared with the UK. Furthermore, Labour’s drop in share in London (three points) was not as marked as that seen in the UK (seven points). Since 1999 Labour have lost over 12 points in the UK as a whole (Figure 7). The Labour share in London was much higher than average, and the North East was the only region to have a higher Labour vote. UKIP achieved six percentage points higher share in the UK as a whole, than London. This placed UKIP second nationally, but in London they placed fifth, and furthermore only Scotland had a lower UKIP share than London. UKIP’s share of the UK vote increased slightly over 2004, whereas in London their share fell by two points. The Greens increased share by about the same amount in London and the UK, though their share in London remained higher than that of the UK, with a gap of just over two points, ranking London second nationally, behind the South East. The BNP polled over six per cent of the vote nationally, compared with five in London, making BNP’s share in London one of the lowest, and the increase over 2004 was greater nationally than in London.
Voting for ‘other’ parties in the UK was much higher than in London, predominantly because of UK votes for the Scottish National Party and Plaid Cymru. However, London ranked third for votes for ‘other’ parties among all UK regions (Figure 6 and Table 25).
**London voting trends 1999-2009**
The Conservatives, the Green Party and BNP all increased their share of the vote between 2004 and 2009 whereas the Labour Party, Liberal Democrats, and UKIP all lost share. Of these major parties, only the Green Party and the BNP were able to increase their actual number of votes, due to the reduction in total votes.
Since 1999, of the parties that ran in all three elections, only the Conservatives and Labour have lost share, though Labour’s loss was far greater at 14 percentage points compared with five for Conservative. The biggest gain since 1999 was for UKIP (five points), which means they have doubled their share, though they lost a little between 2004 and 2009. UKIP also increased their number of votes by more than any other party (127,000), though the Conservatives, Liberal Democrats and Greens all added more than 100,000 votes over the ten-year-period. The only party to lose any votes was Labour (down 27,000 on 1999) The biggest proportional increase has been by the BNP, whose share since 1999 has trebled, but they started from a much lower base. Even so they still increased their total vote by 68,000.
**Figures 8 and 9 Share and total votes for main parties, London 1999 to 2009** In total, 19 parties (including independents) stood for the European election in London in 2009, far more than in 2004 when just ten parties were involved, though only four more than in 1999. Only six parties have stood in all three, and they are shown in Figures 8 and 9.
Notably, the number of votes for the minor parties has increased in each election since 1999. Excluding the three main parties, the share for the other parties was 21 per cent in 1999, which increased to 33 per cent in 2004, and then 38 per cent in 2009. Respect did not stand for election in 2009 but were a relatively significant player in 2004 when they gained five per cent of the vote (Table 24). This makes the increase in votes for minor parties in 2009 all the more noteworthy.
Performance of the parties
Conservatives
The Conservatives polled 27 per cent of the vote in London, up by one percentage point on 2004. Share varied across London from 14 per cent in Barking and Dagenham to 49 per cent in Kensington and Chelsea - a range of 35 points. The share of the vote in Kensington and Chelsea, and Westminster (42 per cent) ranked as the highest two of any party in any borough. In six boroughs the Conservatives polled over 35 per cent of the vote. In thirteen boroughs the share was less than 25 per cent and these tended to be located in central North London, and East London.
The biggest increase in vote share came in Wandsworth (six points), with five other boroughs having at least a four point increase. In eight boroughs there was a drop in share, though only three of these changed by more than two points (Havering, Brent and Sutton) (Maps 10 and 11).
Maps 10 and 11 Conservatives share 2009, and change in share 2004-2009, by borough Maps 12 and 13 Labour share 2009, and change in share 2004–2009, by borough
Maps 14 and 15 Liberal Democrats share 2009, and change in share 2004–2009, by borough Labour
Labour achieved 21 per cent of the vote in London - the second highest share. This ranged from seven per cent in three boroughs (Sutton, Richmond and Kingston) to 41 per cent in Newham - a range of 34 points. The share in Newham was the third highest for any party at borough level. In four boroughs, Labour polled more than 30 per cent of the vote - all in East London. Labour tended to achieve higher shares of the vote in boroughs that had a relatively low turnout.
The biggest increase was in Tower Hamlets, which saw a massive 16 point increase for Labour offset by the same size drop in support for ‘other’ parties - these are the largest changes that occurred at borough level. Much of this will be down to Respect voters from 2004 (when they gained 21 per cent of the vote), moving their support to Labour. Despite there being similar support for Respect in Newham in 2004, by 2009 those voters appear to be far more spread around other parties, though Labour did gain seven points in Newham. Labour lost share in 28 of the 33 boroughs. Labour’s biggest losses were in Kingston, Richmond and Merton (all eight points) (Maps 12 and 13).
Liberal Democrats
The Liberal Democrats vote averaged 14 per cent across London, and ranged from five per cent in Barking and Dagenham to 31 per cent in Richmond - a range of 26 points. Their greatest support came in three boroughs in South West London - Richmond, Kingston and Sutton, all of which polled over 25 per cent. Liberal Democrat share tended to be higher in areas with a high proportion of Green voters.
The Liberal Democrats only increased their share significantly in two boroughs - Richmond and Haringey (both five percentage points). No other borough increased by more than two points. All but eight boroughs had a drop in share with Tower Hamlets (down 6 points) and Bromley (down five points), having the biggest falls (Maps 14 and 15).
Greens
The Green Party polled 11 per cent of the London vote, which ranged from four per cent in Barking and Dagenham to 23 per cent in Hackney - a range of 19 points. The Greens were generally well supported in Inner London, with high shares in Islington, Lambeth and Lewisham. Other than Barking and Dagenham, Green’s poorest support came from Outer London boroughs of Bexley, Havering, Sutton, Hillingdon and Harrow. The Greens vote tended to be highest where UKIP’s share was lowest.
The biggest increase in share came in Hackney (six percentage points), followed by Lewisham (five points). In only one borough did the Greens lose share, albeit only a slight drop - Barking and Dagenham (down 0.4 points) (Maps 16 and 17).
UKIP
Like the Green Party, UKIP also polled 11 per cent in London. This ranged from four per cent in Haringey to 26 per cent if Havering - a range of 21 points. UKIP were also well supported in Bexley, Bromley and Sutton. Areas of high UKIP share tended to have a low Labour share but a high BNP vote.
UKIP lost share in all but two boroughs - Havering (up two points) and Bromley (up one point). Their biggest fall of six points was in Barking and Dagenham, which was twice the drop of the second biggest faller - Merton (three points) (Maps 18 and 19). Maps 16 and 17 Greens share 2009, and change in share 2004-2009, by borough
Maps 18 and 19 UKIP share 2009, and change in share 2004-2009, by borough The BNP polled just under five per cent of the total vote in London, or equivalent to around 86,000 votes. Their share ranged from just two per cent in seven boroughs to 19 per cent in Barking and Dagenham - a range of 17 points. Haringey had the lowest vote in London of the six largest parties covered in this analysis, at just two per cent. BNP tended to have a higher share in areas where UKIP also achieved a high share.
The BNP only lost share in one borough, though that was very slight (down 0.3 points in Enfield). Barking and Dagenham saw the biggest increase (five points), though Bexley and Havering increased only slightly less (Maps 20 and 21).
Other parties
The Christian Party gained almost twice the share in London than that of the UK, giving them a higher share than anywhere else in Britain, and increased their share since 2004. Their leading support came in Newham and Barking and Dagenham (both five per cent).
Independent candidate Jan Jananayagam polled almost three per cent of the vote in London, though she did not stand outside London. Her total number of votes was more than the combined vote for all other independent candidates across the whole of the UK. Jan Jananayagam polled 11 per cent of the vote in Harrow, placing her third in that borough only behind Conservative and Labour. She also achieved at least seven per cent in each of Brent, Merton, Redbridge, Newham and Ealing - boroughs that tend to have a significant Tamil presence. However, she did not reach a one per cent share in 12 boroughs. The English Democrats had a lower share of the vote in London than any other British region at 1.4 per cent, though they managed three per cent share in both Bexley and Havering. They increased their number of votes by over 50 per cent on 2004.
No2EU: Yes to Democracy, gained a one per cent share in London, the same as the UK average. In each of the 33 boroughs, their share was one per cent.
The only remaining party to gain at least ten thousand votes in London was the Socialist Labour Party. Their share of 0.9 per cent was slightly lower than the national average, though they did manage to gain a two per cent share in Hackney.
### Table 22 Share of votes by borough, 2009
| Authority | Conserv- | Labour | Liberal | Greens | UKIP | BNP | Other parties | Total Votes | |----------------------------|----------|--------|---------|--------|------|-----|---------------|-------------| | | Turnout | | | | | | | | | City of London | 34.8 | 32 | 16 | 19 | 15 | 9 | 2 | 7 | 2,095 | | Barking & Dagenham | 30.9 | 14 | 31 | 5 | 4 | 15 | 19 | 12 | 35,701 | | Barnet | 38.3 | 39 | 19 | 11 | 10 | 9 | 3 | 9 | 81,618 | | Bexley | 36.2 | 31 | 14 | 7 | 6 | 21 | 12 | 9 | 61,338 | | Brent | 32.1 | 21 | 27 | 19 | 9 | 6 | 2 | 17 | 58,461 | | Bromley | 37.8 | 38 | 8 | 12 | 10 | 19 | 5 | 8 | 86,839 | | Camden | 34.2 | 22 | 24 | 22 | 17 | 6 | 3 | 7 | 46,870 | | Croydon | 33.6 | 32 | 18 | 10 | 9 | 14 | 5 | 13 | 80,810 | | Ealing | 33.8 | 26 | 26 | 12 | 10 | 8 | 3 | 15 | 72,424 | | Enfield | 33.5 | 31 | 24 | 8 | 9 | 12 | 5 | 11 | 65,085 | | Greenwich | 32.4 | 20 | 26 | 10 | 11 | 13 | 8 | 11 | 50,631 | | Hackney | 31.6 | 15 | 34 | 12 | 23 | 5 | 2 | 10 | 43,715 | | Hammersmith & Fulham | 35.9 | 38 | 20 | 13 | 12 | 7 | 3 | 8 | 40,435 | | Haringey | 32.4 | 15 | 29 | 24 | 17 | 4 | 2 | 9 | 48,959 | | Harrow | 38.5 | 33 | 19 | 10 | 7 | 9 | 3 | 18 | 62,350 | | Havering | 34.9 | 28 | 11 | 6 | 6 | 26 | 14 | 9 | 61,404 | | Hillingdon | 32.9 | 32 | 16 | 9 | 7 | 16 | 8 | 12 | 61,450 | | Hounslow | 30.8 | 28 | 25 | 11 | 9 | 11 | 5 | 11 | 50,354 | | Islington | 32.3 | 15 | 29 | 19 | 20 | 6 | 4 | 7 | 42,452 | | Kensington & Chelsea | 29.3 | 49 | 12 | 12 | 10 | 8 | 2 | 7 | 26,615 | | Kingston upon Thames | 38.1 | 28 | 7 | 28 | 9 | 12 | 3 | 12 | 41,626 | | Lambeth | 30.1 | 18 | 28 | 20 | 18 | 5 | 2 | 9 | 57,600 | | Lewisham | 30.8 | 16 | 26 | 14 | 18 | 9 | 4 | 14 | 53,040 | | Merton | 38.1 | 29 | 20 | 12 | 10 | 10 | 4 | 15 | 49,783 | | Newham | 27.3 | 17 | 41 | 6 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 20 | 47,577 | | Redbridge | 33.6 | 28 | 23 | 9 | 8 | 12 | 5 | 16 | 63,145 | | Richmond upon Thames | 41.7 | 33 | 7 | 31 | 12 | 9 | 3 | 5 | 53,409 | | Southwark | 30.4 | 15 | 28 | 23 | 14 | 7 | 4 | 9 | 53,467 | | Sutton | 36.6 | 27 | 7 | 26 | 6 | 17 | 6 | 11 | 48,875 | | Tower Hamlets | 30.9 | 23 | 35 | 11 | 12 | 6 | 5 | 8 | 45,591 | | Waltham Forest | 32.3 | 20 | 25 | 14 | 13 | 11 | 5 | 13 | 52,120 | | Wandsworth | 32.2 | 39 | 19 | 12 | 13 | 6 | 2 | 8 | 68,702 | | Westminster | 29.0 | 42 | 18 | 12 | 11 | 8 | 3 | 7 | 36,485 | | London | 33.5 | 27 | 21 | 14 | 11 | 11 | 5 | 11 | 1,751,026 |
### Table 23 Share of votes by borough, 2004
| Borough | Turnout | Conservatives | Labour | Liberal Dems | Greens | UKIP | BNP | Other parties | Total Votes | |--------------------------|---------|----------------|--------|--------------|--------|------|-----|---------------|-------------| | City of London | 38.5 | 32 | 20 | 18 | 12 | 11 | 2 | 6 | 2,231 | | Barking & Dagenham | 30.8 | 15 | 28 | 9 | 4 | 21 | 15 | 8 | 35,584 | | Barnet | 41.0 | 37 | 24 | 13 | 7 | 10 | 2 | 5 | 89,881 | | Bexley | 39.4 | 32 | 19 | 10 | 4 | 22 | 8 | 4 | 66,564 | | Brent | 37.4 | 24 | 33 | 18 | 7 | 6 | 2 | 9 | 61,343 | | Bromley | 43.3 | 37 | 14 | 17 | 6 | 18 | 4 | 4 | 96,884 | | Camden | 36.0 | 22 | 26 | 19 | 14 | 7 | 2 | 9 | 49,371 | | Croydon | 37.6 | 32 | 23 | 13 | 6 | 15 | 4 | 7 | 89,746 | | Ealing | 39.1 | 23 | 32 | 15 | 8 | 10 | 3 | 9 | 80,102 | | Enfield | 37.3 | 31 | 25 | 11 | 6 | 14 | 5 | 7 | 69,818 | | Greenwich | 35.1 | 19 | 29 | 13 | 9 | 16 | 7 | 7 | 54,329 | | Hackney | 34.0 | 14 | 35 | 13 | 17 | 6 | 2 | 13 | 41,213 | | Hammersmith & Fulham | 38.7 | 34 | 24 | 15 | 10 | 9 | 3 | 6 | 41,023 | | Haringey | 36.2 | 16 | 33 | 19 | 14 | 6 | 1 | 11 | 52,214 | | Harrow | 40.4 | 34 | 27 | 13 | 6 | 11 | 3 | 7 | 63,151 | | Havering | 38.5 | 33 | 17 | 8 | 4 | 24 | 10 | 4 | 66,034 | | Hillingdon | 36.6 | 31 | 22 | 12 | 5 | 18 | 7 | 6 | 65,257 | | Hounslow | 33.2 | 24 | 29 | 15 | 7 | 12 | 5 | 8 | 52,186 | | Islington | 32.4 | 14 | 28 | 21 | 17 | 9 | 3 | 9 | 38,301 | | Kensington & Chelsea | 37.5 | 44 | 16 | 13 | 9 | 9 | 2 | 7 | 33,173 | | Kingston upon Thames | 43.9 | 29 | 15 | 26 | 8 | 13 | 3 | 5 | 43,108 | | Lambeth | 33.2 | 16 | 32 | 20 | 14 | 7 | 2 | 9 | 63,075 | | Lewisham | 35.5 | 16 | 33 | 15 | 13 | 11 | 4 | 8 | 59,371 | | Merton | 41.3 | 27 | 28 | 13 | 8 | 13 | 4 | 7 | 53,310 | | Newham | 33.1 | 13 | 33 | 9 | 5 | 8 | 4 | 28 | 54,396 | | Redbridge | 39.6 | 30 | 24 | 12 | 6 | 14 | 4 | 10 | 69,312 | | Richmond upon Thames | 48.2 | 33 | 14 | 26 | 10 | 11 | 2 | 3 | 57,194 | | Southwark | 35.2 | 14 | 32 | 24 | 11 | 9 | 3 | 8 | 58,457 | | Sutton | 38.8 | 30 | 12 | 24 | 5 | 18 | 5 | 5 | 50,857 | | Tower Hamlets | 37.4 | 19 | 20 | 17 | 8 | 8 | 5 | 24 | 51,130 | | Waltham Forest | 36.8 | 20 | 24 | 16 | 10 | 13 | 5 | 13 | 56,748 | | Wandsworth | 37.9 | 33 | 25 | 14 | 11 | 8 | 2 | 7 | 75,979 | | Westminster | 36.1 | 38 | 21 | 14 | 9 | 10 | 2 | 7 | 44,107 | | London | 37.6 | 27 | 25 | 15 | 8 | 12 | 4 | 8 | 1,885,449 |
### Table 24 Summary of party votes with share, 2004 and 2009
| Party | 2004 Votes | 2004 % | 2009 Votes | 2009 % | Change Votes | Change % | |--------------------------------------------|------------|--------|------------|--------|--------------|----------| | Conservative Party | 504,941 | 26.8 | 479,037 | 27.4 | -25,904 | 0.6 | | Labour Party | 466,584 | 24.7 | 372,590 | 21.3 | -93,994 | -3.5 | | Liberal Democrats | 288,790 | 15.3 | 240,156 | 13.7 | -48,634 | -1.6 | | Green Party | 158,986 | 8.4 | 190,589 | 10.9 | 31,603 | 2.5 | | UK Independence Party | 232,633 | 12.3 | 188,440 | 10.8 | -44,193 | -1.6 | | British National Party | 76,152 | 4.0 | 86,420 | 4.9 | 10,268 | 0.9 | | Christian Party | 45,038 | 2.4 | 51,336 | 2.9 | 6,298 | 0.5 | | Jan Jananayagam | 50,014 | 2.9 | 50,014 | 2.9 | 0 | 0 | | English Democrats Party | 15,945 | 0.8 | 24,477 | 1.4 | 8,532 | 0.6 | | No2EU: Yes To Democracy | 17,758 | 1.0 | 17,758 | 1.0 | 0 | 0 | | Socialist Labour Party | 15,306 | 0.9 | 15,306 | 0.9 | 0 | 0 | | Pro Democracy: Libertas.eu | 8,444 | 0.5 | 8,444 | 0.5 | 0 | 0 | | Jury Team | 7,284 | 0.4 | 7,284 | 0.4 | 0 | 0 | | Steven Cheung | 4,918 | 0.3 | 4,918 | 0.3 | 0 | 0 | | The Socialist Party of Great Britain | 4,050 | 0.2 | 4,050 | 0.2 | 0 | 0 | | Yes 2 Europe | 3,384 | 0.2 | 3,384 | 0.2 | 0 | 0 | | Sohale Rahman | 3,248 | 0.2 | 3,248 | 0.2 | 0 | 0 | | Gene Alcantara | 1,972 | 0.1 | 1,972 | 0.1 | 0 | 0 | | Haroon Saad | 1,603 | 0.1 | 1,603 | 0.1 | 0 | 0 | | Respect - the Unity Coalition | 91,175 | 4.8 | -91,175 | -4.8 | -182,349 | -10.6 | | The People’s Party for Better Government | 5,205 | 0.3 | -5,205 | -0.3 | -10,410 | -0.6 | | Total Party Votes | 1,885,449 | | 1,751,026 | | -134,423 | | | Total Rejected Votes | 17,905 | | 11,374 | | -6,531 | | | Eligible Electors | 5,054,957 | | 5,257,624 | | 202,667 | | | Verified Ballots | 1,903,354 | | 1,763,025 | | -140,329 | | | Turnout | 37.7 | | 33.5 | | -4.2 | | | UK turnout | 38.8 | | 34.3 | | -4.5 | |
### Table 25 Summary of party votes, UK and London, 2009
| Party | UK Votes | UK Share | Change since 2004 | London Votes | London Share | Change since 2004 | |-------------------------------|----------|----------|-------------------|--------------|--------------|------------------| | Conservative Party | 4,198,394| 27.7 | 1.0 | 479,037 | 27.4 | 0.6 | | UK Independence Party | 2,498,226| 16.5 | 0.4 | 188,440 | 10.8 | -1.6 | | Labour Party | 2,381,760| 15.7 | -6.9 | 372,590 | 21.3 | -3.5 | | Liberal Democrats | 2,080,613| 13.7 | -1.2 | 240,156 | 13.7 | -1.6 | | Green Party | 1,303,745| 8.6 | 2.4 | 190,589 | 10.9 | 2.5 | | British National Party | 943,598 | 6.2 | 1.3 | 86,420 | 4.9 | 0.9 | | Scottish National Party | 321,007 | 2.1 | 0.7 | | | | | English Democrats Party | 279,801 | 1.8 | 1.1 | 24,477 | 1.4 | 0.6 | | Christian Party | 249,493 | 1.6 | | 51,336 | 2.9 | 0.5 | | Socialist Labour Party | 173,115 | 1.1 | | 15,306 | 0.9 | | | No2EU: Yes to Democracy | 153,236 | 1.0 | | 17,758 | 1.0 | | | Plaid Cymru | 126,702 | 0.8 | -0.1 | | | | | Jury Team | 78,569 | 0.5 | | 7,284 | 0.4 | | | United Kingdom First | 74,007 | 0.5 | | | | | | Pro Democracy: Libertas.eu | 73,544 | 0.5 | | 8,444 | 0.5 | | | Ind: Jan Jananayagam | 50,014 | 0.3 | | 50,014 | 2.9 | | | Pensioners Party | 37,785 | 0.2 | | | 0.0 | | | Mebyon Kernow | 14,922 | 0.1 | | | | | | Animals Count | 13,201 | 0.1 | | | | | | Scottish Socialist Party | 10,404 | 0.1 | -0.3 | | | | | Ind: Duncan Robertson | 10,189 | 0.1 | | | | | | Ind: Peter Rigby | 9,916 | 0.1 | | | | | | The Peace Party | 9,534 | 0.1 | | | | | | Ind: Katie Hopkins | 8,971 | 0.1 | | | | | | Fair Play Fair Trade Party | 7,151 | 0.0 | | | | | | The Roman Party | 5,450 | 0.0 | | | | | | Ind: Steven Cheung | 4,918 | 0.0 | | 4,918 | 0.3 | | | The Socialist Party of GB | 4,050 | 0.0 | | 4,050 | 0.2 | | | Ind: Francis Apaloo | 3,621 | 0.0 | | | | | | Yes 2 Europe | 3,384 | 0.0 | | 3,384 | 0.2 | | | Ind: Sohale Rahman | 3,248 | 0.0 | | 3,248 | 0.2 | | | Ind: Gene Alcantara | 1,972 | 0.0 | | 1,972 | 0.1 | | | Ind: Haroon Saad | 1,603 | 0.0 | | 1,603 | 0.1 | | | Wai D | 789 | 0.0 | | | | | | Turnout | 15,136,932| -1,306,468| | 1,751,026 | -134,423 | | | Electorate | 44,173,690| 55,237 | | 5,257,624 | 202,667 | | | Turnout % | 34.3 | -4.5 | | 33.5 | -4.1 | |
*NB The change figure is blank where a party did not stand in 2004.*
## Appendix Table A1 Candidates in London
### BNP
- Bob Bailey
- Michael Barnbrook
- Dennis Pearce
- Julian Leppert
- Roberta Woods
- Chris Forster
- John Clarke
- John Evans
### Jury Team
- Reza Tabrizi
- Evan Millner
- Lucy O’Sullivan McCormick
- Afshin Payravi
- Thomas Mulcahy
- Sherif Malak
- David Littlejohn
- Gregory Williams
### Christian Party
- George Hargreaves
- Susan May
- Paula Warren
- Stephen Hammond
- Mary Boyle
- Suzanne Fernandez
- Petar Ljubisic
- David Williams
### Labour
- Claude Moraes
- Mary Honeyball
- Anne Fairweather
- Kevin McGrath
- Emma Jones
- Raj Jethwa
- Nilgun Canver
- Abdul Asad
### Conservative
- Charles Tannock
- Syed Kamall
- Marina Yannakoudakis
- Jean-Paul Floru
- Warwick Lightfoot
- Graham Postles
- Alison Sprule
- Ian Twinn
### English Democrats
- Roger Cooper
- Graham Dare
- Satvinder Singh Chaggar
- Graham Wood
- Arvind Tailor
- Elaine Cheeseman
- David Stevens
- Janus Polenceus
### NO2EU – Yes to Democracy
- Bob Crow
- John Hendy QC
- Mary Davis
- Kevin Nolan
- Syed Islam
- Onay Kasab
- John Rowe
- Nick Wrack
### Green Party
- Jean Lambert
- Ute Michel
- Shahrar Ali
- Joseph Healy
- Miranda Dunn
- Shasha Khan
- John Hunt
- Caroline Allen
### Liberal Democrat
- Sarah Ludford
- Jonathan Fryer
- Dinti Batstone
- Christopher Le Breton
- John Pindar
- Simon James
- Caroline Persson
- Ben Jones
### Pro Democracy: Libertas.eu
- Max Burt
- Susannah Prins
- Peter Lloyd
- Herbert Crossman
- Victoria Wood
- Alan Radlett
- Manesh Padhiar
- Paul Forrester Table A1 continued
**Socialist Labour** Arthur Scargill\
Amanda Rose\
Colin Muir\
Linda Muir\
Ronald Sinclair\
Margaret Sharkey\
Alan Jones\
Carole Whatham
**Yes 2 Europe** Brendan Patrick
**Independent** Gene Alcantara
**Independent** Steven Cheung
**Independent** Jan Jananayagam
**Socialist Party of Great Britain** Danny Lambert\
Tristan Miller\
Janet Carter\
Bill Martin\
Adam Buick\
Simon Wigley\
Frederick Allen\
Patricia Deutz
**Independent** Jan Jananayagam
**Independent** Sohale Rahman
**Independent** Haroon Saad
**UKIP** Gerard Batten\
Ralph Atkinson\
Michael Zuckerman\
Tim Worstall\
Sunita Webb\
Strachan McDonald\
Lawrence Webb\
Anuruddha Reuata Appendix Map A2 The London boroughs Regular Briefings from the GLA Data Management and Analysis Group (DMAG)
Recent DMAG Briefings 2009:
| Briefing Number | Title | Author | |-----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------| | 2009-01 | Claimant Count Model: 2009 Technical Note | Rachel Leeser | | 2009-02 | GLA 2008 Round Demographic Projections | John Hollis and Jessica Chamberlain | | 2009-03 | Greater London Demographic Review 2007 | John Hollis | | 2009-04 | Census Information Note 2009-1 | Eileen Howes | | 2009-05 | Census Information Note 2009-2 | Eileen Howes | | 2009-06 | 2001 Census Consortium and Information Scheme | Eileen Howes | | 2009-07 | 2009 European election results for London | Gareth Piggott | | 2009-08 | 2008 Round Ethnic Group Projections | Ed Klodawski |
Recent DMAG Briefings 2008:
| Briefing Number | Title | Author | |-----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------| | 2008-07 | GLA 2007 Round Demographic Projections | John Hollis | | 2008-08 | Greater London Authority Constituency Profiles | Elizabeth Williams & Caroline Hall | | 2008-09 | Family Resources Survey 2005/06: Results for London | Lovedeep Vaid | | 2008-10 | London Borough Migration 2001-06 | John Hollis | | 2008-11 | Social Exclusion Data Team Workplan 2008/09 | Social Exclusion Data Team | | 2008-12 | Demography Team Workplan 2008/09 | John Hollis | | 2008-13 | Education Team Workplan 2008/09 | David Ewens | | 2008-14 | Census Team Workplan 2008/09 | Eileen Howes | | 2008-15 | 2001 Census Profiles: Black Caribbeans in London | Richard Cameron | | 2008-16 | GIS Team Workplan 2008/09 | Gareth Baker | | 2008-17 | Lone Parents on Income Support by Ethnic Group | Lovedeep Vaid | | 2008-18 | Schools Key Facts and Trends 2003-07 | Shen Cheng | | 2008-19 | 2008 Elections results summary | Gareth Piggott | | 2008-20 | SASPAC Workplan 2008/09 | Alan Lewis | | 2008-21 | Indices of Deprivation 2007: A London perspective | Rachel Leeser | | 2008-22 | London Ward Level Summary Measures for the Indices of Deprivation 2007 | Rachel Leeser | | 2008-23 | General Statistics Team Workplan 2008/09 | Gareth Piggott | | 2008-24 | 2001 Census: Ethnic Group Migration Structures (as used in Model) | Baljit Bains/Ed Klodawski | | 2008-25 | Census Information Note 2008-2 | Eileen Howes | | 2008-26 | London Council By-Election Results, May 2006 to July 2008 | Gareth Piggott | | 2008-27 | Social Selection, Social Sorting and Education: “Missing” Children | David Ewens | | 2008-28 | Summary of Social Trends 2008 | Elizabeth Williams | | 2008-29 | Children in Benefit Families 2007 | Lovedeep Vaid | | 2008-30 | Londoners and the Labour Market: Key Facts | Lorna Spence | | 2008-31 | Child Poverty In London: 2008 Update | Social Exclusion Data Team | | 2008-32 | Census Information Note 2008-3 | Eileen Howes | | 2008-33 | Paycheck 2008 | Lovedeep Vaid | | 2008-34 | Background Poverty Profiles | Lovedeep Vaid |
A full list of DMAG Briefings is available to internal customers through the GLA Intranet; otherwise please contact [email protected] A CD containing PDF versions of the Briefings, or hard copies, can be provided. Contact details for the Data Management and Analysis Group are as follows:
DMAG Contacts
Rob Lewis (020 7983 4652) is Head of the Data Management and Analysis Group. [email protected]
Eileen Howes (020 7983 4657) is responsible for the work of the Census, SASPAC and General Statistics Teams and particularly for Census analysis. [email protected]
John Hollis (020 7983 4604) is responsible for the work of the Demography, Education and Social Exclusion Teams, and particularly for demographic modelling. [email protected]
Gareth Baker (020 7983 4965) is the GIS Manager with responsibility for leading work on GI including strategy, the development of data holdings, analysis and dissemination. [email protected]
Steve Forgan (020 7983 4185) is the London Analyst Support Site (LASS) Manager and is responsible for data exchange & analysis projects for crime reduction in London. [email protected]
Kelly Rump (020 7983 4655) is the Business Coordinator. [email protected]
Census Team
Eileen Howes (020 7983 4657) is responsible for the work of the Census, SASPAC and General Statistics Teams and particularly for Census analysis. [email protected]
Bill Armstrong (020 7983 4653) works in the Census Team with particular responsibilities for commissioned tables, workplace data and mapping. [email protected]
Richard Cameron (020 7983 4473) works in the Census Team. [email protected]
SASPAC
Alan Lewis (020 7983 4348) leads on the SASPAC project. [email protected]
General Statistics Team
Gareth Piggott (020 7983 4327) works in the General Statistics Team with particular responsibilities for Focus on London and Compendia. [email protected]
Richard Walker (020 7983 4532) works mostly on statistical compendia and special publications. [email protected]
Please use the above descriptions in deciding whom to contact to assist you with your information needs. For further details of DMAG staff please contact Kelly Rump at [email protected]
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/2533-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 24,
"total-input-tokens": 46338,
"total-output-tokens": 16548,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
42,
1
],
[
42,
823,
2
],
[
823,
2325,
3
],
[
2325,
5401,
4
],
[
5401,
7021,
5
],
[
7021,
9175,
6
],
[
9175,
10796,
7
],
[
10796,
11104,
8
],
[
11104,
13470,
9
],
[
13470,
15207,
10
],
[
15207,
15373,
11
],
[
15373,
18572,
12
],
[
18572,
18725,
13
],
[
18725,
20266,
14
],
[
20266,
20904,
15
],
[
20904,
25607,
16
],
[
25607,
30404,
17
],
[
30404,
33855,
18
],
[
33855,
38864,
19
],
[
38864,
40386,
20
],
[
40386,
41080,
21
],
[
41080,
41117,
22
],
[
41117,
45793,
23
],
[
45793,
47870,
24
]
]
} |
c919a7b0fa8c31ba5744ebf1a6e89d2639dabf7a | COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1400/2002 of 31 July 2002 on the application of Article 81(3) of the Treaty to categories of vertical agreements and concerted practices in the motor vehicle sector
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation No 19/65/EEC of 2 March 1965 on the application of Article 85(3) of the Treaty to certain categories of agreements and concerted practices (1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1215/1999 (2), and in particular Article 1 thereof,
Having published a draft of this Regulation (3),
Having consulted the Advisory Committee on Restrictive Practices and Dominant Positions,
Whereas:
(1) Experience acquired in the motor vehicle sector regarding the distribution of new motor vehicles, spare parts and after sales services makes it possible to define categories of vertical agreements which can be regarded as normally satisfying the conditions laid down in Article 81(3).
(2) This experience leads to the conclusion that rules stricter than those provided for by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2790/1999 of 22 December 1999 on the application of Article 81(3) of the Treaty to categories of vertical agreements and concerted practices (4) are necessary in this sector.
(3) These stricter rules for exemption by category (the exemption) should apply to vertical agreements for the purchase or sale of new motor vehicles, vertical agreements for the purchase or sale of spare parts for motor vehicles and vertical agreements for the purchase or sale of repair and maintenance services for such vehicles where these agreements are concluded between non-competing undertakings, between certain competitors, or by certain associations of retailers or repairers. This includes vertical agreements concluded between a distributor acting at the retail level or an authorised repairer and a (sub)distributor or repairer. This Regulation should also apply to these vertical agreements when they contain ancillary provisions on the assignment or use of intellectual property rights. The term 'vertical agreements' should be defined accordingly to include both such agreements and the corresponding concerted practices.
(4) The benefit of the exemption should be limited to vertical agreements for which it can be assumed with sufficient certainty that they satisfy the conditions of Article 81(3).
(5) Vertical agreements falling within the categories defined in this Regulation can improve economic efficiency within a chain of production or distribution by facilitating better coordination between the participating undertakings. In particular, they can lead to a reduction in the transaction and distribution costs of the parties and to an optimisation of their sales and investment levels.
(6) The likelihood that such efficiency-enhancing effects will outweigh any anti-competitive effects due to restrictions contained in vertical agreements depends on the degree of market power held by the undertakings concerned and therefore on the extent to which those undertakings face competition from other suppliers of goods or services regarded by the buyer as interchangeable or substitutable for one another, by reason of the products' characteristics, prices or intended use.
(7) Thresholds based on market share should be fixed in order to reflect suppliers' market power. Furthermore, this sector-specific Regulation should contain stricter rules than those provided for by Regulation (EC) No 2790/1999, in particular for selective distribution. The thresholds below which it can be presumed that the advantages secured by vertical agreements outweigh their restrictive effects should vary with the characteristics of different types of vertical agreement. It can therefore be presumed that in general, vertical agreements have such advantages where the supplier concerned has a market share of up to 30% on the markets for the distribution of new motor vehicles or spare parts, or of up to 40% where quantitative selective distribution is used for the sale of new motor vehicles. As regards after sales services it can be presumed that, in general, vertical agreements by which the supplier sets criteria on how its authorised repairers have to provide repair or maintenance services for the motor vehicles of the relevant make and provides them with equipment and training for the provision of such services have such advantages where the network of authorised repairers of the supplier concerned has a market share of up to 30%. However, in the case of vertical agreements containing exclusive supply obligations, it is the market share of the buyer which is relevant for determining the overall effects of such vertical agreements on the market.
(1) OJ 36, 6.3.1965, p. 533/65. (2) OJ L 148, 15.6.1999, p. 1. (3) OJ C 67, 16.3.2002, p. 2. (4) OJ L 336, 29.12.1999, p. 21. (8) Above those market share thresholds, there can be no presumption that vertical agreements falling within the scope of Article 81(1) will usually give rise to objective advantages of such a character and magnitude as to compensate for the disadvantages which they create for competition. However, such advantages can be anticipated in the case of qualitative selective distribution, irrespective of the supplier’s market share.
(9) In order to prevent a supplier from terminating an agreement because a distributor or a repairer engages in pro-competitive behaviour, such as active or passive sales to foreign consumers, multi-branding or subcontracting of repair and maintenance services, every notice of termination must clearly set out in writing the reasons, which must be objective and transparent. Furthermore, in order to strengthen the independence of distributors and repairers from their suppliers, minimum periods of notice should be provided for the non-renewal of agreements concluded for a limited duration and for the termination of agreements of unlimited duration.
(10) In order to foster market integration and to allow distributors or authorised repairers to seize additional business opportunities, distributors or authorised repairers have to be allowed to purchase other undertakings of the same type that sell or repair the same brand of motor vehicles within the distribution system. To this end, any vertical agreement between a supplier and a distributor or authorised repairer has to provide for the latter to have the right to transfer all of its rights and obligations to any other undertaking of its choice of the same type that sell or repairs the same brand of motor vehicles within the distribution system.
(11) In order to favour the quick resolution of disputes which arise between the parties to a distribution agreement and which might otherwise hamper effective competition, agreements should only benefit from exemption if they provide for each party to have a right of recourse to an independent expert or arbitrator, in particular where notice is given to terminate an agreement.
(12) Irrespective of the market share of the undertakings concerned, this Regulation does not cover vertical agreements containing certain types of severely anti-competitive restraints (hardcore restrictions) which in general appreciably restrict competition even at low market shares and which are not indispensable to the attainment of the positive effects mentioned above. This concerns in particular vertical agreements containing restraints such as minimum or fixed resale prices and, with certain exceptions, restrictions of the territory into which, or of the customers to whom, a distributor or repairer may sell the contract goods or services. Such agreements should not benefit from the exemption.
(13) It is necessary to ensure that effective competition within the common market and between distributors located in different Member States is not restricted if a supplier uses selective distribution in some markets and other forms of distribution in others. In particular selective distribution agreements which restrict passive sales to any end user or unauthorised distributor located in markets where exclusive territories have been allocated should be excluded from the benefit of the exemption, as should those selective distribution agreements which restrict passive sales to customer groups which have been allocated exclusively to other distributors. The benefit of the exemption should also be withheld from exclusive distribution agreements if active or passive sales to any end user or unauthorised distributor located in markets where selective distribution is used are restricted.
(14) The right of any distributor to sell new motor vehicles passively or, where relevant, actively to end users should include the right to sell such vehicles to end users who have given authorisation to an intermediary or purchasing agent to purchase, take delivery of, transport or store a new motor vehicle on their behalf.
(15) The right of any distributor to sell new motor vehicles or spare parts or of any authorised repairer to sell repair and maintenance services to any end user passively or, where relevant, actively should include the right to use the Internet or Internet referral sites.
(16) Limits placed by suppliers on their distributors’ sales to any end user in other Member States, for instance where distributor remuneration or the purchase price is made dependent on the destination of the vehicles or on the place of residence of the end users, amount to an indirect restriction on sales. Other examples of indirect restrictions on sales include supply quotas based on a sales territory other than the common market, whether or not these are combined with sales targets. Bonus systems based on the destination of the vehicles or any form of discriminatory product supply to distributors, whether in the case of product shortage or otherwise, also amount to an indirect restriction on sales.
(17) Vertical agreements that do not oblige the authorised repairers within a supplier’s distribution system to honour warranties, perform free servicing and carry out recall work in respect of any motor vehicle of the relevant make sold in the common market amount to an indirect restriction of sales and should not benefit from the exemption. This obligation is without prejudice to the right of a motor vehicle supplier to oblige a distributor to make sure as regards the new motor vehicles that he has sold that the warranties are honoured and that free servicing and recall work is carried out, either by the distributor itself or, in case of subcontracting, by the authorised repairer(s) to whom these services have Motor vehicles are expensive and technically complex mobile goods which require repair and maintenance at regular and irregular intervals. However, it is not indispensable for distributors of new motor vehicles also to carry out repair and maintenance. The legitimate interests of suppliers and end users can be fully satisfied if the distributor subcontracts these services, including the honouring of warranties, free servicing and recall work, to a repairer or to a number of repairers within the supplier’s distribution system. It is nevertheless appropriate to facilitate access to repair and maintenance services. Therefore, a supplier may require distributors who have subcontracted repair and maintenance services to one or more authorised repairers to give end users the name and address of the repair shop or shops in question. If any of these authorised repairers is not established in the vicinity of the sales outlet, the supplier may also require the distributor to tell end users how far the repair shop or shops in question are from the sales outlet. However, a supplier can only impose such obligations if he also imposes similar obligations on distributors whose own repair shop is not on the same premises as their sales outlet.
In order to give end users the right to purchase new motor vehicles with specifications identical to those sold in any other Member State, from any distributor selling corresponding models and established in the common market, the exemption should apply only to vertical agreements which require the repairers within the supplier’s network to carry out repair and maintenance services for the contract goods and corresponding goods irrespective of where these goods are sold in the common market.
In markets where selective distribution is used, the exemption should apply in respect of a prohibition on a distributor from operating out of an additional place of establishment where he is a distributor of vehicles other than passenger cars or light commercial vehicles. However, this prohibition should not be exempted if it limits the expansion of the distributor’s business at the authorised place of establishment by, for instance, restricting the development or acquisition of the infrastructure necessary to allow increases in sales volumes, including increases brought about by Internet sales.
It would be inappropriate to exempt any vertical agreement that restricts the sale of original spare parts or spare parts of matching quality by members of the distribution system to independent repairers which use them for the provision of repair or maintenance services. Without access to such spare parts, these independent repairers would not be able to compete effectively with authorised repairers, since they could not provide consumers with good quality services which contribute to the safe and reliable functioning of motor vehicles.
Furthermore, it is not necessary, in order to adequately provide for repair and maintenance services, for authorised repairers to also sell new motor vehicles. The exemption should therefore not cover vertical agreements containing any direct or indirect obligation or incentive which leads to the linking of sales and servicing activities or which makes the performance of one of these activities dependent on the performance of the other; this is in particular the case where the remuneration of distributors or authorised repairers relating to the purchase or sale of goods or services necessary for one activity is made dependent on the purchase or sale of goods or services relating to the other activity, or where all such goods or services are indistinctly aggregated into a single remuneration or discount system.
In order to give end users the right to purchase new motor vehicles with specifications identical to those sold in any other Member State, from any distributor selling corresponding models and established in the common market, the exemption should apply only to vertical agreements which enable a distributor to order, stock and sell any such vehicle which corresponds to a model within its contract range. Discriminatory or objectively unjustified supply conditions, in particular those regarding delivery times or prices, applied by the supplier to corresponding vehicles, are to be considered a restriction on the ability of the distributor to sell such vehicles.
In order to ensure effective competition on the repair and maintenance markets and to allow repairers to offer end users competing spare parts such as original spare parts and spare parts of matching quality, the exemption should not cover vertical agreements which restrict the ability of authorised repairers within the distribution system of a vehicle manufacturer, independent distributors of spare parts, independent repairers or end users to source spare parts from the manufacturer of such spare parts or from another third party of their choice. This does not affect spare part manufacturers’ liability under civil law. Furthermore, in order to allow authorised and independent repairers and end users to identify the manufacturer of motor vehicle components or of spare parts and to choose between competing spare parts, the exemption should not cover agreements by which a manufacturer of motor vehicles limits the ability of a manufacturer of components or original spare parts to place its trade mark or logo on these parts effectively and in a visible manner. Moreover, in order to facilitate this choice and the sale of spare parts, which have been manufactured according to the specifications and production and quality standards provided by the vehicle manufacturer for the production of components or spare parts, it is presumed that spare parts constitute original spare parts, if the spare part producer issues a certificate that the parts are of the same quality as the components used for the assembly of a motor vehicle and have been manufactured according to these specifications and standards. Other spare parts for which the spare part producer can issue a certificate at any moment attesting that they match the quality of the components used for the assembly of a certain motor vehicle, may be sold as spare parts of matching quality.
The exemption should not cover vertical agreements which restrict authorised repairers from using spare parts of matching quality for the repair or maintenance of a motor vehicle. However, in view of the vehicle manufacturers' direct contractual involvement in repairs under warranty, free servicing, and recall operations, agreements containing obligations on authorised repairers to use original spare parts supplied by the vehicle manufacturer for these repairs should be covered by the exemption.
In order to protect effective competition on the market for repair and maintenance services and to prevent foreclosure of independent repairers, motor vehicle manufacturers must allow all interested independent operators to have full access to all technical information, diagnostic and other equipment, tools, including all relevant software, and training required for the repair and maintenance of motor vehicles. Independent operators who must be allowed such access include in particular independent repairers, manufacturers of repair equipment or tools, publishers of technical information, automobile clubs, roadside assistance operators, operators offering inspection and testing services and operators offering training for repairers. In particular, the conditions of access must not discriminate between authorised and independent operators, access must be given upon request and without undue delay, and the price charged for the information should not discourage access to it by failing to take into account the extent to which the independent operator uses it. A supplier of motor vehicles should be required to give independent operators access to technical information on new motor vehicles at the same time as such access is given to its authorised repairers and must not oblige independent operators to purchase more than the information necessary to carry out the work in question. Suppliers should be obliged to give access to the technical information necessary for reprogramming electronic devices in a motor vehicle. It is, however, legitimate and proper for them to withhold access to technical information which might allow a third party to bypass or disarm on-board anti-theft devices, to recalibrate electronic devices or to tamper with devices which for instance limit the speed of a motor vehicle, unless protection against theft, re-calibration or tampering can be attained by other less restrictive means. Intellectual property rights and rights regarding know-how including those which relate to the aforementioned devices must be exercised in a manner which avoids any type of abuse.
In order to ensure access to and to prevent collusion on the relevant markets and to give distributors opportunities to sell vehicles of brands from two or more manufacturers that are not connected undertakings, certain specific conditions are attached to the exemption. To this end, the exemption should not be accorded to non-compete obligations. In particular, without prejudice to the ability of the supplier to require the distributor to display the vehicles in brand-specific areas of the showroom in order to avoid brand confusion, any prohibition on sales of competing makes should not be exempted. The same applies to an obligation to display the full range of motor vehicles if it makes the sale or display of vehicles manufactured by undertakings which are not connected impossible or unreasonably difficult. Furthermore, an obligation to have brand-specific sales personnel is considered to be an indirect non-compete obligation and therefore should not be covered by the exemption, unless the distributor decides to have brand-specific sales personnel and the supplier pays all the additional costs involved.
In order to ensure that repairers are able to carry out repairs or maintenance on all motor vehicles, the exemption should not apply to any obligation limiting the ability of repairers of motor vehicles to provide repair or maintenance services for brands of competing suppliers.
In addition, specific conditions are required to exclude certain restrictions, sometimes imposed in the context of a selective distribution system, from the scope of the exemption. This applies in particular to obligations which have the effect of preventing the members of a selective distribution system from selling the brands of particular competing suppliers, which could easily lead to foreclosure of certain brands. Additional conditions are necessary in order to foster intra-brand competition and market integration within the common market, to create opportunities for distributors and authorised repairers who wish to seize business opportunities outside their place of establishment, and to create conditions which allow the development of multi-brand distributors. In particular a restriction on operating out of an unauthorised place of establishment for the distribution of passenger cars and light commercial vehicles or the provision of repair and maintenance services should not be exempted. The supplier may require additional sales or delivery outlets for passenger cars and light commercial vehicles or repair shops to comply with the relevant qualitative criteria applicable for similar outlets located in the same geographic area.
(30) The exemption should not apply to restrictions limiting the ability of a distributor to sell leasing services for motor vehicles.
(31) The market share limitations, the fact that certain vertical agreements are not covered, and the conditions provided for in this Regulation, should normally ensure that the agreements to which the exemption applies do not enable the participating undertakings to eliminate competition in respect of a substantial part of the goods or services in question.
(32) In particular cases in which agreements which would otherwise benefit from the exemption nevertheless have effects incompatible with Article 81(3), the Commission is empowered to withdraw the benefit of the exemption; this may occur in particular where the buyer has significant market power on the relevant market on which it resells the goods or provides the services or where parallel networks of vertical agreements have similar effects which significantly restrict access to a relevant market or competition thereon; such cumulative effects may for example arise in the case of selective distribution. The Commission may also withdraw the benefit of the exemption if competition is significantly restricted on a market due to the presence of a supplier with market power or if prices and conditions of supply to motor vehicle distributors differ substantially between geographic markets. It may also withdraw the benefit of the exemption if discriminatory prices or sales conditions, or unjustifiably high supplements, such as those charged for right hand drive vehicles, are applied for the supply of goods corresponding to the contract range.
(33) Regulation No 19/65/EEC empowers the national authorities of Member States to withdraw the benefit of the exemption in respect of vertical agreements having effects incompatible with the conditions laid down in Article 81(3), where such effects are felt in their territory, or in a part thereof, and where such territory has the characteristics of a distinct geographic market; the exercise of this national power of withdrawal should not prejudice the uniform application throughout the common market of the Community competition rules or the full effect of the measures adopted in implementation of those rules.
(34) In order to allow for better supervision of parallel networks of vertical agreements which have similar restrictive effects and which cover more than 50 % of a given market, the Commission should be permitted to declare the exemption inapplicable to vertical agreements containing specific restraints relating to the market concerned, thereby restoring the full application of Article 81(1) to such agreements.
(35) The exemption should be granted without prejudice to the application of the provisions of Article 82 of the Treaty on the abuse by an undertaking of a dominant position.
(36) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1475/95 of 28 June 1995 on the application of Article 85(3) of the Treaty to certain categories of motor vehicle distribution and servicing agreements (1) is applicable until 30 September 2002. In order to allow all operators time to adapt vertical agreements which are compatible with that regulation and which are still in force when the exemption provided for therein expires, it is appropriate for such agreements to benefit from a transition period until 1 October 2003, during which time they should be exempted from the prohibition laid down in Article 81(1) under this Regulation.
(37) In order to allow all operators within a quantitative selective distribution system for new passenger cars and light commercial vehicles to adapt their business strategies to the non-application of the exemption to location clauses, it is appropriate to stipulate that the condition set out in Article 5(2)(b) shall enter into force on 1 October 2005.
(38) The Commission should monitor the operation of this Regulation on a regular basis, with particular regard to its effects on competition in motor vehicle retailing and in after sales servicing in the common market or relevant parts of it. This should include monitoring the effects of this Regulation on the structure and level of concentration of motor vehicle distribution and any resulting effects on competition. The Commission should also carry out an evaluation of the operation of this Regulation and draw up a report not later than 31 May 2008.
(1) OJ L 145, 29.6.1995, p. 25. HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
Definitions
1. For the purposes of this Regulation:
(a) ‘competing undertakings’ means actual or potential suppliers on the same product market; the product market includes goods or services which are regarded by the buyer as interchangeable with or substitutable for the contract goods or services, by reason of the products’ characteristics, their prices and their intended use;
(b) ‘non-compete obligation’ means any direct or indirect obligation causing the buyer not to manufacture, purchase, sell or resell goods or services which compete with the contract goods or services, or any direct or indirect obligation on the buyer to purchase from the supplier more than 30% of the buyer’s total purchases of the contract goods, corresponding goods or services and their substitutes on the relevant market, calculated on the basis of the value of its purchases in the preceding calendar year. An obligation that the distributor sell motor vehicles from other suppliers in separate areas of the showroom in order to avoid confusion between the makes does not constitute a non-compete obligation for the purposes of this Regulation. An obligation that the distributor have brand-specific sales personnel for different brands of motor vehicles constitutes a non-compete obligation for the purposes of this Regulation, unless the distributor decides to have brand-specific sales personnel and the supplier pays all the additional costs involved;
(c) ‘vertical agreements’ means agreements or concerted practices entered into by two or more undertakings, each of which operates, for the purposes of the agreement, at a different level of the production or distribution chain;
(d) ‘vertical restraints’ means restrictions of competition falling within the scope of Article 81(1), when such restrictions are contained in a vertical agreement;
(e) ‘exclusive supply obligation’ means any direct or indirect obligation causing the supplier to sell the contract goods or services only to one buyer inside the common market for the purposes of a specific use or for resale;
(f) ‘selective distribution system’ means a distribution system where the supplier undertakes to sell the contract goods or services, either directly or indirectly, only to distributors or repairers selected on the basis of specified criteria and where these distributors or repairers undertake not to sell such goods or services to unauthorised distributors or independent repairers, without prejudice to the ability to sell spare parts to independent repairers or the obligation to provide independent operators with all technical information, diagnostic equipment, tools and training required for the repair and maintenance of motor vehicles or for the implementation of environmental protection measures;
(g) ‘quantitative selective distribution system’ means a selective distribution system where the supplier uses criteria for the selection of distributors or repairers which directly limit their number;
(h) ‘qualitative selective distribution system’ means a selective distribution system where the supplier uses criteria for the selection of distributors or repairers which are only qualitative in nature, are required by the nature of the contract goods or services, are laid down uniformly for all distributors or repairers applying to join the distribution system, are not applied in a discriminatory manner, and do not directly limit the number of distributors or repairers;
(i) ‘intellectual property rights’ includes industrial property rights, copyright and neighbouring rights;
(j) ‘know-how’ means a package of non-patented practical information, derived from experience and testing by the supplier, which is secret, substantial and identified; in this context, ‘secret’ means that the know-how, as a body or in the precise configuration and assembly of its components, is not generally known or easily accessible; ‘substantial’ means that the know-how includes information which is indispensable to the buyer for the use, sale or resale of the contract goods or services; ‘identified’ means that the know-how must be described in a sufficiently comprehensive manner so as to make it possible to verify that it fulfils the criteria of secrecy and substantiality;
(k) ‘buyer’, whether distributor or repairer, includes an undertaking which sells goods or services on behalf of another undertaking;
(l) ‘authorised repairer’ means a provider of repair and maintenance services for motor vehicles operating within the distribution system set up by a supplier of motor vehicles;
(m) ‘independent repairer’ means a provider of repair and maintenance services for motor vehicles not operating within the distribution system set up by the supplier of the motor vehicles for which it provides repair or maintenance. An authorised repairer within the distribution system of a given supplier shall be deemed to be an independent repairer for the purposes of this Regulation to the extent that he provides repair or maintenance services for motor vehicles in respect of which he is not a member of the respective supplier’s distribution system;
(n) ‘motor vehicle’ means a self propelled vehicle intended for use on public roads and having three or more road wheels;
(o) ‘passenger car’ means a motor vehicle intended for the carriage of passengers and comprising no more than eight seats in addition to the driver’s seat; (p) ‘light commercial vehicle’ means a motor vehicle intended for the transport of goods or passengers with a maximum mass not exceeding 3.5 tonnes; if a certain light commercial vehicle is also sold in a version with a maximum mass above 3.5 tonnes, all versions of that vehicle are considered to be light commercial vehicles;
(q) the ‘contract range’ means all the different models of motor vehicles available for purchase by the distributor from the supplier;
(r) a ‘motor vehicle which corresponds to a model within the contract range’ means a vehicle which is the subject of a distribution agreement with another undertaking within the distribution system set up by the manufacturer or with his consent and which is:
— manufactured or assembled in volume by the manufacturer, and
— identical as to body style, drive-line, chassis, and type of motor to a vehicle within the contract range;
(s) ‘spare parts’ means goods which are to be installed in or upon a motor vehicle so as to replace components of that vehicle, including goods such as lubricants which are necessary for the use of a motor vehicle, with the exception of fuel;
(t) ‘original spare parts’ means spare parts which are of the same quality as the components used for the assembly of a motor vehicle and which are manufactured according to the specifications and production standards provided by the vehicle manufacturer for the production of components or spare parts for the motor vehicle in question. This includes spare parts which are manufactured on the same production line as these components. It is presumed, unless the contrary is proven, that parts constitute original spare parts if the part manufacturer certifies that the parts match the quality of the components used for the assembly of the vehicle in question and have been manufactured according to the specifications and production standards of the vehicle manufacturer;
(u) ‘spare parts of matching quality’ means exclusively spare parts made by any undertaking which can certify at any moment that the parts in question match the quality of the components which are or were used for the assembly of the motor vehicles in question;
(v) ‘undertakings within the distribution system’ means the manufacturer and undertakings which are entrusted by the manufacturer or with the manufacturer’s consent with the distribution or repair or maintenance of contract goods or corresponding goods;
(w) ‘end user’ includes leasing companies unless the leasing contracts used provide for a transfer of ownership or an option to purchase the vehicle prior to the expiry of the contract.
2. The terms ‘undertaking’, ‘supplier’, ‘buyer’, ‘distributor’ and ‘repairer’ shall include their respective connected undertakings.
‘Connected undertakings’ are:
(a) undertakings in which a party to the agreement, directly or indirectly:
(i) has the power to exercise more than half the voting rights, or
(ii) has the power to appoint more than half the members of the supervisory board, board of management or bodies legally representing the undertaking, or
(iii) has the right to manage the undertaking’s affairs;
(b) undertakings which directly or indirectly have, over a party to the agreement, the rights or powers listed in (a);
(c) undertakings in which an undertaking referred to in (b) has, directly or indirectly, the rights or powers listed in (a);
(d) undertakings in which a party to the agreement together with one or more of the undertakings referred to in (a), (b) or (c), or in which two or more of the latter undertakings, jointly have the rights or powers listed in (a);
(e) undertakings in which the rights or the powers listed in (a) are jointly held by:
(i) parties to the agreement or their respective connected undertakings referred to in (a) to (d), or
(ii) one or more of the parties to the agreement or one or more of their connected undertakings referred to in (a) to (d) and one or more third parties.
Article 2
Scope
1. Pursuant to Article 81(3) of the Treaty and subject to the provisions of this Regulation, it is hereby declared that the provisions of Article 81(1) shall not apply to vertical agreements where they relate to the conditions under which the parties may purchase, sell or resell new motor vehicles, spare parts for motor vehicles or repair and maintenance services for motor vehicles.
The first subparagraph shall apply to the extent that such vertical agreements contain vertical restraints.
The exemption declared by this paragraph shall be known for the purposes of this Regulation as ‘the exemption’.
2. The exemption shall also apply to the following categories of vertical agreements:
(a) Vertical agreements entered into between an association of undertakings and its members, or between such an association and its suppliers, only if all its members are distributors of motor vehicles or spare parts for motor vehicles or repairers and if no individual member of the association, together with its connected undertakings, has a total annual turnover exceeding EUR 50 million; vertical agreements entered into by such associations shall be covered by this Regulation without prejudice to the application of Article 81 to horizontal agreements concluded between the members of the association or decisions adopted by the association;
(b) vertical agreements containing provisions which relate to the assignment to the buyer or use by the buyer of intellectual property rights, provided that those provisions do not constitute the primary object of such agreements and are directly related to the use, sale or resale of goods or services by the buyer or its customers. The exemption shall apply on condition that those provisions do not contain restrictions of competition relating to the contract goods or services which have the same object or effect as vertical restraints which are not exempted under this Regulation.
3. The exemption shall not apply to vertical agreements entered into between competing undertakings.
However, it shall apply where competing undertakings enter into a non-reciprocal vertical agreement and:
(a) the buyer has a total annual turnover not exceeding EUR 100 million, or
(b) the supplier is a manufacturer and a distributor of goods, while the buyer is a distributor not manufacturing goods competing with the contract goods, or
(c) the supplier is a provider of services at several levels of trade, while the buyer does not provide competing services at the level of trade where it purchases the contract services.
Article 3
General conditions
1. Subject to paragraphs 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7, the exemption shall apply on condition that the supplier's market share on the relevant market on which it sells the new motor vehicles, spare parts for motor vehicles or repair and maintenance services does not exceed 30%.
However, the market share threshold for the application of the exemption shall be 40% for agreements establishing quantitative selective distribution systems for the sale of new motor vehicles.
Those thresholds shall not apply to agreements establishing qualitative selective distribution systems.
2. In the case of vertical agreements containing exclusive supply obligations, the exemption shall apply on condition that the market share held by the buyer does not exceed 30% of the relevant market on which it purchases the contract goods or services.
3. The exemption shall apply on condition that the vertical agreement concluded with a distributor or repairer provides that the supplier agrees to the transfer of the rights and obligations resulting from the vertical agreement to another distributor or repairer within the distribution system and chosen by the former distributor or repairer.
4. The exemption shall apply on condition that the vertical agreement concluded with a distributor or repairer provides that a supplier who wishes to give notice of termination of an agreement must give such notice in writing and must include detailed, objective and transparent reasons for the termination, in order to prevent a supplier from ending a vertical agreement with a distributor or repairer because of practices which may not be restricted under this Regulation.
5. The exemption shall apply on condition that the vertical agreement concluded by the supplier of new motor vehicles with a distributor or authorised repairer provides
(a) that the agreement is concluded for a period of at least five years; in this case each party has to undertake to give the other party at least six months' prior notice of its intention not to renew the agreement;
(b) or that the agreement is concluded for an indefinite period; in this case the period of notice for regular termination of the agreement has to be at least two years for both parties; this period is reduced to at least one year where:
(i) the supplier is obliged by law or by special agreement to pay appropriate compensation on termination of the agreement, or
(ii) the supplier terminates the agreement where it is necessary to re-organise the whole or a substantial part of the network.
6. The exemption shall apply on condition that the vertical agreement provides for each of the parties the right to refer disputes concerning the fulfilment of their contractual obligations to an independent expert or arbitrator. Such disputes may relate, inter alia, to any of the following:
(a) supply obligations;
(b) the setting or attainment of sales targets;
(c) the implementation of stock requirements;
(d) the implementation of an obligation to provide or use demonstration vehicles;
(e) the conditions for the sale of different brands;
(f) the issue whether the prohibition to operate out of an unauthorised place of establishment limits the ability of the distributor of motor vehicles other than passenger cars or light commercial vehicles to expand its business, or
(g) the issue whether the termination of an agreement is justified by the reasons given in the notice.
The right referred to in the first sentence is without prejudice to each party's right to make an application to a national court. 7. For the purposes of this Article, the market share held by the undertakings referred to in Article 1(2)(e) shall be apportioned equally to each undertaking having the rights or the powers listed in Article 1(2)(a).
Article 4
Hardcore restrictions
(Hardcore restrictions concerning the sale of new motor vehicles, repair and maintenance services or spare parts)
1. The exemption shall not apply to vertical agreements which, directly or indirectly, in isolation or in combination with other factors under the control of the parties, have as their object:
(a) the restriction of the distributor's or repairer's ability to determine its sale price, without prejudice to the supplier's ability to impose a maximum sale price or to recommend a sale price, provided that this does not amount to a fixed or minimum sale price as a result of pressure from, or incentives offered by, any of the parties;
(b) the restriction of the territory into which, or of the customers to whom, the distributor or repairer may sell the contract goods or services; however, the exemption shall apply to:
(i) the restriction of active sales into the exclusive territory or to an exclusive customer group reserved to the supplier or allocated by the supplier to another distributor or repairer, where such a restriction does not limit sales by the customers of the distributor or repairer;
(ii) the restriction of sales to end users by a distributor operating at the wholesale level of trade;
(iii) the restriction of sales of new motor vehicles and spare parts to unauthorised distributors by the members of a selective distribution system in markets where selective distribution is applied, subject to the provisions of point (i);
(iv) the restriction of the buyer's ability to sell components, supplied for the purposes of incorporation, to customers who would use them to manufacture the same type of goods as those produced by the supplier;
(c) the restriction of cross-supplies between distributors or repairers within a selective distribution system, including between distributors or repairers operating at different levels of trade;
(d) the restriction of active or passive sales of new passenger cars or light commercial vehicles, spare parts for any motor vehicle or repair and maintenance services for any motor vehicle to end users by members of a selective distribution system operating at the retail level of trade in markets where selective distribution is used. The exemption shall apply to agreements containing a prohibition on a member of a selective distribution system from operating out of an unauthorised place of establishment. However, the application of the exemption to such a prohibition is subject to Article 5(2)(b);
(e) the restriction of active or passive sales of new motor vehicles other than passenger cars or light commercial vehicles to end users by members of a selective distribution system operating at the retail level of trade in markets where selective distribution is used, without prejudice to the ability of the supplier to prohibit a member of that system from operating out of an unauthorised place of establishment;
(f) the restriction of the distributor's ability to sell any new motor vehicle which corresponds to a model within its contract range;
(g) the restriction of the distributor's ability to subcontract the provision of repair and maintenance services to authorised repairers, without prejudice to the ability of the supplier to require the distributor to give end users the name and address of the authorised repairer or repairers in question before the conclusion of a sales contract and, if any of these authorised repairers is not in the vicinity of the sales outlet, to also tell end users how far the repair shop or repair shops in question are from the sales outlet; however, such obligations may only be imposed provided that similar obligations are imposed on distributors whose repair shop is not on the same premises as their sales outlet;
(h) the restriction of the authorised repairer's ability to limit its activities to the provision of repair and maintenance services and the distribution of spare parts;
(i) the restriction of the sales of spare parts for motor vehicles by members of a selective distribution system to independent repairers which use these parts for the repair and maintenance of a motor vehicle;
(j) the restriction agreed between a supplier of original spare parts or spare parts of matching quality, repair tools or diagnostic or other equipment and a manufacturer of motor vehicles, which limits the supplier's ability to sell these goods or services to authorised or independent distributors or to authorised or independent repairers or end users;
(k) the restriction of a distributor's or authorised repairer's ability to obtain original spare parts or spare parts of matching quality from a third undertaking of its choice and to use them for the repair or maintenance of motor vehicles, without prejudice to the ability of a supplier of new motor vehicles to require the use of original spare parts supplied by it for repairs carried out under warranty, free servicing and vehicle recall work; (l) the restriction agreed between a manufacturer of motor vehicles which uses components for the initial assembly of motor vehicles and the supplier of such components which limits the latter's ability to place its trade mark or logo effectively and in an easily visible manner on the components supplied or on spare parts.
2. The exemption shall not apply where the supplier of motor vehicles refuses to give independent operators access to any technical information, diagnostic and other equipment, tools, including any relevant software, or training required for the repair and maintenance of these motor vehicles or for the implementation of environmental protection measures.
Such access must include in particular the unrestricted use of the electronic control and diagnostic systems of a motor vehicle, the programming of these systems in accordance with the supplier's standard procedures, the repair and training instructions and the information required for the use of diagnostic and servicing tools and equipment.
Access must be given to independent operators in a non-discriminatory, prompt and proportionate way, and the information must be provided in a usable form. If the relevant item is covered by an intellectual property right or constitutes know-how, access shall not be withheld in any abusive manner.
For the purposes of this paragraph ‘independent operator’ shall mean undertakings which are directly or indirectly involved in the repair and maintenance of motor vehicles, in particular independent repairers, manufacturers of repair equipment or tools, independent distributors of spare parts, publishers of technical information, automobile clubs, roadside assistance operators, operators offering inspection and testing services and operators offering training for repairers.
Article 5
Specific conditions
1. As regards the sale of new motor vehicles, repair and maintenance services or spare parts, the exemption shall not apply to any of the following obligations contained in vertical agreements:
(a) any direct or indirect non-compete obligation;
(b) any direct or indirect obligation limiting the ability of an authorised repairer to provide repair and maintenance services for vehicles from competing suppliers;
(c) any direct or indirect obligation causing the members of a distribution system not to sell motor vehicles or spare parts of particular competing suppliers or not to provide repair and maintenance services for motor vehicles of particular competing suppliers;
(d) any direct or indirect obligation causing the distributor or authorised repairer, after termination of the agreement, not to manufacture, purchase, sell or resell motor vehicles or not to provide repair or maintenance services.
2. As regards the sale of new motor vehicles, the exemption shall not apply to any of the following obligations contained in vertical agreements:
(a) any direct or indirect obligation causing the retailer not to sell leasing services relating to contract goods or corresponding goods;
(b) any direct or indirect obligation on any distributor of passenger cars or light commercial vehicles within a selective distribution system, which limits its ability to establish additional sales or delivery outlets at other locations within the common market where selective distribution is applied.
3. As regards repair and maintenance services or the sale of spare parts, the exemption shall not apply to any direct or indirect obligation as to the place of establishment of an authorised repairer where selective distribution is applied.
Article 6
Withdrawal of the benefit of the Regulation
1. The Commission may withdraw the benefit of this Regulation, pursuant to Article 7(1) of Regulation No 19/65/EEC, where it finds in any particular case that vertical agreements to which this Regulation applies nevertheless have effects which are incompatible with the conditions laid down in Article 81(3) of the Treaty, and in particular:
(a) where access to the relevant market or competition therein is significantly restricted by the cumulative effect of parallel networks of similar vertical restraints implemented by competing suppliers or buyers, or
(b) where competition is restricted on a market where one supplier is not exposed to effective competition from other suppliers, or
(c) where prices or conditions of supply for contract goods or for corresponding goods differ substantially between geographic markets, or
(d) where discriminatory prices or sales conditions are applied within a geographic market.
2. Where in any particular case vertical agreements to which the exemption applies have effects incompatible with the conditions laid down in Article 81(3) of the Treaty in the territory of a Member State, or in a part thereof, which has all the characteristics of a distinct geographic market, the relevant authority of that Member State may withdraw the benefit of application of this Regulation in respect of that territory, under the same conditions as those provided in paragraph 1. Article 7
Non-application of the Regulation
1. Pursuant to Article 1a of Regulation No 19/65/EEC, the Commission may by regulation declare that, where parallel networks of similar vertical restraints cover more than 50% of a relevant market, this Regulation shall not apply to vertical agreements containing specific restraints relating to that market.
2. A regulation pursuant to paragraph 1 shall not become applicable earlier than one year following its adoption.
Article 8
Market share calculation
1. The market shares provided for in this Regulation shall be calculated
(a) for the distribution of new motor vehicles on the basis of the volume of the contract goods and corresponding goods sold by the supplier, together with any other goods sold by the supplier which are regarded as interchangeable or substitutable by the buyer, by reason of the products' characteristics, prices and intended use;
(b) for the distribution of spare parts on the basis of the value of the contract goods and other goods sold by the supplier, together with any other goods sold by the supplier which are regarded as interchangeable or substitutable by the buyer, by reason of the products' characteristics, prices and intended use;
(c) for the provision of repair and maintenance services on the basis of the value of the contract services sold by the members of the supplier's distribution network together with any other services sold by these members which are regarded as interchangeable or substitutable by the buyer, by reason of their characteristics, prices and intended use.
If the volume data required for those calculations are not available, value data may be used or vice versa. If such information is not available, estimates based on other reliable market information may be used. For the purposes of Article 3(2), the market purchase volume or the market purchase value respectively, or estimates thereof shall be used to calculate the market share.
2. For the purposes of applying the market share thresholds of 30% and 40% provided for in this Regulation the following rules shall apply:
(a) the market share shall be calculated on the basis of data relating to the preceding calendar year;
(b) the market share shall include any goods or services supplied to integrated distributors for the purposes of sale;
(c) if the market share is initially not more than 30% or 40% respectively but subsequently rises above that level without exceeding 35% or 45% respectively, the exemption shall continue to apply for a period of two consecutive calendar years following the year in which the market share threshold of 30% or 40% respectively was first exceeded;
(d) if the market share is initially not more than 30% or 40% respectively but subsequently rises above 35% or 45% respectively, the exemption shall continue to apply for one calendar year following the year in which the level of 30% or 40% respectively was first exceeded;
(e) the benefit of points (c) and (d) may not be combined so as to exceed a period of two calendar years.
Article 9
Turnover calculation
1. For the purposes of calculating total annual turnover figures referred to in Article 2(2)(a) and 2(3)(a) respectively, the turnover achieved during the previous financial year by the relevant party to the vertical agreement and the turnover achieved by its connected undertakings in respect of all goods and services, excluding all taxes and other duties, shall be added together. For this purpose, no account shall be taken of dealings between the party to the vertical agreement and its connected undertakings or between its connected undertakings.
2. The exemption shall remain applicable where, for any period of two consecutive financial years, the total annual turnover threshold is exceeded by no more than 10%.
Article 10
Transitional period
The prohibition laid down in Article 81(1) shall not apply during the period from 1 October 2002 to 30 September 2003 in respect of agreements already in force on 30 September 2002 which do not satisfy the conditions for exemption provided for in this Regulation but which satisfy the conditions for exemption provided for in Regulation (EC) No 1475/95. Article 11
Monitoring and evaluation report
1. The Commission shall monitor the operation of this Regulation on a regular basis, with particular regard to its effects on:
(a) competition in motor vehicle retailing and in after sales servicing in the common market or relevant parts of it; (b) the structure and level of concentration of motor vehicle distribution and any resulting effects on competition.
2. The Commission shall draw up a report on this Regulation not later than 31 May 2008 having regard in particular to the conditions set out in Article 81(3).
Article 12
Entry into force and expiry
1. This Regulation shall enter into force on 1 October 2002.
2. Article 5(2)(b) shall apply from 1 October 2005.
3. This Regulation shall expire on 31 May 2010.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 31 July 2002.
For the Commission Mario MONTI Member of the Commission
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/2534-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 12,
"total-input-tokens": 33628,
"total-output-tokens": 11523,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
4921,
1
],
[
4921,
10697,
2
],
[
10697,
15713,
3
],
[
15713,
21627,
4
],
[
21627,
26664,
5
],
[
26664,
32115,
6
],
[
32115,
37209,
7
],
[
37209,
42251,
8
],
[
42251,
47447,
9
],
[
47447,
52505,
10
],
[
52505,
56708,
11
],
[
56708,
57665,
12
]
]
} |
3aa3d86f1634991107e27b5e338123e4a0242fa3 | REGULATIONS
COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 65/2011 of 27 January 2011 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, as regards the implementation of control procedures as well as cross-compliance in respect of rural development support measures
THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 of 20 September 2005 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (1), and in particular Article 51(4), Article 74(4) and Article 91 thereof,
Whereas:
(1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009 of 30 November 2009 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 as regards cross-compliance, modulation and the integrated administration and control system, under the direct support schemes for farmers provided for in that Regulation, as well as for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards cross-compliance under the support scheme provided for the wine sector (2) repealed and replaced Commission Regulation (EC) No 796/2004 of 21 April 2004 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of cross-compliance, modulation and the integrated administration and control system provided for in Council Regulations (EC) No 1782/2003 and (EC) No 73/2009, as well as for the implementation of cross-compliance provided for in Council Regulation (EC) No 479/2008 (3).
(2) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1975/2006 of 7 December 2006, laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, as regards the implementation of control procedures as well as cross-compliance in respect of rural development support measures (4), contains many cross-references to the administration and control rules set out in the repealed Regulation (EC) No 796/2004. Account should be taken of the modifications made to those administration and control rules by Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009, while the principles established by Regulation (EC) No 1975/2006 should be respected. In addition, to ensure coherence, clarity and simplification, certain provisions of Regulation (EC) No 1975/2006 should be amended in order to limit the references to Regulation (EC) 1122/2009 to the minimum necessary. It is therefore appropriate to repeal and replace Regulation (EC) No 1975/2006.
(3) Member States should establish a control system that ensures that all necessary checks are carried out for effective verification of compliance with the terms under which aid is granted. All the eligibility criteria established by legislation of the Union or national legislation or the rural development programmes should be able to be controlled according to a set of verifiable indicators.
(4) Experience shows that the integrated administration and control system (hereinafter referred to as IACS) provided for in Chapter 4 of Title II of Council Regulation (EC) 73/2009 of 19 January 2009 establishing common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1290/2005, (EC) No 247/2006, (EC) No 378/2007 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 (5), has proven to be an effective and efficient means for the implementation of direct payment schemes. Therefore, as far as the area and animal-related measures under Axis 2 in Section 2 of Chapter I of Title IV of Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 are concerned, the administration and control rules, as well as the related provisions concerning reductions and exclusions in cases of false declarations, should follow the principles set out in the IACS, in particular in Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009.
(5) However, for certain support measures set out under Axis 2 and for equivalent support under Axis 4 provided for in Sections 2 and 4, respectively, of Chapter I of Title IV of Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, the administration and control rules need to be adapted
(1) OJ L 277, 21.10.2005, p. 1. (2) OJ L 316, 2.12.2009, p. 65. (3) OJ L 141, 30.4.2004, p. 18. (4) OJ L 368, 23.12.2006, p. 74. (5) OJ L 30, 31.1.2009, p. 16. to their particular characteristics. The same applies to the support measures under Axes 1 and 3 provided for in Sections 1 and 3, respectively, of the same Chapter and equivalent support under Axis 4. Special provisions therefore need to be established for those support measures.
(6) In order to ensure that all national administrations are able to organise efficient, integrated control of all areas for which payment is claimed under Axis 2 and under the area-related aid schemes covered by Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009, payment claims for area-related measures under Axis 2 should be submitted within the same deadline as the single application provided for in Chapter I of Title II of Part II of that Regulation.
(7) In order to ensure the deterrent effect of control, payments should, as a general rule, not be made before the eligibility checks have been completed. However, it is appropriate to allow payments up to a certain level after the completion of administrative checks. In fixing that level, account should be taken of the risk of overpayment.
(8) The control rules provided for in this Regulation should take into account the special characteristics of the measures concerned under Axis 2. For the sake of clarity, particular rules should therefore be established.
(9) Member States may use evidence received from other services, bodies or organisations to verify compliance with eligibility criteria. However, they should have assurance that the service, body or organisation is operating to a standard sufficient to control compliance with the eligibility criteria.
(10) Experience has shown that it is necessary to clarify certain provisions, especially as regards determination of the number of hectares and animals as well as reductions, exclusions and recoveries.
(11) In accordance with Article 50a of Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, payments under certain of the measures provided for in that Regulation have been made subject to observance of cross-compliance requirements as provided for in Chapter 1 of Title II of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009. It is therefore appropriate to align the rules governing cross-compliance with those contained in Regulations (EC) No 73/2009 and (EC) No 1122/2009.
(12) Experience has shown that specific control provisions are needed for certain specific support measures.
(13) Ex-post checks of investment operations should be undertaken to verify compliance with Article 72(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005. The basis and the contents of those checks should be specified.
(14) To allow the Commission to meet its obligations for the management of the measures, Member States should report to the Commission on the number of checks undertaken and their results.
(15) Certain general control principles should be established, covering the right of the Commission to carry out checks.
(16) Member States should ensure that the paying agencies referred to in Article 6 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 of 21 June 2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (1) have sufficient information on checks carried out by other services or bodies in order to fulfil their duties under that Regulation.
(17) In order to avoid accounting problems which could occur if for the calendar year 2011 different control procedures had to be applied, this Regulation should apply from 1 January 2011.
(18) The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Rural Development Committee,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
PART I
SCOPE AND GENERAL PROVISIONS
Article 1
Scope
This Regulation lays down the detailed rules for the implementation of control procedures as well as cross-compliance in respect of the co-financed rural development support measures established pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005.
Article 2
Definitions
For the purposes of this Regulation:
(a) ‘Application for support’ means an application for support or to enter a scheme under Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005;
(b) ‘Payment claim’ means an application by a beneficiary for payment by the national authorities;
(1) OJ L 209, 11.8.2005, p. 1. (c) ‘Other declaration’ means any declaration or document, other than those referred to in points (a) and (b), which has to be submitted or kept by a beneficiary or a third party in order to comply with specific requirements of certain rural development measures.
Article 3
Applications for support, payment claims and other declarations
1. The Member States shall provide for appropriate procedures for the submission of applications for support.
2. For measures with multiannual commitments, the beneficiary shall submit an annual payment claim. However, Member States may dispense with annual physical payment claims if they introduce effective alternative procedures to carry out the administrative checks provided for in Article 11 or 24 as appropriate.
3. An application for support, payment claim or other declaration may be totally or partially withdrawn at any time. Evidence of such withdrawal shall be recorded by the competent authority.
If the competent authority has already informed the beneficiary of irregularities in the documents referred to in the first subparagraph or if the competent authority has given notice to the beneficiary of its intention to carry out an on-the-spot check, which subsequently reveals irregularities, withdrawals shall not be authorised in respect of the parts affected by the irregularities.
Withdrawals referred to in the first subparagraph shall put beneficiaries in the position they were before submission of the documents in question or part of them.
4. Applications for support, payment claims and other declarations may be adjusted at any time after their submission in cases of obvious errors recognised by the competent authority.
Article 4
General principles of control
1. Member States shall establish a control system that ensures that all necessary checks are carried out for effective verification of compliance with the terms under which support is granted.
2. Without prejudice to specific provisions in this Regulation, Member States shall ensure that all the eligibility criteria established by Union or national legislation or by the rural development programmes can be checked according to a set of verifiable indicators to be established by the Member States.
3. Member States shall ensure that a unique identification system applies with regard to all applications for support, payment claims and other declarations submitted by the same beneficiary. This identification shall be compatible with the system referred to in Article 15(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 for recording the identity of each farmer.
4. Where appropriate, on-the-spot checks provided for in Articles 12, 20 and 25 of this Regulation and other checks provided for in Union rules regarding agricultural subsidies shall be carried out at the same time.
5. The results of the checks under Articles 11, 12, 24 and 25 shall be assessed to establish whether any problems encountered could in general entail a risk for other similar operations, beneficiaries or other bodies. The assessment shall also identify the causes of such situations, any further examination which may be required and the necessary corrective and preventive action.
6. Applications for support, payment claims and other declarations shall be rejected if beneficiaries or their representatives prevent checks from being carried out. Any amounts already paid for that operation shall be recovered taking into account the criteria set out in Article 18(2) of this Regulation.
7. Without prejudice to Article 20(4) of this Regulation, and provided that the purpose of control is not jeopardised, on-the-spot checks may be announced. The announcement shall be strictly limited to the minimum time necessary and shall not exceed 14 days. However, for on-the-spot checks concerning animal-related measures, the announcement shall, except in duly justified cases, not exceed 48 hours.
8. Without prejudice to specific provisions, no payments shall be made to beneficiaries for whom it is established that they artificially created the conditions required for obtaining such payments with a view to obtaining an advantage contrary to the objectives of the support scheme.
9. The reductions or exclusions under this Regulation shall be without prejudice to additional penalties pursuant to other provisions of Union or national law.
Article 5
Recovery of undue payments
1. If undue payment is made, the beneficiary shall repay the amount in question plus interest calculated in accordance with paragraph 2.
2. Interest shall be calculated for the period elapsing between the notification to the beneficiary of the repayment obligation and the effective repayment or deduction of the amount to be repaid. The rate of interest applicable shall be calculated in accordance with national law but shall not be lower than the interest rate applicable for the recovery of amounts under national provisions.
3. The repayment obligation referred to in paragraph 1 shall not apply if the payment was made by error of the competent authority or of another authority and if the error could not reasonably have been detected by the beneficiary.
However, where the error relates to factual elements relevant for the calculation of the payment concerned, the first subparagraph shall only apply if the decision to recover was not communicated within 12 months of the payment.
PART II ADMINISTRATION AND CONTROL RULES
TITLE I RURAL DEVELOPMENT SUPPORT FOR CERTAIN MEASURES UNDER AXIS 2 AND AXIS 4
CHAPTER I General provisions
Article 6 Scope and definitions
1. This Title shall apply to:
(a) support granted in accordance with Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005;
(b) support granted in accordance with Article 63(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 with regard to operations coming under measures defined under Axis 2.
However, this Title shall not apply to measures referred to in Article 36(a)(vi) and (b)(vi) and (vii) and in Article 39(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 as well as to measures under Article 36(b)(i), (ii) and (iii) of that Regulation as far as the establishment cost is concerned.
2. For the purposes of this Title, the following definitions apply:
(a) ‘area-related measure’ means measures or sub-measures for which support is based on the size of the area declared;
(b) ‘animal-related measure’ means measures or sub-measures for which support is based on the number of animals declared.
(c) ‘area determined’ means the area of plots or parcels for which aid is claimed, as identified in accordance with Article 11 and Article 15(2), (3) and (4) of this Regulation.
(d) ‘animals determined’ means the number of animals identified in accordance with Article 11 and Article 15(5) of this Regulation.
Article 7 Applicable rules
1. Article 2, second subparagraph, points (1), (10) and (20), Article 6(1), Article 10(2), Articles 12, 14, 16, 20, second subparagraph of Article 25(1), Articles 73, 74 and 82 of Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009 shall apply mutatis mutandis for the purpose of this Title. However, for the measures referred to in Articles 36(b)(iii), (iv) and (v) of Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, the Member States may establish appropriate alternative systems to uniquely identify the land subject to support.
2. For the purpose of this Title, the references in Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009 to ‘farmers’ shall be construed as references to ‘beneficiaries’.
Article 8 Payment claims
1. For all commitments starting or contracts entering into force after 1 January 2007, payment claims under area-related measures shall be submitted in accordance with the deadlines set out in Article 11(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009. However, Member States may decide to apply this provision only as from the claim year 2008.
2. If a Member State applies Article 3(2), second subparagraph, of this Regulation, then the payment claim shall be deemed to be submitted in accordance with the deadlines set out in Article 11(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009.
3. Articles 22 and 23 of Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009 shall apply mutatis mutandis to payment claims under this Title. In addition to the information referred to in Article 12(1)(d) of that Regulation, the payment claim shall also contain the information set out in that provision with regard to non-agricultural land for which support is being claimed.
Article 9 Payments
1. No payment for any measure or set of operations falling within the scope of this Title shall be made before the checks of that measure or set of operations with regard to eligibility criteria, as referred to in Section I of Chapter II, have been finalised.
However, Member States may decide, taking into account the risk of overpayment, to pay up to 75 % of the aid after completion of the administrative checks provided for in Article 11. The percentage of payment shall be the same for all beneficiaries of the measure or set of operations.
2. With regard to cross-compliance checks provided for in Section II of Chapter II, where such checks cannot be completed before payment, any undue payments shall be recovered in accordance with Article 5. CHAPTER II Control, reductions and exclusions
Article 10 General principles
1. Member States shall make use of the integrated administration and control system provided for in Chapter 4 of Title II of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 (hereinafter referred to as IACS).
2. Verification of compliance with the eligibility criteria shall consist of administrative and on-the-spot checks.
3. Observance of cross-compliance requirements shall be verified through on-the-spot checks and, where appropriate, through administrative checks.
4. During the period covered by a commitment, parcels for which support is being granted may not be exchanged except in cases specifically provided for in the rural development programme.
Section I Compliance with the eligibility criteria, commitments and linked obligations
Subsection I Control
Article 11 Administrative checks
1. Administrative checks shall be undertaken on all applications for support, payment claims and other declarations required to be submitted by a beneficiary or a third party, and shall cover all elements that it is possible and appropriate to control by administrative means. The procedures shall ensure the recording of control work undertaken, the results of the verification and the measures taken in respect of discrepancies.
2. The administrative checks shall include cross-checks wherever possible and appropriate, inter alia with data from the IACS. These cross-checks shall apply at least to parcels and livestock covered by a support measure in order to avoid any undue payments of aid.
3. Compliance with long-term commitments shall be checked.
4. Indications of irregularities resulting from cross-checks shall be followed up by any other appropriate administrative procedure, and, where necessary, by an on-the-spot check.
5. Where applicable, administrative checks on eligibility shall take into account the results of verifications carried out by other services, bodies or organisations involved in the control of agricultural subsidies.
Article 12 On-the-spot checks
1. The total number of on-the-spot checks on payment claims presented during each calendar year shall cover at least 5 % of all beneficiaries falling within the scope of this Title. However, for the measure set out in Article 36(a)(iv) of Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 the 5 % rate shall be achieved at measure level.
Applicants found not to be eligible after administrative checks shall not form part of the minimum number of beneficiaries checked in accordance with the first subparagraph.
2. Where on-the-spot checks reveal significant irregularities for a given measure or in a region or part of a region, the competent authority shall appropriately increase the number of on-the-spot checks during the current year and shall appropriately increase the percentage of beneficiaries to be checked on-the-spot in the following year.
3. The control samples of on-the-spot checks to be carried out pursuant to paragraph 1 of this Article shall be selected in accordance with Article 31 of Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009. As a result of the risk analysis referred to in that Article, the Member States may select specific measures of the beneficiaries for the on-the-spot check.
4. For the beneficiaries of any multiannual measures involving payments exceeding five years, the Member States may decide, after the fifth year of payment, to check at least 2,5 % of those beneficiaries.
Beneficiaries checked under the first subparagraph of this paragraph shall not be taken into account for the purpose of the first subparagraph of paragraph 1.
Article 13 Control report
On-the-spot checks under this Subsection shall be the subject of a control report to be established in accordance with Article 32 of Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009.
Article 14 General principles concerning on-the-spot checks
1. On-the-spot checks shall be spread over the year on the basis of an analysis of the risks presented by the different commitments under each rural development measure.
2. On-the-spot checks of measures selected for the check as referred to in Article 12(3) of this Regulation shall cover all the commitments and obligations of a beneficiary which can be checked at the time of the visit. Article 15
Elements of the on-the-spot checks and determination of areas
1. The Member States shall determine criteria and control methods that allow the control of the different commitments and obligations of the beneficiary to satisfy the requirements of Article 48(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1974/2006 (1).
2. Where the Member States provide that particular elements of an on-the-spot check may be carried out on the basis of a sample, that sample shall guarantee a reliable and representative level of control. Member States shall establish the criteria for the selection of the sample. If the checks on that sample reveal irregularities, the extent and scope of the sample shall be extended appropriately.
3. With regard to the control of area-related measures, the on-the-spot checks shall cover all agricultural parcels and non-agricultural land for which support is being claimed.
4. Nevertheless, the actual determination of the size of areas for an on-the-spot check may be limited to a sample of at least 50 % of the areas, provided that the sample guarantees a reliable and representative level of control in respect of area checked and support claimed. If the checks on that sample reveal irregularities, the extent and scope of the sample shall be extended appropriately.
5. Determination of areas and remote sensing shall be carried out in accordance with Article 34(1) to (5) and Article 35 of Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009.
However, for the measures set out in Articles 36(b)(iii), (iv) and (v) of Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, the Member States may define appropriate tolerances, which shall in no case be greater than twice the tolerances set out in Article 34(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009.
6. With regard to the control of animal-related measures, the on-the-spot checks shall be carried out in accordance with Article 42 of Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009.
Subsection II
Reductions and exclusions
Article 16
Reductions and exclusions in relation to the size of area
1. If, for a given year, a beneficiary does not declare all the agricultural areas, and the difference between the overall agricultural area declared in the payment claim on the one hand and the area declared plus the overall area of the agricultural parcels not declared, on the other, is more than 3 % of the area declared, the overall amount of aid under area-related measures payable to that beneficiary for that year shall be reduced by up to 3 % depending on the seriousness of the omission.
The first subparagraph shall not apply where all the agricultural areas concerned have been declared to the competent authorities in the framework of:
(a) the integrated system referred to in Article 15 of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009; or
(b) other administration and control systems that guarantee compatibility with the integrated system in accordance with Article 26 of that Regulation.
2. For the purpose of this Article, areas declared by a beneficiary which receive the same rate of aid under a certain area-related measure shall be considered as forming one crop group. Where degressive aid amounts are used, the average of these amounts in relation to the respective areas declared shall be taken into account.
3. If the area determined for a crop group is found to be greater than that declared in the payment claim, the area declared shall be used for the calculation of the aid.
If the area declared in the payment claim exceeds the area determined for that crop group, the aid shall be calculated on the basis of the area determined for that crop group.
However, where the difference between the total area determined and the total area declared in the payment claim for a measure is less than or equal to 0,1 hectare, the area determined shall be considered equal to the area declared. For this calculation, only over-declarations of areas at crop group level shall be taken into account.
The third subparagraph shall not apply where the difference represents more than 20 % of the total area declared for payments.
If a maximum limit or a ceiling has been set for the area eligible for support, the number of hectares declared in the payment claim shall be reduced to the limit or ceiling.
4. If the same area serves as the basis for a payment claim under more than one area-related measure, that area shall be taken into account separately for each of the measures.
5. In the case referred to in the second subparagraph of paragraph 3, the aid shall be calculated on the basis of the area determined reduced by twice the difference found if that difference is more than either 3 % or two hectares, but not more than 20 % of the area determined.
If the difference is more than 20 % of the area determined, no aid shall be granted for the crop group concerned.
(1) OJ L 368, 23.12.2006, p. 15. If the difference is more than 50%, the beneficiary shall be excluded once again from receiving aid up to the difference between the area declared in the payment claim and the area determined.
6. If the differences between the area declared in the payment claim and the area determined, as referred to in the second subparagraph of paragraph 5 and in the second subparagraph of paragraph 6 of this Article shall be offset in accordance with Article 5b of Commission Regulation (EC) No 885/2006. If the amount cannot be fully offset in accordance with that Article in the course of the three calendar years following the calendar year of the finding, the outstanding balance shall be cancelled.
If the difference is more than 20% of the area determined, the beneficiary shall be excluded once again from receiving aid, up to an amount equal to the amount corresponding to the difference between the area declared and the area determined.
7. The amount resulting from the exclusions provided for in the third subparagraph of paragraph 5 and in the second subparagraph of paragraph 6 of this Article shall be offset in accordance with Article 5b of Commission Regulation (EC) No 885/2006 (1). If the amount cannot be fully offset in accordance with that Article in the course of the three calendar years following the calendar year of the finding, the outstanding balance shall be cancelled.
Article 17
Reductions and exclusions in relation to the number of animals
1. For the purpose of this Article, bovine animals and ovine and caprine animals shall each be treated separately.
Concerning animals other than those referred to in the first subparagraph, the Member State shall fix an appropriate system of reductions and exclusions.
2. If an individual limit or individual ceiling is applicable, the number of animals declared in the payment claim shall be reduced to the limit or ceiling set for the beneficiary concerned.
In no case may aid be granted for a number of animals greater than that declared in the payment claim.
If the number of animals declared in the payment claim exceeds the number of animals determined as a result of administrative or on-the-spot checks, the aid shall be calculated on the basis of the number of animals determined.
3. A bovine animal which has lost one of the two ear tags shall be deemed to belong to the animals determined provided that it is clearly and individually identified by the other elements of the system for the identification and registration of bovine animals.
In the case of irregularities involving incorrect entries in the register of bovine animals or the animal passports, the bovine animal concerned shall only be deemed not to belong to the animals determined if the errors are found in at least two checks within a period of 24 months. In all other cases the animal concerned shall be deemed not to belong to the animals determined after the first finding.
Article 3(4) of this Regulation shall apply to entries in, and notifications to, the system for the identification and registration of bovine animals.
4. In the case referred to in the third subparagraph of paragraph 2, the total amount of aid to which the beneficiary is entitled under the measure shall be reduced by the percentage to be established in accordance with paragraph 6, if no more than three animals are found with irregularities.
5. If more than three animals are found with irregularities, the total amount of aid to which the beneficiary is entitled under the measure shall be reduced by:
(a) the percentage to be established in accordance with paragraph 6, if that percentage is not more than 10%;
(b) twice the percentage to be established in accordance with paragraph 6, if that percentage is more than 10% but not more than 20%.
If that percentage is more than 20%, no aid shall be granted for the measure concerned.
If that percentage is more than 50%, the beneficiary shall be excluded once again from receiving aid up to an amount corresponding to the difference between the number of animals declared and the number of animals determined in accordance with the third subparagraph of paragraph 2. The amount resulting from the exclusion shall be offset in accordance with Article 5b of Regulation (EC) No 885/2006. If the amount cannot be fully offset in accordance with that Article in the course of the three calendar years following the calendar year of the finding, the outstanding balance shall be cancelled.
6. In order to establish the percentages referred to in paragraphs 4 and 5, the number of animals found with irregularities shall be divided by the number of animals determined.
In case of application of the second subparagraph of Article 16(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009, potentially eligible animals found not to be correctly identified or registered in the system for identification and registration of bovine animals shall count as animals found with irregularities.
7. If the difference between the number of animals declared and that determined in accordance with the third subparagraph of paragraph 2 results from irregularities committed intentionally no aid shall be granted for the measure concerned.
______________________________________________________________________
(1) OJ L 171, 23.6.2006, p. 90. If the percentage established in accordance with paragraph 6 is more than 20 %, the beneficiary shall be excluded once again from receiving aid up to an amount corresponding to the difference between the number of animals declared and the number of animals determined in accordance with the third subparagraph of paragraph 2. The amount resulting from the exclusion shall be offset in accordance with Article 5b of Regulation (EC) No 885/2006. If the amount cannot be fully offset in the course of three calendar years following the calendar year of the finding, the outstanding balance shall be cancelled.
Article 18 Reductions and exclusions in the case of non-compliance with other eligibility criteria, commitments and linked obligations
1. The aid claimed shall be reduced or refused where the following obligations and criteria are not met:
(a) for the measures referred to in Article 36(a)(iv) and (v) as well in (b)(v) of Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, the relevant mandatory standards as well as minimum requirements for fertiliser and plant protection product use, other relevant mandatory requirements as referred to in Articles 39(3), 40(2) and 47(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, and commitments that go beyond such standards and requirements; or
(b) eligibility criteria other than those related to the size of area or number of animals declared.
In case of multiannual commitments, aid reductions, exclusions and recoveries shall also apply to the amounts already paid in the previous years for that commitment.
2. The Member State shall recover and/or refuse the support or determine the amount of the reduction of the aid, in particular on the basis of the severity, extent and permanent nature of the non-compliance found.
The severity of the non-compliance shall depend, in particular, on the importance of the consequences of the non-compliance, taking into account the objectives of the criteria that were not met.
The extent of the non-compliance shall depend, in particular, on its effect on the operation as a whole.
Whether the non-compliance is of a permanent nature shall depend, in particular, on the length of time for which the effect lasts or the possibility of terminating this effect by reasonable means.
3. If the non-compliance results from irregularities committed intentionally, the beneficiary shall be excluded from the measure in question both for the calendar year of finding and for the following calendar year.
Section II Cross-compliance Subsection I Control Article 19 General rules
1. Without prejudice to Article 51(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, ‘cross-compliance’ shall mean compliance with the statutory management requirements and the good agricultural and environmental condition referred to in the first subparagraph of Article 50a(1) of that Regulation and the minimum requirements for fertiliser and plant protection product use referred to in the second subparagraph of Article 51(1) of that Regulation.
2. Article 22 of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 and Article 2, second paragraph, points (2) and (32) to (37), Articles 8, 47, 48, 49, Article 50 with the exception of the first subparagraph of paragraph 1, Article 51(1), (2) and (3), Articles 52, 53, 54, Article 70(3), (4), (6) and (7), and Articles 71 and 72 of Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009 shall apply mutatis mutandis with regard to cross-compliance.
3. For calculating the reduction referred to in Article 21 of this Regulation, the minimum requirements for the use of fertilisers and plant protection products as referred to in Article 39(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 shall be considered to relate to the area of the environment and the area of public, animal and plant health, respectively, as laid down in Article 5(1) of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009. Both minimum requirements shall be considered to be an ‘act’ within the meaning of Article 2, second paragraph, point (33), of Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009.
Article 20 On-the-spot checks
1. As regards the requirements and standards for which it is responsible, the competent control authority shall carry out on-the-spot checks on at least 1 % of all beneficiaries submitting payment claims under Article 36(a)(i) to (v) and (b)(i), (iv) and (v) of Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005.
2. The samples of beneficiaries to be checked in accordance with paragraph 1 may be selected either from the sample of beneficiaries which were already selected pursuant to Article 12 of this Regulation, and to whom the relevant requirements or standards apply, or from the full population of beneficiaries submitting payment claims under Article 36(a)(i) to (v) and (b)(i), (iv) and (v) of Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 and who are obliged to meet the respective requirements or standards.
3. A combination of the procedures set out in paragraph 2 may be used where such a combination increases the effectiveness of the control system.
4. Where the acts and standards relevant to cross-compliance require the on-the-spot checks to be unannounced, the same requirement shall also apply to the on-the-spot checks of cross-compliance.
Subsection II
Reductions and exclusions
Article 21
Reductions and exclusions
Without prejudice to Article 51(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, if a case of non-compliance is determined, the reductions and exclusions referred to in Article 19(2) of this Regulation shall be applied to the overall amount of aid under Article 36(a)(i) to (v) and (b)(i), (iv) and (v) of Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 that has been, or is to be, granted to the beneficiary concerned following payment claims that the beneficiary has submitted or will submit in the course of the calendar year of the finding.
Section III
Order of reductions
Article 22
Order of reductions
Where several reductions are applicable; they shall be applied in the following order:
— first in accordance with Article 16(5) and (6) and with Article 17(4) and (5) of this Regulation,
— then in accordance with Article 18 of this Regulation,
— then for late submission in accordance with Article 23 of Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009,
— then in accordance with Article 16(1) of this Regulation,
— then in accordance with Article 21 of this Regulation,
— finally, in accordance with Article 16(7) and 17(7) of this Regulation.
TITLE II
RURAL DEVELOPMENT SUPPORT UNDER AXIS 1 AND AXIS 3 AND CERTAIN MEASURES UNDER AXIS 2 AND AXIS 4
CHAPTER I
Introductory provisions
Article 23
Scope
This Title shall apply to expenditure pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 not covered by Title I of this Regulation. 4. Administrative checks on investment operations shall include at least one visit to the operation supported or the investment site to verify the realisation of the investment.
However, Member States may decide not to carry out such visits for duly justified reasons, such as the following:
(a) the operation is included in the sample for an on-the-spot check to be carried out in accordance with Article 25;
(b) the operation in question is a small investment;
(c) the Member State considers that the risk that the conditions for receiving aid are not met is low, or that the risk that the investment has not been realised is low.
The decision referred to in the second subparagraph and its justification shall be recorded.
5. Administrative checks shall include procedures to avoid irregular double financing with other Union or national schemes and with other programming periods. Where financing from other sources exists, those checks shall ensure that the total aid received does not breach the maximum permissible aid ceilings.
6. Payments by beneficiaries shall be supported by invoices and documents proving payment. Where this cannot be done, payments shall be supported by documents of equivalent probative value.
Article 25
On-the-spot checks
1. Member States shall organise on-the-spot checks on approved operations using an appropriate sampling basis. These checks shall, as far as is possible, be carried out before the final payment is made for an operation.
2. The expenditure covered by on-the-spot checks shall represent at least 4% of the expenditure referred to in Article 23 which is financed by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) and which is to be paid by the paying agency each calendar year. Only checks carried out until the end of the year in question shall be taken into consideration.
Over the whole programming period, the expenditure covered shall represent at least 5% of the expenditure financed by the EAFRD.
3. The sample of approved operations to be checked in accordance with paragraph 1 shall take into account in particular:
(a) the need to check an appropriate mix of types and sizes of operations;
(b) any risk factors identified following national or Union checks;
(c) the need to maintain a balance between the axes and measures;
(d) the need to select randomly between 20% and 25% of expenditure.
4. The inspectors undertaking the on-the-spot check shall not have been involved in administrative checks of the same operation.
Article 26
Content of on-the-spot checks
1. Through the on-the-spot checks, the Member States shall endeavour to verify:
(a) that the payment claims submitted by the beneficiary are supported by accounting or other documents, including, where necessary, a check on the accuracy of the data in the payment claim on the basis of data or commercial documents held by third parties;
(b) for an adequate number of expenditure items, that the nature and the timing of the relevant expenditure comply with Union provisions and correspond to the approved specifications of the operation and the works actually executed or services actually delivered;
(c) that the use or intended use of the operation is consistent with the use described in the application for support;
(d) that the publicly funded operations have been implemented in accordance with Union rules and policies, especially the rules on public tendering and relevant mandatory standards established by national legislation or established in the rural development programme.
2. On-the-spot checks of payment claims selected for the check as referred to in Article 25(3) of this Regulation shall cover all the commitments and obligations of a beneficiary which can be checked at the time of the visit.
3. Except in exceptional circumstances, duly recorded and explained by the national authorities, on-the-spot checks shall include a visit to the operation or, if the operation is intangible, to the operation promoter.
4. Only checks meeting the full requirements of this Article may be counted towards achievement of the control rate set out in Article 25(2).
Article 27
Control report
1. Every on-the-spot check and ex-post check under this Section shall be the subject of a control report which makes it possible to review the details of the checks carried out. The report shall indicate in particular: (a) the measures and applications checked;
(b) the persons present;
(c) whether notice was given to the beneficiary of the visit and, if so, the period of advance notification;
(d) the results of the checks and, where applicable, any particular observations;
(e) any further control measures to be carried out.
2. The beneficiary shall be given the opportunity to sign the report to attest the beneficiary’s presence at the check and to add observations. Where irregularities are found, the beneficiary shall receive a copy of the control report.
Subsection II Supplementary control provisions for specific measures
Article 28 Young farmers For the measure provided for in Article 22(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, the Member States shall verify compliance with the business plan according to Article 13(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1974/2006 by administrative checks and, on a sample basis, by on-the-spot checks.
Article 28a Early retirement For the measure provided for in Article 23 of Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, Member States shall verify compliance with the requirements in Article 23(2)(b) and in Article 23(3) of that Regulation after transfer of the farm. Member States may dispense with on-the-spot checks after the first payment of support, provided that administrative checks, including appropriate cross-checks, in particular with the information contained in the electronic database referred to in Article 16 of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009, provide the necessary assurance of the legality and regularity of payments.
Article 28b Support for food quality schemes recognised by Member States For the measure provided for in Article 32 of Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, paying agencies may, where appropriate, make use of evidence received from other services, bodies or organisations to verify compliance with eligibility criteria. However, they shall ensure that they have assurance that the service, body or organisation is operating to a standard sufficient to control compliance with the eligibility criteria.
Article 28c Semi-subsistence farming For the measure provided for in Article 34 of Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, the Member States shall verify progress in respect of the business plan according to paragraph 2 of that Article by administrative checks and, on a sample basis, by on-the-spot checks.
Article 28d Producer groups For the measure provided for in Article 35 of Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, the Member States shall recognise the producer group after verifying compliance of the group with the criteria set out in paragraph 1 of that Article and with the national rules. After recognition, continuous compliance with the recognition criteria shall be verified at least once during the five-year period through an on-the-spot check.
Article 28e Holdings undergoing restructuring For the measure provided for in Article 35a of Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, the Member States shall assess progress in respect of the business plan according to paragraph 2 of that Article by administrative checks and, on a sample basis, by on-the-spot checks.
Article 28f Leader
1. The Member States shall implement an appropriate system for supervision of local action groups.
2. In the case of expenditure incurred under Article 63(a) and (b) of Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, Member States may delegate the carrying out of the administrative checks referred to in Article 24 of this Regulation to local action groups by a formal act. However, the Member States shall remain responsible for verifying that those local action groups have the administrative and control capacity to undertake that work.
In case of delegation referred to in the first subparagraph, the Member States shall carry out regular controls of the operations of the local action groups, including bookkeeping checks and repetition of administrative checks on a sample basis.
The Member States shall also carry out on-the-spot checks as referred to in Article 26 of this Regulation. In the sample of approved operations to be checked on-the-spot in accordance with Article 25(1) of this Regulation, expenditure concerning Leader shall at least have the same percentage it has in the expenditure referred to in Article 23 of this Regulation.
3. In the case of expenditure incurred under Article 63(c) of Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, the checks shall be carried out by persons independent of the local action group concerned. Article 28g
Subsidies on interest rates
In the case of expenditure incurred under Article 49 of Regulation (EC) No 1974/2006, administrative checks and on-the-spot checks shall be carried out with reference to the beneficiary and depending on the realisation of the operation concerned. The risk analysis in accordance with Article 25(3)(b) of this Regulation shall cover, at least once, the operation concerned on the basis of the discounted value of the subsidy.
Furthermore, the Member States shall ensure, via administrative checks and, if necessary, via in-situ visits to the intermediate financial institutions and at the beneficiary, that the payments to the intermediate financial institutions are in conformity with Union legislation and with the agreement concluded between the Member State’s paying agency and the intermediate financial institution as laid down in Article 49 of Regulation (EC) No 1974/2006.
Article 28h
Other financial engineering actions
In the case of expenditure incurred under Article 50 of Regulation (EC) No 1974/2006, the Member States shall ensure, via administrative checks and, if necessary, via in-situ visits to the funds or their sponsors, that the conditions laid down in Articles 51 and 52 of that Regulation are complied with. They shall especially verify the correct usage of the funds and the closure at the end of the programming period.
Subsection III
Ex-post checks
Article 29
Ex-post checks
1. Ex-post checks shall be carried out on investment operations to verify the respect of commitments pursuant to Article 72(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 or detailed in the rural development programme.
2. The ex-post checks shall cover in each calendar year at least 1% of EAFRD expenditure for investment operations that are still subject to commitment as referred to in paragraph 1 and for which the final payment has been made from the EAFRD. Only checks carried out until the end of the year in question shall be taken into consideration.
3. The sample for operations to be checked in accordance with paragraph 1 shall be based on an analysis of the risks and financial impact of different operations, groups of operations or measures. Part of the sample shall be selected randomly.
Section II
Reductions and exclusions
Article 30
Reductions and exclusions
1. Payments shall be calculated on the basis of what is found to be eligible during the administrative checks.
The Member State shall examine the payment claim received from the beneficiary, and establish the amounts that are eligible for support. It shall establish:
(a) the amount that is payable to the beneficiary based solely on the payment claim;
(b) the amount that is payable to the beneficiary after an examination of the eligibility of the payment claim.
If the amount established pursuant to point (a) exceeds the amount established pursuant to point (b) by more than 3%, a reduction shall be applied to the amount established pursuant to point (b). The amount of the reduction shall be the difference between those two amounts.
However, no reduction shall be applied if the beneficiary can demonstrate that he/she is not at fault for the inclusion of the ineligible amount.
2. Where a beneficiary is found to have intentionally made a false declaration, the operation in question shall be excluded from support from the EAFRD and any amounts already paid for that operation shall be recovered. Moreover, the beneficiary shall be excluded from receiving support under the same measure for the calendar year of finding and for the following calendar year.
3. The reductions and exclusions referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 shall be applied mutatis mutandis to non-eligible expenditure identified during checks under Articles 25 and 29.
PART III
FINAL PROVISIONS
Article 31
Reporting
Member States shall send to the Commission by 15 July of each year a report:
(a) covering the results of the checks on payment claims submitted under Title I during the previous calendar year and relating, in particular, to the following points:
(i) the number of payment claims for each measure, the total amount checked for these claims, as well as the total area and total number of animals covered by checks under Articles 11, 12 and 20;
(ii) for area-related support, the total area broken down by individual aid scheme;
(iii) for animal-related measures, the total number of animals broken down by individual aid scheme;
(iv) the result of the checks carried out, indicating the reductions and exclusions applied pursuant to Articles 16, 17, 18 and 21; (b) covering the checks and the results of the checks on payment claims carried out pursuant to Articles 24 and 25 for payments made during the previous calendar year;
c) covering the checks and the results of the checks carried out pursuant to Articles 28 and 29 during the previous calendar year.
Article 32 Control by the Commission
Article 27(2) of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 shall apply to support paid under Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005.
Article 33 Reporting of checks to the paying agencies
1. Where checks are not carried out by the responsible paying agency, the Member State shall ensure that sufficient information on the checks carried out and their results is received by that paying agency. It is for the paying agency to define its needs for information. The information may be a report on every check carried out or, if appropriate, be in the form of a summary report.
2. A sufficient audit trail shall be maintained. An indicative description of the requirements of a satisfactory audit trail is given in the Annex I.
3. The paying agency shall have the right to verify the quality of checks carried out by other bodies, and to receive all other information it needs for the performance of its functions.
Article 34 Repeal
1. Regulation (EC) No 1975/2006 is repealed with effect from 1 January 2011.
However, it shall continue to apply in respect of payment claims submitted before 1 January 2011.
2. References to Regulation (EC) No 1975/2006 shall be construed as references to this Regulation and shall be read in accordance with the correlation table in Annex II to this Regulation.
Article 35 Entry into force
This Regulation shall enter into force on the first day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.
It shall apply from 1 January 2011.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 27 January 2011.
For the Commission The President José Manuel BARROSO ANNEX I
Indicative description of information requirements for a sufficient audit trail
A sufficient audit trail, as referred to in Article 33(2), is present when, for a given assistance:
(a) it allows for reconciliation between the overall amounts declared to the Commission and the invoices, accounting and other supporting documents held by the paying agency or other service for all the operations supported by the EAFRD;
(b) it allows for verification of the payment of the public expenditure to the beneficiary;
(c) it allows for verification of the application of selection criteria to the operations financed by the EAFRD;
(d) it contains, as far as appropriate, the financial plan, reports of activities, documents relating to the granting of support, documents relative to public tendering procedures and reports relating to any checks carried out.
## ANNEX II
### Correlation table
| Regulation (EC) No 1975/2006 | This Regulation | |-------------------------------|-----------------| | Article 1 | Article 1 | | Article 2 | Article 4(3), (6), (7) and (9), Article 5, Article 7(1) | | Article 3 | Article 2 | | Article 4 | Article 3 | | Article 5 | Article 4(2), (4) and (8) | | Article 6 | Article 6 | | Article 7 | Article 7(1), Article 8(3), Article 16(1) | | Article 8(3) | Article 7(1), Article 8(3) | | Article 9 | Article 9 | | Article 10(1) and (2) | Article 4(1) | | Article 10(3) to (6) | Article 10(1) to (4) | | Article 11 | Article 11 | | Article 12(1), (3) and (4) | Article 12(1), (3) and (4) | | Article 12(2) | Article 12(2) and Article 15(3) | | Article 13 | Article 13 | | Article 14 | Article 14 | | Article 15 | Article 15 | | Article 16(1) | Article 16(2) and (3) | | Article 16(2) | Article 16(5) | | Article 16(4) | — | | Article 16(5) and (6) | Article 16(6) and (7), respectively | | Article 17(1) | Article 17(2) and (3) | | Article 17(2) | Article 17(4), (5) and (6) | | Article 17(3) | Article 17(5) and (7) | | Article 17(4) | Article 17(1) | | Article 18 | Article 18 | | Article 19(1) | Article 19(1) | | Article 19(2) | Article 19(2) | | Article 20(1) | Article 20(1) | | Article 20(2) | Article 19(2) | | Article 21(1) | Article 19(2) | | Regulation (EC) No 1975/2006 | This Regulation | |-------------------------------|-----------------| | Article 21(2) and (3) | Article 20(2) | | Article 21(4) | Article 20(3) | | Article 22 | Article 19(2) | | Article 23(1), first subparagraph | Article 21 | | Article 23(1), second and third subparagraphs | Article 19(2) | | Article 23(2) | Article 19(3) | | Article 24 | Article 22 | | Article 25 | Article 23 | | Article 26(1), (2), (3) and (4) | Article 24(1), (2), (3) and (4), respectively | | Article 26(5) | Article 24(6) | | Article 26(6) | Article 24(5) | | Article 26(7) | Article 28b | | Article 27(1), (2) and (3) | Article 25 | | Article 27(4) | Article 4(5) | | Article 28 | Article 26 | | Article 28a | Article 27 | | Article 29 | Article 28a and 28c | | Article 30(1) and (2) | Article 29(1) | | Article 30(3) | Article 29(2) | | Article 30(4), first subparagraph | Article 29(3) | | Article 30(4), second subparagraph | — | | Article 31(1), first, second and third subparagraphs | Article 30(1), first, second and third subparagraphs, respectively | | Article 31(1), fourth subparagraph | Article 30(3) | | Article 31(2) | Article 30(2) | | Article 32 | Article 28f(3) | | Article 33 | Article 28f(2) | | Article 34(a) | Article 31(a) | | Article 34(b) and (c) | Article 31(b) | | Article 34(d) | Article 31(c) | | Article 35 | Article 32 | | Article 36(1) | Article 19(2) | | Article 36(2), (3) and (4) | Article 33(1), (2) and (3) | | Article 37 | Article 35 |
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/2535-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 16,
"total-input-tokens": 43350,
"total-output-tokens": 14474,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
4254,
1
],
[
4254,
8385,
2
],
[
8385,
13116,
3
],
[
13116,
17528,
4
],
[
17528,
21768,
5
],
[
21768,
26595,
6
],
[
26595,
31827,
7
],
[
31827,
36737,
8
],
[
36737,
38411,
9
],
[
38411,
42801,
10
],
[
42801,
47233,
11
],
[
47233,
51828,
12
],
[
51828,
53833,
13
],
[
53833,
54698,
14
],
[
54698,
56617,
15
],
[
56617,
58543,
16
]
]
} |
cf505ac8c528315fd967525de0bc99f697dd9442 | Common Safety Method for Risk Evaluation and Assessment
Guidance on the application of Commission Regulation (EU) 402/2013
September 2018 Contents
1. Introduction ................................................................................................................. 3 Background.................................................................................................................. 3 Interface between the CSM RA and national requirements in Great Britain............. 3 Purpose of this guidance............................................................................................... 6 More information ........................................................................................................... 7
2. Applying the CSM RA ................................................................................................. 9 When does the CSM RA apply? ................................................................................... 9 What are technical, operational and organisation changes? ....................................... 10 Who has duties under the CSM RA? .......................................................................... 12 Where on the railway system does the CSM RA apply? ............................................. 13 How does the proposer determine the significance of a change? ............................... 14
3. Applying the risk management process of the CSM RA ....................................... 16 What does the risk management process involve? ..................................................... 16 What are the main phases of the risk management process? .................................... 16 Proven in use to have an acceptable safety level ....................................................... 24 Further information and references ............................................................................. 32
4. The role of the assessment body ............................................................................ 34 What is the role of the assessment body? .................................................................. 34 Safety assessment report ........................................................................................... 35
5. Miscellaneous requirements for specific duty holders ......................................... 36 Railway undertakings and infrastructure managers .................................................... 36 Entities in charge of maintenance ............................................................................... 36 Supervision by national safety authorities ................................................................... 36
Annex 1: Determining the significance of a change..................................................... 37 Annex 2: Criteria for assessment bodies ........................................................................ 42 Annex 3: Relaxed criteria where a significant change is not to be mutually recognised ......................................................................................................................... 46 Annex 4: Guidance on organisational change .............................................................. 49 Annex 5: Case study on designing in risk control ......................................................... 55 Annex 6: Glossary of terms and acronyms ................................................................... 59
1. Introduction
Background
1.1. Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 402/2013 (the Regulation on a common safety method (CSM) for risk evaluation and assessment [or “the CSM RA”]) is part of a wide-ranging programme of work by the European Union Agency for Railways (the Agency) and the European Commission (the Commission) to bring about a more open, competitive rail market while seeking to ensure that safety levels are maintained, and, if reasonably practicable, improved. In the past, safety requirements may have been used as a barrier to open competition across the EU. The intention of the CSM RA is to harmonise processes for risk evaluation and assessment and the evidence and documentation produced during the application of these processes. By applying a common process, it will be easier for an assessment undertaken in one EU Member State to be accepted in another with the minimum of further work. This is referred to as mutual recognition. The Intergovernmental Organisation for International Carriage by Rail (OTIF) has adopted risk assessment requirements (UTP GEN-G) equivalent to the CSM RA. Mutual recognition therefore extends to contracting states of OTIF.
1.2. The CSM RA is a framework that describes a common mandatory European risk management process for the rail industry and does not prescribe specific tools or techniques to be used. The processes are intended to complement requirements in other legislation, for example on interoperability or safety certification, and not to duplicate them. The broad principles of how these requirements fit together are explained in the following paragraphs.
Interface between the CSM RA and national requirements in Great Britain
1.1 There is other domestic legislation in Great Britain that requires suitable and sufficient risk assessments to be undertaken, such as the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations. As far as possible, courts will read and interpret domestic legislation in a way that is compatible with European law. To prevent conflict arising, ORR should interpret national law in a way which is consistent with European law. In order to ensure there is conformity across Europe, every effort must be made to interpret and apply national law in line with European law. The Courts’ guiding principle is that European and domestic requirements are compatible unless a conflict is clear. Where a provision of European law conflicts with a national law provision and cannot be reconciled, European legislation will take precedence over domestic requirements and a court must set aside the conflicting national law provision. 1.2 ORR is of the view that there is no conflict between the domestic requirements for a risk assessment to be *suitable and sufficient* and the level of risk assessment required by the risk management process of the CSM RA. In practice, therefore, when any significant safety related change of a technical, operational or organisational nature is proposed to the mainline railway, compliance with the risk management process of the CSM RA should produce a suitable and sufficient risk assessment for that change.
1.3 Under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and relevant health and safety regulations, duty holders have a responsibility to undertake a suitable and sufficient assessment of risks for the **entirety** of its operations and make arrangements for the effective planning, organisation and control of protective and preventative measures.
1.4 The starting point for anyone proposing any change in relation the mainline railway system is the CSM RA. The CSM RA applies when any technical, operational or organisation change is being proposed to the railway system. A person making the change (known as ‘the proposer’) needs to firstly consider if a change has an impact on safety. If there is no impact on safety, the risk management process in the CSM RA need not be applied and the proposer must keep a record of how it arrived at its decision.
1.5 If the change has an impact on safety the proposer must decide on whether it is significant or not by using criteria in the CSM RA (see Annex 1 of this guidance). If the change is significant the proposer must apply the risk management process. If the change is not significant, the proposer must keep a record of how it arrived at its decision.
**If the change is not significant**
1.6 In cases where a change is not significant, it will fall to the proposer of the change to consider domestic legislative requirements, such as those set out in regulation 19 of the Railways and Other Guided Transport Systems (Safety) Regulations 2006 (ROGS) and regulation 3 of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 (MHSWR), which require a suitable and sufficient risk assessment to be undertaken. It is possible to adopt the approach of the risk management process of the CSM RA even when there is no legal requirement to do so (for example, when a change is not significant) in line with the organisation’s safety management system. Following the CSM approach correctly in these circumstances is likely to mean that domestic safety legislation is complied with.
1.7 The Rail Safety and Standards Board (RSSB) in its publication *Taking Safe Decisions* has suggested applying the risk management process of the CSM RA even if a change not significant. This is to avoid the need to have duplicate risk assessment processes. 1.8 So, even though it is not mandatory to apply the risk management process if a change is not significant a proposer may choose to apply it. In these circumstances some elements of the risk management process (such as the need for independent assessment) can be omitted.
**If the change is significant**
1.9 In cases where a change is determined to be significant, the risk management process of CSM RA must be carried out by the proposer. The framework of the risk management process is based on the analysis and evaluation of hazards using one or more of the following risk acceptance principles:
- application of codes of practice;
- comparison with similar systems (reference systems); and
- explicit risk estimation.
1.10 Although the risk management process of the CSM RA must always be complied with, it can complement existing domestic legislation. The CSM RA applies the same principles as set out in Regulation 3 of the MHSWR but sets out a more formalised process with an independent evaluation of the risk assessment process by an assessment body (which can be carried out by an in-house service if it meets the criteria in the regulation). The CSM RA also includes additional elements requiring:
- agreements with other duty holders or ‘actors’ (in European terms) involved in managing or affected by the risk in their risk management process and associated safety management responsibilities; and
- cooperation arrangement between ‘actors’ in how shared risks will be managed.
1.11 It is very likely that the change being proposed will impact on other interfaces in relation to the railway system which domestic legislation such as MHSWR and CDM Regulation (see below) will also require the proposer to assess safety risk. Whilst it is possible to carry out separate risk assessments under each piece of legislation, in these cases it is likely to be more efficient to produce a single, broadly scoped, risk assessment in accordance with the CSM RA that addresses the risks for the whole operation as a result of the proposed change. The scope of the risk management process should be recorded in the System Definition. Conflict should not arise between domestic and European legislative provisions in relation to risk assessments. The CSM RA, ROGS, MHSWR and CDM Regulation requirements seek to achieve the same result: a robust risk assessment and controls to maintain or reduce risk. ORR therefore considers it to be unnecessary for duty holders to produce separate risk assessment and evaluation processes to comply with domestic and European requirements. Compliance with the CSM RA should simultaneously deliver compliance with regulation 19 ROGS and regulation 3 MHSWR in respect of the change and impact on other interfaces, as the purpose of the CSM RA is to deliver a thorough and competent risk assessment process.
1.12 Significantly, a court is likely to interpret domestic legislation in such a way as to determine that a risk assessment which is CSM RA compliant is suitable and sufficient for the purposes of the domestic requirements.
1.13 If a proposer of a change applies one or more of the three risk acceptance principles in the CSM RA regulation correctly for all identified hazards, and implements suitable control measures, this should mean that the risk has been reduced to an acceptable level for the change being effected. One of the purposes of the CSM RA is to ensure that a high level of safety will be maintained, and where reasonably practicable, improved.
**Designing in risk control**
1.14 It is essential that duty holders’ risk assessment and evaluation processes, whether European or domestic, consider risk control from the initial design stage. Where the change is likely to be significant this will require the CSM RA to be considered early enough in the process to influence the client requirements before pre-construction information is finalised. A case study on designing in risk control can be found in Annex 5.
**Purpose of this guidance**
1.15 This guidance summarises and explains the main requirements of the CSM RA, to whom it applies, and specific points on compliance in the UK.
1.16 This is the fourth issue of this guidance. It has been updated to reflect the coming into force of amendments made to the CSM RA by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1136, which was adopted by the European Commission on 13 July 2015. The amendments are concerned with ‘risk acceptance criteria’, which are now called ‘harmonised design targets’. The term ‘harmonised design targets’ has been introduced to distinguish the acceptance of risks associated with technical systems from the acceptance of operational risks and of the overall risk at the level of the railway system.
1.17 Regulation (EU) 402/2013 came into force on 23 May 2013 and started to apply from 21 May 2015. It amended the original Regulation (EC) 352/2009, which came into force on 19 July 2010 and has been applicable from July 2012 to all significant changes which impact on safety. Those amendments were mostly concerned with the accreditation and recognition of assessment bodies. Regulation (EC) 352/2009 was repealed on 21 May 2015 but its provisions continue to apply in relation to projects that were at an advanced stage of development on that date. We believe it is unlikely that proposers will claim that any further projects were at an advanced stage on 21 May 2015. The amendments to Regulation (EU) 402/2013 made by Regulation (EU) 2015/1136 came into force and started to apply on 3 August 2015. This guidance will continue to be updated as further revisions to the CSM RA come into force or if there are changes to other related legislation or processes that impact on how the CSM RA should be applied.
1.18 The full (consolidated) text of the CSM RA is available on the Commission’s website. As a Commission Regulation, it applies directly and does not need to be transposed into UK law. The CSM RA primarily applies to railway undertakings (RUs), infrastructure managers (IMs) and entities in charge of maintenance (ECMs) but also applies to project entities and manufacturers in certain circumstances (see paragraphs 2.17 - 2.18).
1.19 The Agency has also produced guidance on the application of the CSM RA. This is in two parts: the first is intended as further explanation (‘Guide to the Application of the CSM’); and the second is a collection of examples of risk assessments, processes and applications that were used in some Member States prior to the introduction of the CSM RA. The main aim of the second part is to illustrate the types of tools and techniques that may be used to apply the CSM RA. In addition the Agency has produced guidance on harmonised design targets.
1.20 The Railway and Other Guided Transport Systems (Safety) Regulations 2006 (as amended) (ROGS) require RUs and IMs to develop safety management systems (SMS) to manage the risks associated with their activities and to meet specific criteria. One of the criteria for the SMS is that it must apply the relevant parts of CSMs. (In addition to the CSM RA, there is one other CSM applicable to RUs and IMs (the CSM for Monitoring). Please see ORR’s website or Taking Safe Decisions for further details.) ORR will check compliance with CSMs when we examine applications from duty holders for safety certificates or authorisations and when we subsequently supervise those duty holders.
1.21 The Railways and Other Guided Transport Systems (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2013 removed from ROGS the requirement for a written safety verification scheme by RUs or IMs in certain circumstances. This was to prevent duplication following the introduction of the CSM, which achieves a similar outcome.
More information
Commission Regulation (EC) 352/2009 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2009:108:0004:0019:EN:PDF
Commission Regulation (EU) 402/2013 (consolidated with Regulation (EU) 2015/1136) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:02013R0402-20150803&qid=1486726327105&from=EN
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1136 http://www.era.europa.eu/Document-Register/Pages/Commission-implementing-R.aspx
The Agency’s guidance to the application of the CSM http://www.era.europa.eu/Document-Register/Documents/guide-for-application-of-CSM-Ver-1-1.pdf
The Agency’s collection of examples of risk assessments and some possible tools http://www.era.europa.eu/Document-Register/Documents/collection_of_RA_Ex_and_some_tools_for_CSM_V1.1.pdf
The Agency’s guidance on harmonised design targets http://www.era.europa.eu/Document-Register/Pages/Commission-implementing-R.aspx
RSSB guidance: Taking Safe Decisions http://www.rssb.co.uk/risk-analysis-and-safety-reporting/risk-analysis/taking-safe-decisions 2. Applying the CSM RA
When does the CSM RA apply?
2.1 The CSM RA applies when any technical, operational or organisational change is being proposed to the railway system. A person making the change (known as ‘the proposer’) needs to firstly consider if a change has an impact on safety. If there is no impact on safety, the risk management process in the CSM RA need not be applied and the proposer must keep a record of how it arrived at its decision.
2.2 If the change has an impact on safety the proposer must decide on whether it is significant or not by using criteria in the CSM RA (see Annex 1 of this guidance). If the change is significant the proposer must apply the risk management process (see Chapter 3). If the change is not significant the proposer is not obliged to apply the risk management process but it is strongly recommended to use the process to manage non-significant safety risks. The proposer must keep a record of how it arrived at its decision.
2.3 This process is summarised in Figure 1.
2.4 In addition to technical, operational or organisational changes, application of the CSM RA may be required
- by a Technical Specification for Interoperability (TSI) when structural sub-systems falling within the scope of the Railways (Interoperability) Regulations 2011 (as amended) (RIR) are constructed or manufactured, or upgraded or renewed; or
- when placing in service a structural sub-system to ensure that it is integrated into the existing system in a safe manner.
2.5 Structural sub-systems (as described in Directive 2008/57/EC) are:
- rolling stock;
- infrastructure;
- command control and signalling; and
- energy. What are technical, operational and organisation changes?
Technical changes
2.6 Technical changes are changes to a structural sub-system such as new rolling stock or a station rebuild. Technical changes should also be reviewed to determine whether they introduce changes to the operation of the sub-system under consideration. Operational changes
2.7 Operational changes are:
- changes to the operation of a structural sub-system;
- changes to the operation of the railway system; or
- changes to the operating rules of the railway system.
2.8 Operational changes are often the result of technical changes to a sub-system. Indeed, technical changes are frequently made for the purpose of delivering a desired operational change. In these cases, the technical change and its effect on
- the operation of the sub-system;
- the wider railway system; or
- the operating rules of the railway,
must be considered and assessed together.
2.9 For example, a change of the command, control and signalling (CCS) system from fixed marker signals (for example TVM) to a cab-based system (for example ETCS) is a significant safety-related technical change that should be assessed in accordance with the risk management process of the CSM RA. Such a change will also involve changes to the operation of the CCS sub-system and changes to the wider operating rules. These operational changes must be assessed together with the significant safety-related technical changes as part of the risk management process of the CSM RA.
2.10 Of course, changes to
- the operation of a sub-system; or
- the operation of the railway system; or
- the operating rules of the railway system,
can also be introduced without a related technical change. If these changes are safety-related, the proposer should consider whether they are significant or not. Only if they are significant should the risk management process of the CSM RA be applied to them. If the change is not significant, the proposer must keep a record of how it arrived at its decision.
Organisational changes
2.11 Organisational changes are changes to the organisation of an actor in the railway system which could impact on the safety of the railway system. The ‘actor’ is most likely to be an IM or a RU, but it could be an ECM or any other organisation that affects the safety of the railway system.
2.12 An example could be a change to the Safety Management System (SMS) - moving from a structure and culture based on a large number of prescriptive standards to a risk-based system relying on trained and competent staff using a small number of key principles. This could be a significant safety-related change and should be assessed using the CSM RA.
2.13 Further guidance on organisational changes can be found in Annex 4.
Who has duties under the CSM RA?
2.14 The CSM RA places duties primarily on the proposer of a change. Proposers are those in charge of projects who wish to implement a change to a technical, operational or organisational aspect of the railway system.
2.15 In many circumstances, proposers will be RUs or IMs. This aligns with the Safety Directive 2004/49/EC which places the main responsibilities for safety on these two key players. An ECM will also become a proposer in relation to changes to its maintenance system or if it is responsible for the modification of vehicles.
2.16 However, the CSM RA allows other bodies to act as the proposer. This could apply, for example, to project entities and manufacturers who lead projects where they are required to engage a Notified Body (NoBo) or a Designated Body (DeBo), or an applicant for an authorisation for placing in service under RIR.
2.17 In some circumstances a manufacturer or client will act as the proposer at the start of a project, for example if they want to market a new or altered product and/or there is no RU or IM in place. For manufacturers once the product is placed on the market, that ‘change’ is complete and an RU or IM wishing to use the new or altered product in a specific application or location will then be the proposer of a new change for CSM RA purposes. The RU or IM’s risk assessment will focus on such matters as route-specific technical compatibility and safe integration and will not need to repeat the manufacturer’s risk assessment. In projects where a client is undertaking the initial design and development work the client will carry the obligations under CSM RA initially and once an RU or IM is appointed the RU and/or IM will then take on the outcomes of the client’s initial CSM RA work and incorporate that into their ongoing CSM RA duties.
2.18 It may be advisable to ensure that the obligations on the manufacturer/client to apply CSM RA, in particular the requirement to appoint an independent Assessment Body (see chapter 4), before handing the product/project over to the RU/IM is included in the commercial contractual arrangements between the two parties. 2.19 The proposer must ensure that risks introduced by its suppliers and its service providers, including their subcontractors are also managed through application of the CSM RA. This may require participation in the risk management process of the CSM RA through contractual arrangements coordinated by the proposer.
**Where on the railway system does the CSM RA apply?**
2.20 The CSM RA has the same scope as the mainline railway as defined in ROGS. Therefore, the CSM RA does not apply to a railway if
a) ORR determines under regulation 2A (1) of ROGS that it falls within one or more of these categories:
- metros and other light rail systems;
- networks that are functionally separate from the rest of the mainline railway system and intended only for the operation of local, urban or suburban passenger services, as well as transport undertakings operating solely on these networks; or
- heritage, museum or tourist railways that operate on their own networks; or
b) ORR determines under regulation 2A(2) of ROGS that heritage vehicles that operate on the mainline railway and comply with national safety rules are part of a non-mainline operation; or
c) it is privately owned infrastructure that exists solely for use by the infrastructure owner for its own freight operations.
2.21 Rail systems that fall under (a) and (b) above are contained in an Approved List on our website.
2.22 The CSM RA also does not apply to RUs operating vehicles (for example On-Track Machines) within a possession. If vehicles operate within a possession and subsequently leave the possession to operate on the mainline railway the CSM RA will apply. The risks arising from operating OTMs within a possession can be managed through other measures, such as the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999.
2.23 In circumstances where the CSM RA is not a formal legal requirement (for example if the rail system is on the Approved List), the risk management process it describes can nevertheless be used for the management of change (see also paragraphs 1.8 to 1.10). How does the proposer determine the significance of a change?
2.24 If a proposed change has an impact on safety, the proposer must determine the significance of the change by examining the criteria in Article 4(2) of the CSM RA (see Annex 1 of this guidance). Note that the assessment body (see Chapter 4) assesses the application of the risk management process of the CSM RA but cannot question the proposer’s significance decision.
2.25 If a change is deemed to be non-significant, application of the risk management process of the CSM RA is not mandatory and the change should be managed under the change management processes as described in the proposer’s SMS or by carrying out a risk assessment which is required as part of compliance with other legislation, such as the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999. However, there is nothing to prevent the proposer voluntarily applying the CSM RA risk management process for a non-significant change.
2.26 ORR, or the safety authority in another EU Member State, may check the process that RUs or IMs have used to determine whether or not to apply the CSM RA. Proposers, therefore, must document their decisions, particularly in relation to the test for significance.
2.27 The CSM RA contains six criteria which should be examined to determine ‘significance’. These are:
- **failure consequence**: credible worst-case scenario in the event of failure of the system under assessment, taking into account the existence of safety barriers outside the system;
- **novelty used in implementing the change**: this concerns both what is innovative in the railway sector, and what is new just for the organisation implementing the change;
- **complexity of the change**;
- **monitoring**: the inability to monitor the implemented change throughout the system life-cycle and take appropriate interventions;
- **reversibility**: the inability to revert to the system before the change; and
- **additionality**: assessment of the significance of the change taking into account all recent safety-related modifications to the system under assessment and which were not judged as significant.
2.28 The CSM RA gives no order or priority on how to use the “significance” criteria, nor any thresholds to evaluate and make the decision. To help proposers work through the process, a UK industry proposal for how to determine significance is included at Annex 1. This approach is only one way of applying the criteria and is not mandatory.
**Additionality**
2.29 Additionality can be described as considering other changes that have been made since the entry into force of the CSM RA (23 May 2013) or since the last application of the risk management process (whichever is later), which, when combined with the change being considered, could become significant. If there are other safety-related changes that have been made ‘recently’, the test for significance should be made for all the changes as a whole rather than for just the individual change being considered.
2.30 Annex 1 suggests that additionality should be considered first as this defines the scope of the change that is to be assessed. It also proposes a method of addressing how far back to look when examining a series of changes.
2.31 Breaking down a significant change into a series of smaller changes, which individually are not significant so that the risk management process is then not applied to the overall significant change, is not permitted by the CSM RA.
**Novelty and complexity**
2.32 If a proposed change is novel or complex there could be an increase in the likelihood that, once implemented, the changed structural sub-system, operation or organisation will not behave as predicted and that unforeseen hazards will arise. Classifying such changes as significant and applying the risk management process, including the requirement for an independent assessment, will provide additional assurance and should help to identify measures to mitigate any potential increase in the risk. 3. Applying the risk management process of the CSM RA
What does the risk management process involve?
3.1 The risk management process is contained in Annex I of the CSM RA. The main phases are illustrated in Figure 2 and further details are set out below. The process illustrated is not static or linear as the proposer may undertake iterations of all or part of the process. The proposer should also integrate the process into the project lifecycle, rather than carrying it out in isolation. The process begins with a system definition and ends when the proposer is content that for each hazard the identified safety requirements and measures have been complied with by applying defined risk acceptance principles (see paragraphs 3.26 to 3.52). If the proposer decides to change the system definition throughout the process, it may need to start again from the beginning.
3.2 An assessment body must carry out an independent assessment of the risk management process and the results obtained from carrying it out.
3.3 The processes required by Annex I of the CSM RA will be familiar to many in the UK and are probably already in use in their risk management systems. The key requirements are examined below. Potential proposers who need to comply with the risk management process should review their current processes and procedures and make any necessary adjustments.
What are the main phases of the risk management process?
Preliminary system definition
3.4 In order to assess whether the change is significant or not, the proposer should conduct a preliminary system definition. This ‘preliminary system definition’ is in effect an analysis of what is being changed and a preliminary risk assessment of that change. The ‘preliminary system definition’ should
- give a clear statement on what is being changed and the scope of the change; and
- address the information described in paragraph 3.10(a) to (d) to the extent necessary to enable the proposer to determine the significance of the change.
System definition
3.5 The risk assessment process starts with the system definition (which can use information from the preliminary system definition). This provides the key details of the system that is being changed - its purpose, functions, interfaces and the existing safety measures that apply to it. In most cases, the hazards which need to be analysed will exist at the boundary of the system with its environment. 3.6 The definition is not static and during iterations of the risk management process, it should be reviewed and updated with the additional safety requirements that are identified by the risk analysis. It therefore describes the condition (or expected condition) of the system before the change, during the change and after the change.
3.7 The system definition may change due to factors other than the specification of safety requirements, such as
- changes in scope;
- changes in client requirements;
- increasing design definition; and
- implementation of changes proposed by contractors and suppliers.
3.8 Such changes may necessitate iteration of the risk management process.
3.9 Equally, changes to the system definition for other reasons may require the proposer to repeat all or part of the process and discuss with the assessment body the implications.
3.10 The risk management process states that the system definition should address at least the following issues:
a) system objective, e.g. intended purpose;
b) system functions and elements, where relevant (including e.g. human, technical and operational elements);
c) system boundary including other interacting systems;
d) physical (i.e. interacting systems) and functional (i.e. functional input and output) interfaces;
e) system environment (e.g. energy and thermal flow, shocks, vibrations, electromagnetic interference, operational use);
f) existing safety measures and, after iterations, definition of the safety requirements identified by the risk assessment process; and
g) assumptions which shall determine the limits for the risk assessment.
3.11 The system definition needs to cover not only normal mode operations but also degraded or emergency mode.
3.12 Consideration of interfaces should not be restricted to physical parameters, such as interfaces between wheel and rail. It should include human interfaces, such as the user-machine interface between the driver and driver displays in the cabs of rail vehicles. It should also include interfaces with non-railway installations and organisations. For example, the interface with road users at level crossings. 3.13 Operational rules and procedures, and staff competence should be considered as part of the system environment. This is in addition to the more usual issues such as weather, electromagnetic interference, local conditions such as lighting levels, etc.
3.14 A good test of whether the system definition is complete and sufficient is if the proposer can describe the system elements, boundaries and interfaces, as well as what the system does.
3.15 The description can effectively serve as a model of the system and should cover
- structural issues (how the system is constructed or made up); and
- operational issues (what it does, and how it behaves normally and in failure modes).
3.16 The existing safety measures, which may change as the risk assessment process progresses, can be added after the structural and operational parts of the model are complete.
3.17 For some projects, the proposer may not know all the environmental or operational conditions in which the altered or new system will operate. In these circumstances, they should make assumptions on the basis of the intended or most likely environment. These assumptions will determine the initial limits of use of the system and should be recorded. When the system is put into use, the proposer (who may be different to the original proposer) should review the assumptions and analyse any differences with the intended environmental and operational conditions.
**Hazard Identification**
3.18 The purpose of the hazard identification is to identify all reasonably foreseeable hazards which are then analysed further in the next steps.
3.19 The hazard identification should be systematic and structured, which means taking into account factors such as
- the boundary of the system and its interactions with the environment;
- the system's modes of operation (i.e. normal/degraded/emergency);
- the system life cycle including maintenance;
- the circumstances of operation (e.g. freight-only line, tunnel, bridge, etc.);
- human factors;
- environmental conditions; and
- relevant and foreseeable system failure modes. 3.20 While the risk management process does not require that any specific tools should be applied, many of the more well-known techniques will be relevant, including
- structured group discussions;
- checklists;
- task analysis;
- hazard and operability studies (HAZOPs);
- hazard identification studies (HAZIDs);
- failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA);
- fault trees; and
- event trees.
3.21 Whichever technique is used, it is important to have the right mixture of experience and competence while maintaining impartiality and objectivity. Correct hazard identification will underpin the whole risk management process and give assurance that the risks will be managed in the project.
3.22 The risk management process uses the term ‘broadly acceptable’ to identify those hazards which need not be analysed further. In this context, ‘broadly acceptable’ applies to those hazards where the risk is, to all intents and purposes, insignificant or negligible. This could be because the hazard is so unlikely to arise that there are no feasible control measures that could be used to control the risk it creates or where there is a credible failure mode but the consequences are negligible. An example of a very low frequency, very high severity event is a ‘meteorite impact; and an example of a high frequency, very low severity event is a ‘paper cut’. By screening out the ‘broadly acceptable’ hazards at this stage, the risk analysis can focus on the more important hazards to manage. It is unlikely that many hazards will be screened out in this way.
3.23 The level of detail of the hazard identification depends on the system that is being assessed and needs to be sufficient to ensure that relevant safety measures can be identified. If, following a high level hazard identification, it can be successfully demonstrated that the hazard can be controlled by application of one of the three risk acceptance principles required by the risk management process (see paragraph 3.26), then no further hazard identification is necessary unless it is required as part of the application of the explicit risk estimation principle. If it is not possible to have sufficient confidence at this stage, then the high level hazard may be broken down in to its component parts allowing further analysis of the causes and consequences and identification of relevant measures to control the risks arising. The risk management
______________________________________________________________________
1 ‘Broadly acceptable’ in the Regulation does not have the same meaning as it has in the HSE tolerability of risk framework (see ‘Reducing Risks, Protecting People’). process continues until it can be shown that the overall system risk is controlled by one or more of the risk acceptance principles.
3.24 Hazard identification is still necessary for those changes where the hazards are to be controlled by the application of codes of practice or by comparison to reference systems. Hazard identification in these cases will serve to check that all the identified hazards are being controlled by relevant codes of practice or by adopting the safety measures for an appropriate in-use system. This will also support mutual recognition and transparency. The hazard identification can then be limited to verification of the relevance of the codes of practice or reference systems, if these completely control the hazards, and identification of any deviations from them. If there are no deviations, the hazard identification may be considered complete.
3.25 The purpose of risk analyses and evaluation is to identify those safety requirements and measures that are necessary to control the risks arising from the identified hazards.
**Risk acceptance principles**
3.26 Hazards can be analysed and evaluated using one or more of the following risk acceptance principles:
- the application of codes of practice;
- a comparison with similar systems (reference systems); or
- an explicit risk estimation.
3.27 In the UK, you can choose any of these three risk acceptance principles. However, if a proposer is seeking mutual recognition in another EU Member State, they should check whether there is a notified national rule restricting the choice of risk acceptance principle. If there is, only the required principle(s) must be applied.
3.28 Individual hazards can be closed out by the application of one or more of the three principles. However, it is likely that different principles will be used for different hazards. Any risk assessment conducted under the CSM RA should always be proportionate to the extent of the risk being assessed.
3.29 The CSM RA has been introduced to ensure that levels of safety are maintained or improved when and where necessary and reasonably practicable, in accordance with the requirements of the Railway Safety Directive (2004/49/EC). Applying one or more of the three risk acceptance principles correctly for all identified hazards and implementing suitable control measures should mean that the risk acceptance criteria (see 3.47) has been met. In these circumstances, ORR will not normally require further evidence that the residual risk is acceptable. Codes of Practice
3.30 Standards and rules have to meet all the following criteria to be used as a code of practice for the risk management process:
- be widely accepted in the railway sector or otherwise justified to the assessment body;
- be relevant for the control of the specific hazard; and
- be available to an assessment body so that it can:
- assess the suitability of the how the CSM RA is applied and the results of applying it; or
- mutually recognise any safety assessment report on the same system (see paragraph 4.9).
3.31 Standards and rules that are widely accepted in the railway sector include
- TSIs or other mandatory European standards, for example those used in other EC verifications;
- notified national safety rules;
- notified national technical rules (NNTRs); and
- Euro standards or ISO standards.
3.32 Domestic or UK standards can also be used where they meet the requirements in paragraph 3.30 and are not in conflict with mandatory standards. In particular, Railway Group Standards (RGSs) and Rail Industry Standards (RIS) are widely acknowledged in the UK railway industry. There are a number of other domestic standards that are available to all railway actors that could be considered as codes of practice in certain circumstances such as
- ATOC standards for passenger rail services or passenger rail vehicles;
- Rail Industry Company Standards;
- codes of practice relating to plant produced by the Mechanical and Electrical Engineers Networking Group for the rail industry; or
- relevant British Standards issued by the British Standards Institution; or
- other rail industry standards.
This list is not exhaustive.
3.33 It is also possible to use standards or codes of practice from other sectors, for example aviation and maritime, but these have to be justified and be acceptable to the assessment body (see paragraphs 3.65 - 3.80). The proposer will have to demonstrate that they are effective in controlling the risks from the relevant hazards in a railway context.
3.34 To be satisfied that a code of practice is relevant for the control of the specific hazards in the system, the proposer needs to
a) know what the hazards are;
b) be able to demonstrate that the code(s) of practice are relevant to the hazards; and
c) be able to demonstrate that application of the code(s) of practice control the hazards.
3.35 In evaluating whether a code of practice controls one or more of the hazards, proposers will need to check, with the support of other affected parties, that it covers the intended application of the system under assessment.
3.36 Deviations from codes of practice are possible where the proposer can demonstrate that at least the same level of safety will be achieved. Mandatory standards such as TSIs and Railway Group Standards include a process for deviating from them.
3.37 Most non-mandatory standards do not have a process for deviating from them. If one or more conditions of the code of practice are not fulfilled but there are residual hazards in the system under assessment that the code of practice is relevant to, the proposer may have to conduct an explicit risk estimation on those hazards. Alternatively, other codes of practice or reference systems could be used.
Reference systems
3.38 Reference systems can be used to derive the safety requirements for the new or changed system. For an existing system to be used as a reference system, a proposer needs to demonstrate that as a minimum:
- it has already been proven in use to have an acceptable safety level and would therefore still qualify for approval in the Member State where the change is being introduced; and
- the system being assessed is used under similar functional, operational and environmental conditions and has similar interfaces as the reference system.
3.39 For technical changes, it is unlikely that evidence of in-service history alone can prove that a high integrity system has an acceptable safety level, given the low failure rates required of such systems. Evidence that sufficient safety engineering principles have been applied in the development of the reference system will need to be confirmed for each new application. Therefore, when a technical system under assessment is compared with a similar reference system, the new technical system under assessment must comply with the same safety requirements of the old one since they are both used to demonstrate the acceptance of the risk associated with the reference system. ‘Safety requirements’ include:
- the redundancy of the architecture used for the reference system;
- the engineering principles; and
- the application of safety and quality processes commensurate with the safety integrity level expected for the technical system under assessment.
**Proven in use to have an acceptable safety level**
There needs to be robust monitoring of the return of experience of the reference system to demonstrate that it has been ‘proven in use to have an acceptable safety level’. This is the ‘risk monitoring’ part of the risk management process. It aims to check that the failure rate actually achieved by the reference system is not worse than the value used during the predictive risk assessment. It is therefore necessary to monitor the achieved failure occurrence of the reference system and verify that, when failed, the reference system is not in an unsafe state. The number of ‘unsafe’ failure occurrences; the number of items of the reference system already in use; and the number of operating hours per day are all needed to determine the failure rate achieved by the reference system.
3.40 The proposer must use the support of other affected parties to analyse whether one; several; or all hazards are appropriately covered by a similar reference system. If the reference system meets the requirements in paragraph 3.39, and those in paragraph 3.40 for technical changes, the hazards and associated risks covered by that system are considered as acceptable. If there are deviations, the safety requirements can still be used for the hazards that are covered by the reference system, providing the same level of performance can be demonstrated. This may involve further risk assessment and evaluation. If the same performance or better cannot be reached, additional safety measures need to be identified by applying one of the other two risk acceptance principles.
**Explicit risk estimation**
3.41 Explicit risk estimation is an assessment of the risks associated with hazard(s), where risk is defined as a combination of the rate of the occurrence of the hazard or hazardous event causing harm (the frequency) and the degree of severity of the harm (the consequence).
3.42 The estimation can be qualitative, quantitative or a combination of the two. The choice will be determined by factors such as the availability of quantitative data and confidence in such data. Any analysis should be proportionate to the potential risks. Any risk assessment should follow a systematic and structured process.
3.43 A typical risk assessment process in the UK rail industry for the type of projects that are likely to be significant would be
- identifying the hazardous events which have the potential to cause injury or death to
- passengers;
- workers; or
- members of the public who are directly or indirectly exposed to the technical, operational, or organisational change being assessed;
- identifying the precursors (i.e. the component, sub-system or system failures, physical effects, human error failures or operational conditions), which can result in the occurrence of each hazardous event;
- identifying the control measures that are in place to control or limit the occurrence of each precursor that cannot be eliminated;
- estimating the frequency at which each precursor and hazardous event can occur;
- estimating or analysing the consequences in terms of injuries and fatalities that could occur for the different outcomes that may follow the occurrence of a hazardous event;
- estimating the overall risk associated with each hazardous event;
- identifying any additional control measures required to ensure that risk is reduced so far as is reasonably practicable; and
- providing clear and comprehensive documentary evidence of the methodologies, assumptions, data, judgements and interpretations used in the development of the risk assessment and the analysis of its results (The results may also need to be accompanied by sensitivity and uncertainty analyses, particularly where the assessment is quantitative and where different safety measures need to be evaluated).
3.44 Explicit risk estimation can be used where
- a proposer is unable to address the hazards identified in the hazard identification stage of the risk management process via a code of practice or comparison with a reference system;
- deviations are necessary from codes of practice or reference systems; or
- a proposer needs to analyse the hazards and evaluate design principles or safety measures. 3.45 The CSM RA does not impose any specific tools and techniques to be used in an explicit risk estimation but:
- The methods used must correctly reflect the system under assessment and its parameters (including all operational modes); and
- The results obtained must be sufficiently accurate to provide a robust basis for decision-making (minor changes in input assumptions or perquisites must not result in significantly different requirements).
3.46 Proposers may find the Rail Industry Guidance Note on risk evaluation and risk acceptance (GE/GN8643) useful for explicit risk estimation.
**Risk acceptance criteria for explicit risk estimation**
3.47 Risk acceptance criteria are used to judge whether the risk is sufficiently reduced to allow the proposer to accept and implement the change. Risk acceptance criteria can be based on domestic or European legislation. Depending on the risk acceptance criteria, the proposer can evaluate the acceptability of the risk for each associated hazard either individually or collectively. If the estimated risk is not acceptable, the proposer must identify and implement additional safety measures to reduce the risk to an acceptable level. For the UK, this will mean that risks should be reduced ‘so far as is reasonably practicable’ (see ORR SFAIRP guidance).
3.48 An important exception relates to when hazards arise as a result of failures of the functions of a technical system. In these cases the proposer can choose to use harmonised design targets if the system has the potential to lead to either catastrophic or critical accidents. However, if the proposer wants the acceptance of the change to be mutually recognised in another Member State the use of the harmonised design targets is mandatory.
______________________________________________________________________
**A catastrophic accident** is one that typically affects a large number of people and results in multiple fatalities. In cases where a failure has a credible potential to lead directly to a catastrophic accident, the associated risk does not have to be reduced further if the frequency of the failure of the function has been demonstrated to be highly improbable (i.e. an occurrence of failure at a frequency less than or equal to 10^-9 per operating hour).
**A critical accident** is one that typically affects a very small number of people and results in at least one fatality. In cases where a failure has a credible potential to lead directly to a critical accident, the associated risk does not have to be reduced further if the frequency of the failure of the function has been demonstrated to be improbable (i.e. an occurrence of failure at a frequency less than or equal to 10^-7 per operating hour). 3.49 The harmonised design targets can be used for the design of electrical, electronic and programmable electronic (E/E/PE) technical systems. But they cannot be used for
- the design of purely mechanical technical systems;
- controlling hazards arising from the purely mechanical part of a technical system; or
- overall quantitative targets for the whole railway system of an EU Member State.
3.50 Please see the guidance published by the Agency on its website, which gives more details on how harmonised design targets should be applied.
3.51 It is possible for an EU Member State to notify a national rule to the Agency which would require a more demanding design target than the harmonised design targets. The UK has no such national rule and at the time of publication, our understanding is that no other Member State had notified a rule.
**Hazard record**
3.52 The proposer has to create and maintain a hazard record for the system (or part system) that is to be changed. Its purpose is to track progress of the risk assessment and risk management process for the project. The CSM RA requires that it contains certain information but does not mandate any particular format.
3.53 The hazard record should concentrate on key issues. To aid transparency and consistency, it needs to contain the safety measures relating to the identified hazards and the assumptions taken into account in the definition of the system. It needs to include details of the risk assessment principles used and the actors in charge of controlling each hazard.
3.54 When the change has been ‘accepted’ by the proposer, and is successfully embedded in the system, the hazard record should be integrated by the IM or RU operating the system into its SMS. This may be examined by the national safety authority (NSA) as part of its inspection of a duty holder’s SMS.
3.55 The hazard record itself should be updated if
- other significant changes occur that affect the system;
- a new hazard is discovered;
- there are new accident and incident data; or
- assumptions about the system are changed. 3.56 The hazard record, if kept updated, may also be of value where the system is later used as a reference system.
3.57 There may be more than one hazard record if there are several bodies participating in the change. If separate hazard records are maintained during the project, the proposer is responsible for co-ordinating the production of an overall record.
**Other documentation**
3.58 The CSM RA places some minimum requirements on proposers to document certain information to assist the assessment body. These are
- a description of the organisation and the experts appointed to carry out the risk assessment process;
- the results of the different phases of the risk assessment and a list of all the necessary safety requirements to be fulfilled in order to control the risk to an acceptable level;
- evidence of compliance with all the necessary safety requirements; and
- all assumptions relevant for system integration, operation or maintenance, which were made during system definition, design and risk assessment.
**Demonstration of system compliance**
3.59 The proposer ‘accepts’ the change in the system and is responsible for its safe integration and operation in the wider railway system. This means ensuring that the system is designed, validated and accepted against the safety measures identified to control the hazards. Before acceptance, the proposer needs to demonstrate that the risk assessment principles have been correctly applied and that the system complies with all specified requirements. The proposer has overall responsibility for coordinating and managing the demonstration that the safety requirements are met. Other organisations involved will need to demonstrate that they have met the safety requirements and implemented safety measures at the lower level for the part of the system which they are responsible.
3.60 The proposer allocates the safety requirements to each part of the system that was defined in the system definition, but these can also be transferred to other organisations. If that happens, it should be recorded as such in the hazard record. Contracts may be required to reflect these agreements.
3.61 Many hazards, and the risks arising, will be at shared interfaces and cooperation will be needed to ensure that such risks are properly assessed and controlled.
3.62 The demonstration of compliance can involve further activities including causal analyses, testing, etc. It is also possible that new hazards may be identified during the validation phase which will need to be analysed further. Where a non-compliance with safety requirements is discovered, then the proposer must be notified. The proposer must then further notify others who are affected and responsible for the same or similar subsystems so that they can take the appropriate action.
**Independent assessment**
3.63 The CSM RA requires an independent assessment of
- how the risk management process is applied; and
- the results from the risk management process.
3.64 An assessment body must carry out the independent assessment.
3.65 The proposer is able to choose (subject to certain restrictions) the assessment body, unless there is a national rule in an EU Member State that requires certain bodies or persons to be used. There is no such national rule in the UK.
3.66 The proposer is required to appoint an assessment body at the earliest appropriate stage of the risk assessment process. However, ORR recommends that the assessment body is involved from the beginning of the project so that it can monitor the development of the hazard record, consider other relevant material (such as a safety plan) and possibly ask to observe tests. This may also include the detailed design stage or the manufacturing stage of the project.
3.67 The assessment body must meet the criteria set out in the CSM RA (included in this guidance at Annex 2). It must be either accredited, recognised, or an NSA. However, if the proposer does not require the significant change to be mutually recognised in one or more other EU Member State the CSM RA allows the proposer to appoint an assessment body meeting relaxed criteria agreed by the NSA. ORR has developed relaxed criteria for the UK and these are set out in Annex 3 of this guidance. A proposer (or assessment body) wishing to use the relaxed criteria may do so without further recourse to ORR. However, the proposer must provide ORR with details of any assessment body it engages which makes use of the relaxed criteria. See paragraphs 3 – 7 of Annex 2 for further details on the relaxed criteria.
3.68 The proposer can appoint an assessment body external to the organisation or an in-house assessment body. Factors that enable the proposer to demonstrate that an in-house assessment body is independent include
- different line management;
- no involvement with the development of the safety measures associated with the system under assessment; and
- freedom from undue commercial influence or bias. 3.69 The assessment body can be made up of more than one organisation.
3.70 The scale and complexity of any given project may determine whether an external or in-house assessment body is used. For more complex projects, or those where the proposer is unfamiliar with the technical analytical skills needed for the assessment, access to external independent assessment may be needed.
3.71 The process for taking the decision about use of internal or external assessment bodies should be recorded. Relevant factors include
- evidence to satisfy the proposer that the assessment body is independent and competent;
- absence of financial pressure or incentives on the assessment body (noting that the proposer cannot control financial pressure or incentives from third parties);
- checks that the assessment body has civil liability insurance, if it is an external organisation; and
- appropriate policies relating to confidentiality rules, if the assessment body is an external organisation.
3.72 At the conclusion of the independent assessment, the assessment body produces a safety assessment report and this should facilitate the proposer’s review of the management of the safety system. If the proposer disagrees with any part of the safety assessment report it must keep a record of this with clear justification for its disagreement.
**Declaration by the proposer**
3.73 When the proposer receives the safety assessment report at the end of the risk management process it must produce a written declaration confirming that all identified hazards and associated risks are controlled to an acceptable level.
3.74 If the change to the system requires an authorisation for placing in service the proposer’s declaration will be accepted by the
- NoBo when delivering a conformity certificate (unless it justifies and documents its doubts about the assumptions made or the appropriateness of the results from the assessment); and
- NSA in its authorisation decision (unless it can demonstrate the existence of a substantial safety risk).
3.75 If the change to the system does not require an authorisation for placing in service, then the proposer’s declaration must be kept as part of its records. Avoiding duplication of assessment processes
3.76 There are a number of assessment processes required under different laws:
- assessment of conformity with TSIs (by a NoBo);
- assessment of conformity with NNTRs (by a DeBo);
- assessment of safety certificates for RUs (by an NSA);
- assessment of safety authorisations for IMs (by an NSA);
- independent assessment under the CSM (by an assessment body); and
- assessment of the system of maintenance of ECMs (by a certification body).
3.77 ORR’s position is that there should not be duplication when these processes are carried out, and there are opportunities for businesses to avoid duplication by being aware of the following points:
- A NoBo can act as an assessment body as long as it meets the criteria in the CSM RA. So, if the significant change concerns sub-systems that are covered by TSIs, it is possible to appoint a NoBo that meets the criteria for independent assessment so that it can carry out the CSM assessment as well as the assessment of conformity with TSIs. Similarly it is possible to appoint a DeBo that meets the criteria for independent assessment so that it might carry out the CSM assessment as well as the assessment of conformity of NNTRs.
- If ORR has issued a safety certificate or authorisation, then the assessment body does not need to examine the general processes for risk assessment during the application of the CSM RA, but should look only at how the processes are applied for the specific change. However, if the assessment body finds that there are issues with the general processes for risk assessment these should be reported to the NSA and the proposer.
- If the proposer does not have a safety certificate, safety authorisation, or ECM certificate, then quality management systems may give the assessment body assurance about the general processes for change management and risk assessment within the proposer’s organisation.
- If the proposer does not have a safety certificate or safety authorisation, the proposer should as far as possible apply equivalent change management and risk assessment processes to those of the duty holder (IM or RU) who is likely to introduce that significant change onto the railway system.
3.78 The CSM RA allows, but does not oblige, NSAs to act as an independent assessment body when a significant change also concerns
- an authorisation for placing a structural sub-system or vehicle into service; or an update or revision of a safety certificate or safety authorisation.
3.79 ORR does not intend to act as an assessment body in these circumstances.
Further information and references
**ORR guidance**
ORR guidance on assessing whether risks on Britain’s railways have been reduced so far as is reasonably practicable
[http://orr.gov.uk/\_\_data/assets/pdf_file/0007/2140/rgd-2009-05.pdf](http://orr.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/2140/rgd-2009-05.pdf)
**Agency guidance**
Agency explanatory note on the CSM RA assessment body
[http://www.era.europa.eu/Document-Register/Documents/ERA-GUI-01-2014-SAF%20EN%20V1.0.pdf](http://www.era.europa.eu/Document-Register/Documents/ERA-GUI-01-2014-SAF%20EN%20V1.0.pdf)
**Industry guidance**
RSSB guidance: Taking Safe Decisions
[http://www.rssb.co.uk/risk-analysis-and-safety-reporting/risk-analysis/taking-safe-decisions](http://www.rssb.co.uk/risk-analysis-and-safety-reporting/risk-analysis/taking-safe-decisions)
RSSB guidance on preparing and using company risk assessment profiles
[http://www.rssb.co.uk/risk-analysis-and-safety-reporting/risk-assessment-guidance](http://www.rssb.co.uk/risk-analysis-and-safety-reporting/risk-assessment-guidance)
RSSB guidance on the management of change (including six complementary Rail Industry Guidance Notes)
[http://www.rssb.co.uk/improving-industry-performance/management-of-change](http://www.rssb.co.uk/improving-industry-performance/management-of-change)
RSSB guidance on the use of cost-benefit analysis when determining whether a measure is necessary to ensure safety so far as is reasonably practicable
[http://www.rssb.co.uk/Library/risk-analysis-and-safety-reporting/2014-guidance-safety-related-cba.pdf?web=1](http://www.rssb.co.uk/Library/risk-analysis-and-safety-reporting/2014-guidance-safety-related-cba.pdf?web=1)
GE/GN8640 – Guidance on planning an application of the common safety method on risk evaluation and assessment
[http://www.rssb.co.uk/rgs/standards/GEGN8640%20Iss%201.pdf?web=1](http://www.rssb.co.uk/rgs/standards/GEGN8640%20Iss%201.pdf?web=1)
GE/GN8641 – Guidance on system definition
[http://www.rssb.co.uk/rgs/standards/GEGN8641%20Iss%201.pdf?web=1](http://www.rssb.co.uk/rgs/standards/GEGN8641%20Iss%201.pdf?web=1)
GE/GN8642 – Rail Industry Guidance Note on hazard identification and classification
[http://www.rssb.co.uk/rgs/standards/GEGN8642%20Iss%202.pdf?web=1](http://www.rssb.co.uk/rgs/standards/GEGN8642%20Iss%202.pdf?web=1)
GE/GN8644 – Rail Industry Guidance Note on safety requirements and hazard management http://www.rssb.co.uk/rgs/standards/GEGN8644%20Iss%201.pdf?web=1
GE/GN8645 - Guidance on independent assessment http://www.rssb.co.uk/rgs/standards/GEGN8645%20Iss%201.pdf?web=1
EN 50126:1999 Railway applications – The specification and demonstration of reliability, availability, maintainability and safety (RAMS) applicable to electro and electro-mechanical subsystems http://shop.bsigroup.com/ProductDetail/?pid=000000000030228795 4. The role of the assessment body
What is the role of the assessment body?
4.1 The assessment body is appointed by a proposer to carry out independent assessment of
- how the risk management process in the CSM RA is applied; and
- the results obtained from the risk management process.
4.2 This could involve a sample or vertical audit to check
- the correct application of the processes to the specific change (but not the question of whether the change is significant or not);
- adequate definition of the part of the system that is being changed;
- robust process for hazard identification and that the hazard identification appears to be complete;
- justified classification of hazards associated with a broadly acceptable risk;
- correctly applied risk acceptance principles (see paragraph 3.26);
- satisfactory demonstration of compliance with safety requirements;
- the hazard record contains the right information about: the hazards and their associated safety measures; and the responsibilities of the main parties involved for those hazards; and
- hazards and the associated safety measures are closed and validated.
4.3 To carry out the independent assessment, the assessment body must
- ensure that it has a thorough understanding of the significant change based on the documentation provided by the proposer;
- conduct an assessment of the processes used for managing safety and quality during the design and implementation of the significant change, if those processes are not already certified by a relevant conformity assessment body; and
- conduct an assessment of the application of those safety and quality processes during the design and implementation of the significant change.
4.4 Once the assessment body has completed its assessment as described in paragraph 4.3 it must deliver the safety assessment report as described below.
4.5 The proposer is required to appoint an assessment body at the earliest appropriate stage of the risk assessment process. However, ORR recommends that the assessment body is involved from the beginning of the project so that it can monitor the development of the hazard record, consider other relevant material (such as a safety plan) and possibly ask to observe tests. This may also include the detailed design stage or the manufacturing stage of the project. The assessment body must ensure that its involvement in these activities does not jeopardise its independence. The assessment body’s role in oversight does not remove the responsibility of the proposer for overall safety. In all cases the proposer remains responsible for safety and takes the decision to implement the proposed change.
4.6 The Agency has published on its website an explanatory note on the CSM RA assessment body.
Safety assessment report
4.7 At the conclusion of the assessment, the assessment body produces a safety assessment report and this should support the proposer in taking the decision on the safety of the system. If the proposer disagrees with any part of the safety assessment report it must keep a record of this with clear justification for the disagreement.
4.8 If the change to the system also requires an authorisation for placing in service, then the safety assessment report should also be submitted to the NSA with the technical file and other documentation. The NSA will take this into account in considering the authorisation. If there is an authorisation for placing in service and the proposer disagrees with any part of the safety assessment report it must keep a record of this on the technical file with clear justification for the disagreement.
4.9 Where an assessment body has delivered a safety assessment report, that report must be mutually recognised by any other assessment body, providing the system is used under the same conditions and equivalent risk acceptance criteria are applied.
4.10 In accordance with Annex III of the CSM RA the safety assessment report must contain as a minimum the following information:
a) identification of the assessment body; b) the independent assessment plan; c) the definition of the scope of the independent assessment as well as its limitations; d) the results of the independent assessment, including in particular: i) detailed information on the independent assessment activities for checking the compliance with the provisions of the CSM RA; and ii) any identified cases of non-compliance with the provisions of the CSM RA and the assessment body’s recommendations; and
e) the conclusions of the independent assessment. 5. Miscellaneous requirements for specific duty holders
Railway undertakings and infrastructure managers
5.1 RUs and IMs should undertake periodic audits of the application of the CSM RA as part of their SMS arrangements.
5.2 As part of their annual safety report to ORR, RUs and IMs must include:
- a summary of experience in applying the CSM RA; and
- a summary report on the decisions related to significance of change.
Entities in charge of maintenance
5.3 All ECMs should undertake periodic audits of the application of the CSM RA as part of their maintenance system as referred to in regulation 18A of ROGS.
5.4 As part of their annual maintenance report to the certification body, ECMs responsible for freight wagons must include a summary of experience in applying the CSM process.
5.5 ECMs responsible for vehicles that are not freight wagons must also share their experience with the Agency, which will coordinate the sharing of this information with NSAs.
Supervision by national safety authorities
5.6 ORR, or the safety authority in another EU Member State, may check the process that
- RUs;
- IMs; and
- ECMs not responsible for freight wagons but registered in the national vehicle register,
have used to determine how to apply the CSM RA. Proposers must therefore keep a record of how they have arrived at their decisions, particularly in relation to the test for significance.
5.7 The process that freight wagon ECMs use may be checked by ORR, or another certification body, as part of its surveillance activities. Annex 1: Determining the significance of a change
1. When a proposed change has an impact on safety, the CSM RA requires the proposer to decide, by expert judgement, the significance of the change based on stated criteria (Article 4[2]).
2. These criteria are:
- **failure consequence**: credible worst-case scenario in the event of failure of the system under assessment, taking into account the existence of safety barriers outside the system;
- **novelty** used in implementing the change: this concerns both what is innovative in the railway sector, and what is new just for the organisation implementing the change;
- **complexity of the change**;
- **monitoring**: the inability to monitor the implemented change throughout the system life-cycle and take appropriate interventions;
- **reversibility**: the inability to revert to the system before the change;
- **additionality**: assessment of the significance of the change taking into account all recent safety-related modifications to the system under assessment and which were not judged as significant.
3. The CSM RA does not prescribe how to use the criteria, or the priority or weighting given to any of them. The method described here may be useful to proposers and provide some structure for taking these decisions.
**Methodology for using the criteria**
4. It is likely that the proposer will need to undertake some preliminary work to identify and understand the relevant hazards before applying the significance test. A good overall understanding of all the hazards will help with identifying the most appropriate risk acceptance principle.
5. For a significant change the proposer must produce “a written declaration that all identified hazards and associated risks are controlled to an acceptable level”. The proposer must also be confident that risk is controlled to an acceptable level if a change is not significant.
6. Taking the criteria together, it would be reasonable to conclude that a change is not significant if the proposer is confident that it has identified all significant hazards (i.e. those that give rise to non-negligible risk); and either
- knows how it will control the associated risk to an acceptable level; or
- is confident that it will be straightforward to identify and implement the measures required to control the associated risk to an acceptable level.
7. If the proposer chooses to apply the criteria more explicitly, it is possible to group and sequence the criteria in a way that assists their application. Figure 3 shows a flowchart, which illustrates a proposed application of the criteria.
**Additionality**
08. Additionality is considered first, as this defines the **scope** of the change that is to be assessed.
09. When a change ‘A’ is proposed, other recent changes (B, C, …) should be considered and, if necessary, included within the scope of the change subject to the test of significance (that is, if necessary, the change whose significance is to be decided is A + B + C …)
10. Additionality can be described as considering other changes that have been made since the entry into force of the CSM RA (23 May 2013) or since the last application of the risk management process (whichever is later).
11. This would achieve the intention of the CSM RA (which refers to ‘recent’ safety-related changes), whilst being practical and not imposing an arbitrary time limit.
**Novelty and complexity**
12. Novelty and complexity can be thought of as measures of the **uncertainty of outcome** or the likelihood that the proposed change, once implemented, will or will not behave as predicted. Clearly, the more novel and the more complex a change is, the higher the likelihood that it may behave in an unpredicted, and possibly undesirable, way. Therefore, the more novel and the more complex a change is, the more significant it is likely to be.
**Failure consequence**
13. Failure consequence (or **consequence of failure**) is straightforward. This is asking the question “What is the worst that could happen if the system behaves in an undesirable way following the introduction of the proposed change?”
**Combining uncertainty of outcome and consequence of failure**
14. Risk is usually understood to be **likelihood x consequence**. Similarly, ‘**uncertainty of outcome**’ x ‘**consequence of failure**’ can be thought of as a factor measuring the potential scale of a change with respect to safety. The ‘uncertainty of outcome’ is judged by reference to novelty and complexity. Judging significance
15. It is possible to develop a simple matrix, to assist in making a judgement about whether a proposed change is ‘significant’ (high uncertainty, high consequence) or ‘non-significant’ (low uncertainty, low consequence) or where the additional criteria (ability to monitor and reversibility) need to be applied to make a final decision.
Monitoring and reversibility
16. Monitoring and reversibility are additional criteria that should be considered where the decision about whether the change is ‘significant’ or ‘non-significant’ cannot be made on the basis of the ‘uncertainty of outcome x consequence of failure’ test.
17. The criterion in relation to monitoring is ‘the inability to monitor the implemented change throughout the system life-cycle and take appropriate interventions’. In essence, this is asking the question “Can I see what is going on and react in time?”
18. But a more complex question to ask when thinking about monitoring as a criterion is “Is it possible and practicable to introduce a system of monitoring that gives sufficient warning early enough to permit effective intervention to prevent or mitigate any hazard arising from the change I have made?” Note that it is not sufficient, for example, to simply install monitoring equipment. Supporting operational procedures are necessary to take note of, and react to, warnings generated by the equipment.
19. Reverting to the system before the change is one possible intervention, though one that is not usually available in the case of engineering change. It should therefore be thought of in the wider sense of:
The ability (or otherwise) to intervene in a timely manner to prevent or mitigate any hazard arising from the change you have made, when such intervention is indicated by the monitoring arrangements.
20. If it is not possible to adequately monitor the effects of a change so as to be able to ‘take appropriate interventions’; or if it is impossible to reverse the effects of a change, it is likely that the change should be considered significant.
21. An example of a possible matrix is shown in Figure 4. Others (3 x 3 or 5 x 5 for example) are possible. Annex 2: Criteria for assessment bodies
22. The assessment body must be either
- accredited by a national accreditation body; or
- recognised by a recognition body (see paragraph 8 below); or
- the national safety authority (NSA).
23. In the UK the national accreditation body (the United Kingdom Accreditation Service) has been asked to establish an accreditation scheme.
24. Alternatively, a proposer may appoint an assessment body that meets the relaxed criteria in the CSM RA (Article 12) if a significant change does not need to be mutually recognised in one or more other EU Member State. (Mutual recognition is explained in paragraph 13 of Annex 4.) The benefit of this is where the appointment of an accredited or recognised assessment body would be less economical. For example, it could be used for changes that affect only the domestic market (parts of the railway system where international trains would never operate). However, the downside is that using the relaxed criteria does not contribute to establishing mutual trust in the same way that accreditation and recognition does. It does not provide the same level of assurance for the different parts of the railway system concerning the independent assessment of the application of the risk management process and the results obtained. The safety assessment report of an assessment body using the relaxed criteria cannot therefore benefit from mutual recognition enjoyed by accredited or recognised assessment bodies (see paragraph 13).
25. An assessment body making use of the relaxed criteria must meet at least the competency, independence and impartiality requirements in Annex II of the CSM RA when the risk assessment for a significant change is not to be mutually recognised. Other requirements may be relaxed in agreement with the NSA in a non-discriminatory way. ‘Non-discriminatory’ means that any assessment body fulfilling the same relaxed criteria and requirements should be allowed to be appointed on the considered significant change.
26. ORR has developed, in consultation with industry, the relaxed criteria set out in Annex 3 of this guidance. An assessment body, or a proposer selecting an assessment body, may use the relaxed criteria without further recourse to ORR. It is for
- the assessment body to satisfy itself that it meets the relaxed criteria; or
- the proposer selecting an assessment body to satisfy itself that the assessment body meets the relaxed criteria.
27. ORR will not provide an approval role in a proposer’s decision to appoint an assessment body meeting the relaxed criteria. However, the proposer must provide ORR ([email protected]) with details of any assessment body it engages which makes use of the relaxed criteria. We will publish details of the assessment body on our website. The proposer’s determination of whether or not an assessment body meets the relaxed criteria in Annex 3 may be checked by ORR as part of its supervision role (see Chapter 5).
28. Even if a proposer does not require a significant change to be mutually recognised in one or more other EU Member State, it may decide to choose an accredited or recognised assessment body over using the relaxed criteria.
29. An assessment body may be accredited or recognised for one, several or all of the areas of competence listed in Box 2.
______________________________________________________________________
**Box 2: Accreditation and recognition**
1. The assessment body has to be accredited or recognised for the different areas of competence within the railway system, or parts of it, for which an essential safety requirement exists. This includes the area of competence involving the operation and maintenance of the railway system.
2. The assessment body has to be accredited or recognised for assessing the overall consistency of the risk management and the safe integration of the system under assessment into the railway system as a whole. This must include competence of the assessment body in checking the following:
**Organisation**
The arrangements necessary to ensure a coordinated approach to achieving system safety through a uniform understanding and application of risk control measures for sub-systems.
**Methodology**
Evaluation of the methods and resources deployed by various stakeholders to support safety at sub-system and system level.
**Technical aspects**
The technical aspects necessary for assessing the relevance and completeness of risk assessments and the level of safety for the system as a whole.
3. The CSM RA allows for recognition of an assessment body by the EU Member State or NSA as follows:
- recognition by the Member State of:
- an entity in charge of maintenance (ECM);
- an organisation or part of it;
- or an individual;
- recognition by the NSA of the ability of:
- an organisation or part of it; or
- an individual to conduct independent assessment through the assessment and supervision of the SMS of an RU or an IM;
- recognition by the NSA as ECM certification body of the ability of:
- an organisation or part of it; or
- an individual to conduct independent assessment through assessment and surveillance of the system of maintenance of an ECM; or
- recognition by a recognition body designated by the Member State of the ability of:
- an ECM;
- an organisation or part of it; or
- an individual to conduct independent assessment.
10. In any of the cases above the person acting as assessment body must be sufficiently independent from the project that it is engaged in (see paragraphs 3.64 to 3.72).
11. ORR, an NSA in another EU Member State, or an ECM certification body has to accept accreditation, or recognition by a EU Member State, as proof of the ability of:
- an RU to act as an assessment body when granting a safety certificate;
- an IM to act as an assessment body when granting a safety authorisation; or
- an ECM to act as an assessment body when granting an ECM certificate.
12. ORR has to accept accreditation or recognition in another EU Member State as proof of the ability of an organisation to act as an assessment body under the CSM RA. This includes when the CSM RA is used when authorising the placing into service of a sub-system. Can all assessment bodies work EU-wide?
13. The safety assessment report of any assessment body accredited or recognised in an EU Member State in accordance with the requirement of the CSM RA must be recognised across the EU. This also extends to contracting states of OTIF (see the Agency’s explanatory note on the CSM RA assessment body).
14. An assessment body accredited in an EU Member State in accordance with the requirements of the CSM RA can carry out independent assessment in the whole of the EU (and in OTIF contracting states).
15. An NSA recognised by its Member State as an assessment body under the CSM RA cannot provide independent assessment in another EU Member State, unless there is a bilateral agreement between the two Member States.
16. An assessment body using relaxed criteria cannot provide independent assessment in another EU Member State. Annex 3: Relaxed criteria where a significant change is not to be mutually recognised
Introduction
1. Article 12 of the CSM RA requires that where the risk assessment for a significant change is not to be mutually recognised, the proposer shall appoint an assessment body meeting at least the competency, independency and impartiality requirements of Annex II. The other requirements of paragraph 1 in Annex II (see Box 3) may be relaxed in agreement with the national safety authority in a non-discriminatory way.
Box 3: Paragraph 1 of Annex II of the CSM RA
Paragraph 1 of Annex II says the following:
“The assessment body shall fulfil all the requirements of the ISO/IEC 17020:2012 standard and of its subsequent amendments. The assessment body shall exercise professional judgment in performing the inspection work defined in that standard. The assessment body shall fulfil both the general criteria concerning competence and independence in that standard and the following specific competence criteria:
(a) competence in risk management: knowledge and experience of the standard safety analysis techniques and of the relevant standards;
(b) all relevant competences for assessing the parts of the railway system affected by the change;
(c) competence in the correct application of safety and quality management or in auditing management systems.”
2. The objective is to avoid unnecessary costs being incurred by a proposer when engaging an assessment body in a risk assessment for a significant change that would never require mutual recognition in one or more other EU Member State.
3. The logic, therefore, is that it is the requirements of ISO/EN17020:2012 which are to be relaxed, and also paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of Annex II of the CSM RA.
4. ISO/EC 17020:2012 contains the following elements:
- Section 1: Scope;
- Section 2: Normative References;
- Section 3: Definitions;
- Section 4: General Requirements
- Section 5: Structural Requirements; Section 6: Resource Requirements
Section 7: Process Requirements:
Section 8: Management System Requirements:
Annex A: Independence Requirements for Inspection Bodies
Annex B: Optional Elements of Inspection Reports and Certificates.
5. Sections 1, 2, 3 and 5 are largely administrative and are concerned with what the standard covers and what the relevant definitions are, as such they may be relaxed within the terms of Article 12.
6. Some elements of Sections 7 and 8 may be relaxed provided that the requirements in paragraph 1(a) – (c) of Annex II of the CSM RA are met.
Sections of ISO/IEC 17020:2012 which must be fulfilled
7. Section 4 (General Requirements) covers independence and impartiality; Section 6 on Resource Requirements deals with the competence aspects of employing the correct personnel; and Annex A deals with independence requirements for inspection bodies. These sections of the standard cannot therefore be relaxed.
8. Using the principles outlined below, it is possible to create a proportionate assessment structure which meets industry needs for assessing a significant change where mutual recognition is not required.
Principles
(i) Facilities and Equipment
The assessment body shall have directly available to it, or should be able to access, all facilities and equipment required to carry out a proper assessment.
This means that the assessment body shall either have, or be responsible for, all the facilities and equipment needed to carry out an assessment, including anything which is required to be calibrated before use, or it shall have the ability to contract for such services as are required to carry out a full and proper assessment. In this latter case the assessment body or its parent organisation will have to conduct all necessary checks to make sure that the services provided by third parties meet the required quality.
(ii) Sub-contracting
An assessment body should carry out the assessments it is contracted to undertake. However, in some cases sub-contracting of specialist activities may be allowed.
This means that for this form of assessment the expectation is that the designated in-house assessment body would carry out assessments for the purposes of an assessment of a significant change that does not require mutual recognition. However, in some circumstances sub-contracting of specialist functions may be appropriate. If this route is taken the sub-contractor’s roles and responsibilities should be clearly specified and the assessment body should satisfy itself that the contractor is competent to carry out the specified duties.
(iii) Assessment Methods and Procedures The assessment body should use assessment methods appropriate to the scale and extent of the change being assessed.
The assessment body should clearly set out the methods used and the reasoning behind the decision. The assessment body shall have documented instructions for carrying out assessments safely.
(iv) Handling samples and Items The assessment body shall have in place appropriate procedures and processes for handling assessment samples and items.
There shall be appropriate documentation which allows for the accurate identification of samples and other items which are required as part of the assessment.
(v) Safety Assessment Reports All safety assessment reports should be produced in a retrievable format and be in line with the format set out in the CSM RA.
If the report includes any information derived from work by sub-contractors this should be clearly specified.
(vi) Management Requirements An assessment body should have in place an organisation and management structure appropriate to the scale and extent of the change being assessed.
This means having an organisation which allows the proper fulfilment of safety assessment functions. The organisation should be clearly set out and the relationships between the various functions involved described. There should be a designated competent manager in charge of the assessment team, with competent staff in that team and having appropriate job descriptions for the roles involved. There should be a robust document control system in place.
Annex B of ISO/IEC 17020:2012
9. Annex B of the standard concerns inspection reports. As these are optional they could be omitted from the reports of an assessment body engaged in the risk assessment of a significant change which is not to be mutually recognised. Annex 4: Guidance on organisational change
Purpose
1. This Annex provides high-level guidance on the application of the CSM RA when assessing significant organisational changes.
What is a significant organisational change?
2. It is a requirement of the CSM RA that, when making any technical system, operational or organisational changes which could impact on the safety of the operational railway system, consideration should be given to whether or not the change is 'significant' by applying the six criteria described in the CSM RA.
3. The reasons for the decision that a change is, or is not, significant must be documented. The documentation of this assessment is particularly important where it is decided that a change is not significant, as this may be required to be reviewed should the change be implicated in a safety incident in the future.
4. It is not possible to define explicitly what a significant organisational change is in terms of a particular type of change. A change that is significant for one company/circumstance may not be significant for another company/circumstance. Each change has to be assessed individually in the context in which it is being applied.
5. The first consideration is whether the organisational change is within the scope of the CSM RA – could it impact on the operational or maintenance processes of the railway system?
6. The second consideration is whether the change affects safety, either directly or indirectly. If the organisational change does not affect safety then no further consideration needs to be given in relation to the application of the CSM.
7. If an organisational change does affect safety, one method for assessing whether a change is significant is offered in Annex 1 of this guidance.
Assessing the change
08. The CSM RA presents three 'risk acceptance principles' by which the hazards associated with a significant change can be analysed and evaluated. These are:
a) the application of codes of practice; b) a comparison with similar systems (reference systems); and c) an explicit risk estimation.
09. The most likely acceptance principle to be applied to significant organisational change is explicit risk estimation. This can be qualitative. Quantitative risk assessment of the proposed organisational change is not necessarily required.
10. Risk assessment associated with significant organisational changes is not an exact science; it is about managing and organising people, therefore a qualitative or semi-quantitative risk ranking method for assessing organisational changes should meet the requirements of the CSM RA.
11. Most companies already have structured safety validation processes for organisational changes within their existing SMSs which are likely to meet the requirements of the CSM RA. In broad terms for significant organisational changes this would include:
a) definition of the extent of the change being made; b) preparation of disposition statements indicating where the safety responsibilities are transferred from one job description to the job description of the new role; c) checking that the new job roles specify the correct competency levels for the safety functions that have been transferred; d) carrying out a risk assessment commensurate with the scale of the change to determine the potential impact of the change and that adequate mitigation measures have been put in place; e) recording and maintaining the outputs of the risk assessment in a hazard record; f) establishing the go-live criteria that need to be achieved before the organisational change is implemented; and g) documentation of records relating to (a) to (f) above.
**Risk Acceptance criteria**
12. The quantitative risk acceptance criteria defined in paragraph 2.5.4 of Annex I of the CSM RA only apply to significant changes relating to technical systems and therefore do not have to be considered in the context of significant organisational changes.
**Mutual recognition**
13. One of the main principles introduced by the CSM RA is that of mutual recognition. This principle is designed to reduce industry costs by not having to redo risk assessment work when the change can be applied to more than one company in any EU Member State, i.e. once a significant change has been assessed and subject to an independent assessment by an assessment body, the change should be acceptable anywhere in the EU Member States without additional assessment providing the same application conditions apply. Independent Assessment
14. The CSM RA requires that all significant changes, including organisational changes, are independently assessed by an assessment body, which produces a safety assessment report.
15. The role and requirements of an assessment body are described in Chapter 4 of this guidance. The key to a successful independent assessment is getting the assessment body involved at the early stages of the risk assessment process, including attendance at some or all of the workshops/safety review meetings, as long as independence is maintained and they don’t become involved in the design of the change. This will ensure that the assessment body has a good insight into the risk assessment process and the development of the hazard records. Early feedback from the assessment body can help in the development and refining of the risk assessment process being used.
16. The assessment body is required to review the adequacy of the risk assessment process used and determine if the conclusions of the assessment are reasonable based on the results obtained from the assessment. The assessment body does not sign off that the change being made is acceptable from a safety risk perspective. This remains the responsibility of the proposer of the change.
Documentation
17. All stages of the application of the CSM RA should be documented and the hazard record established for use through the implementation of the change.
Risk assessment process
18. There is no defined methodology currently available for risk assessment of organisational change. A qualitative risk assessment based on a structured workshop process and the management of a hazard record derived from the workshops should be adequate to meet the requirements of the CSM RA.
19. This Annex provides an overview of an approach that could be used, based on the risk assessment work that was done for the review of the organisational changes associated with the establishment of the South West Trains/Network Rail Wessex Alliance.
20. The purpose of the workshops would be to identify whether the organisational changes could introduce safety concerns/issues and consider the measures that need to be put in place to control/mitigate any increase in risk. The extent of the workshops depends on the scale of the change, the number of people affected and their role in influencing safety.
21. The workshop(s) will enable individuals who will be affected by the change to better understand the objectives of the change and provide proactive input to the consideration of the safety implications of the change and any additional mitigating measures. The method should involve:
a) clearly defining the change being made; b) identifying who is affected by the change and needs to be consulted including: i) staff; ii) representative bodies e.g. trades unions; iii) interface organisations; and iv) other stakeholders c) facilitating the structured workshop(s) involving representatives of the groups that could be affected by the change; d) the independent assessor attending some or all or the workshops; and e) development and maintenance of a hazard record, including the measures to be taken to mitigate the risk from each identified hazard and the current status of the implementation of the control measures.
22. The workshop(s) should be structured into topic areas that could be influenced by the organisational change rather than just a general brainstorming of the issues. The topic areas could include the potential influences on:
a) the way the SMS is implemented and managed; b) the different risk areas such as train accident risk, station risk, on-train risk and infrastructure risk; c) management of risk interfaces: i) incident/emergency management (on-track, at station, on-train); ii) degraded operations - for example, failed train and station safety (e.g. platform-train interface); and iii) safety reporting, safety meetings, risk reviews, accident investigation, etc.; d) communications; e) safety decision making; f) operational strategy; and g) maintenance strategy. Identification of safety concerns
23. Attendees should be asked to brainstorm the safety concerns they perceive against each of the topic areas in relation to the proposed organisational changes. The use of post-it notes can be useful here to ensure that each attendee has the opportunity to note down their own perceived issues. This will assist the facilitator in the collation of similar safety concerns into agreed safety concern statements.
24. Given the difficulty in assigning meaningful likelihood and consequence rankings to each safety concern for organisational changes, a simple high, medium and low vulnerability ranking can be considered such as:
a) High = Major concern – potential for significant degradation in safety; b) Medium = Some concern – potential for some degradation in safety; and c) Low = Minimal concern – unlikely to significantly affect safety but should be reviewed.
25. As each topic area is reviewed, participants should write their perceived safety concerns and associated vulnerability ranking onto individual post-it notes and place them on a flip chart/wall poster for the topic area divided into the high, medium and low vulnerability rankings.
26. Once all the post-it notes have been put on the relevant category poster the comments should be collated by the workshop facilitator and discussed by the group to produce agreed safety concern statements, including the overall perceived vulnerability ranking for each statement.
Identification of control measures
27. Having identified the safety concerns into agreed safety concern statements and their associated vulnerability rankings, the project team can develop a ranked hazard record. The relevant control/mitigation measures required to address each hazard can then be identified.
28. This can either be done in the workshop environment (if there are not too many safety concerns raised) or as a separate exercise by the project team and fed back to the participants for review.
29. The hazard record containing
- the agreed safety concern statements with their associated vulnerability rankings;
- control/mitigating actions;
- actions required;
- person(s) responsible for the actions; and
- the status of the actions
can then be managed throughout the implementation phase to ensure the identified control/mitigation measures are put in place.
30. A requirement that the actions from the hazard record relevant to the development and start-up phases are completed should be part of the go-live criteria necessary to be addressed before the organisational change is implemented. Annex 5: Case study on designing in risk control
31. Given the current investment in electrification, we have taken the example of a route to be electrified for the first time (thereby creating a new energy subsystem) in order to illustrate how the CSM RA and relevant domestic legislation fit together.
32. The process of risk assessment using the CSM RA and the subsequent identification and application of the relevant statutory provisions to a new electrification project can be illustrated as follows:
**Step 1 Significant Change** – a proposer decides to electrify its network, applies the CSM RA and recognises it is a significant change. A plan or company process for applying the CSM RA where there is a significant change is essential. A plan is likely to address all the steps below at some stage in the process, however it should require the application of the hierarchy of control set out in Regulation 4 MHSWR early enough to influence the client requirements before pre-construction information is finalised.
Actions required: – a proposer complies with the CSM RA process and as part of the risk analysis identifies the relevant statutory provisions. The initial risk analysis should identify what information the proposer needs to collect to give to the designer, in particular regarding the future maintenance requirements of the structure as a whole and its use once electrified. In relation to an electrification project, the risk assessment should match the output requirements of the project specification in terms of train paths, speeds, effect on the asset with the asset maintenance requirements to keep the infrastructure in efficient working order (e.g. under Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 (PUWER)) without working on or near live conductors. By ensuring the CSM risk assessment addresses regulation 3 of MHSWR, the proposer will be able to demonstrate it has met the absolute requirements in the legislation. Particular attention should be given to the elimination of hazards by design.
**Step 2 Legislation** – identification of the relevant statutory provisions, these will include European legislative requirements as well as HSWA and regulations enacted under it.
Actions required:– one method of demonstrating compliance could be production of a methodology for identifying relevant statutory provisions, which is wide enough to capture regulations that influence design but might not necessarily be fulfilling a direct safety function. For example, Railways Interoperability Regulations 2011, Supply of Machinery (Safety) Regulations 2008 etc. Below is a non–exhaustive list of statutory provisions that may be applicable to a new electrical traction system during the detailed design / construction phase / life time operation / decommissioning / dismantling:
(i) Electricity at Work Regulations 1989 (directly related to system design and use)
(ii) Railway Safety (Miscellaneous Provisions) Regulations 1997 (prevention of third parties affecting railway operations and prevention of inadvertent contact)
(iii) Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 (future use of the modified structure as a workplace)
(iv) PUWER (virtually all the equipment will be work equipment whether part of the electrical system or not)
(v) Confined Spaces Regulations 1997 (may need to be considered as part of the original infrastructure or may need to be designed out of the new one)
(vi) Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992 (most recent example is 33kg lids for the only specified cable ducting being installed – CDM-C should make sure suppliers / designers can identify safe means of installing)
(vii) Personal Protective Equipment Regulations 1992 (may be appropriate if risks cannot be effectively controlled at any time)
(viii) Work at Height Regulations 2005 (for the future maintenance and use of the structure and during construction phase)
(ix) Supply of Machinery (Safety) Regulations 2008 (for any new machinery as defined that is being installed)
(x) Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006 (to be considered where existing infrastructure is being disturbed)
(xi) Railways and Other Guided Transport Systems (Safety) Regulations 2006 (the requirements for risk assessments under ROGS exclude the assessment of health risks)
(xii) Railway Interoperability Regulations 2011 (the risk assessment must apply consideration of interoperability)
(xiii) Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007 (specific duties in managing construction but also application of part 4)
(xiv) Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 2002 (requires risk assessment if hazardous substances are involved) (xv) Control of Lead at Work Regulations 2002 (for work on existing structures)
**Step 3 Level of Duty** – once the relevant statutory provisions have been identified, the proposer will need to identify what the relevant legal duties are and whether they are absolute or subject to the test of reasonable practicability.
**Step 4 Approved Codes of Practice** – once legislative requirements have been identified, requirements set out in codes of practice that support the regulations should be identified. This step is key when the risk acceptability evaluation takes place under the CSM RA, as application of codes of practice is one of the risk acceptance principles. If all the legislation is not considered by the proposer, then the codes of practice are unlikely to be identified or applied.
**Step 5 Guidance** – as set out in Step 4, the proposer should identify relevant guidance, specifically that issued by HSE / ORR on what good practice in meeting the relevant statutory provisions looks like. There may also be other guidance to be considered which is specific to a project. For example, for an electrification project, ORR’s level crossings guidance for designers is for the highest practicable conductor height to be in place at level crossings.
**Step 6 Existing industry standards** – a CSM RA approach to risk assessment, which is informed by specific duties, is likely to minimise the risks arising during the project. For example, on a new electrical subsystem, there is a risk of inadvertent contact with energised conductors. There is no Railway Group Standard providing guidance on specific duties, e.g. fencing the railway infrastructure to secure compliance with the Railway Safety (Miscellaneous Provisions) Regulations 1997 or the duty to ensure an electrical system is safe and does not give rise to danger at all times in accordance with the Electricity at Work Regulations 1989. Identifying these legislative measures as part of the CSM RA approach, will minimise risk as advice can be given to designers on what they need to achieve when designing the control measures.
**Step 7 Client and future operator’s strategic aims** – scoping the CSM RA risk assessment broadly from the outset of a project, will ensure that provisions such as “General principles of prevention” set out in Schedule 1 to the MHSWR are applied at the outset of the risk assessment process. This can enable the proposer to use the opportunity to introduce strategic aims into the design of a new sub system. For example, the electrical asset policy includes some significant policy safety statements that should be considered at the outset of an electrification project.
2. An approach to CSM RA risk assessment which identifies relevant statutory provisions, codes of practice etc. should ensure duties are met under both European and domestic legislation, whilst avoiding duplication of work. A broadly scoped risk assessment under CSM RA will identify hazards relevant to the entirety of the project, not just the system change. This will negate the need for risk assessments on the same hazards under different legislation. Consideration of CSM RA at the outset of a project should produce a compliance matrix which systematically identifies all hazards (which could be linked to specific legislative provisions). For example, when scoping a risk assessment for a new electrical subsystem the client will need to undertake a HSG85 (Electricity at Work – Safe Working Practices) style assessment of individual maintenance tasks compared to electrical risk, which will determine when, where and how often electrical isolations are needed and indicate to the designer the future demands for isolations on the subsystem so that sufficient switches, points of isolation and integral earths can be provided in the design.
## Annex 6: Glossary of terms and acronyms
| Term | Definition | |-----------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Accreditation | An attestation by a national accreditation body that a conformity assessment body meets the requirements set by harmonised standards and, where applicable, any additional requirements including those set out in relevant sectoral schemes, to carry out a specific conformity assessment activity. | | Actors | All parties which are, directly or through contractual arrangements, involved in the application of the CSM RA. | | Advanced stage of development | When the proposer considers that the planning/construction stage of a project has reached a point where a change in the technical specifications would not be viable on economic, contractual, legal, social or environmental grounds. | | Agency, The | European Union Agency for Railways | | Assessment body | The independent and competent external or internal individual, organisation or entity which undertakes investigation to provide a judgement, based on evidence, of the suitability of a system to fulfil its safety requirements. | | ATOC | Association of Train Operating Companies (now Rail Delivery Group) | | Code of practice | A written set of rules that, when correctly applied, can be used to control one or more specific hazards. | | DeBo | Designated Body | | Designated Body | A person appointed under regulation 31 of RIR as a designated body. | | ECM | Entity in charge of maintenance | | **Entity in charge of maintenance** | Any person or organisation that is responsible for the safe maintenance of a vehicle and is registered as an ECM in the national vehicle register. This can include people or organisations such as transport undertakings, infrastructure managers, a keeper (usually the owner of a rail vehicle) or a maintenance organisation. | | **ETCS** | European Train Control System | | **Functional sub-systems** | Traffic operation and management; maintenance; and telematics applications for passenger and freight services. | | **Hazard** | A condition that could lead to an accident. | | **Hazard identification** | The process of finding, listing and characterising hazards. | | **Hazard record** | The document in which identified hazards, their related measures, their origin and the reference to the organisation which has to manage them are recorded and referenced. | | **IM** | Infrastructure Manager | | **Interfaces** | All points of interaction during a system or subsystem life cycle, including operation and maintenance where different actors of the rail sector will work together in order to manage the risks. | | **Interoperability constituent** | Any elementary component, group of components, subassembly or complete assembly of equipment that is incorporated or intended to be incorporated into a sub-system upon which the interoperability of the rail system depends directly or indirectly; and the concept of a “constituent” covers both tangible objects and intangible objects such as software. | | **ISO/IEC 17020:2012** | An international standard which specifies requirements for the competence of bodies performing inspection and for the impartiality and consistency of their inspection activities. | | Term | Definition | |----------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | National accreditation body | The sole body in a Member State that performs accreditation with authority derived from the State. | | National vehicle register | A database of vehicles authorised or operated in Great Britain under RIR. | | NNTRs | Notified National Technical Rules | | NoBo | Notified Body | | Notified Body | A body which is responsible for assessing the conformity or suitability for use of the interoperability constituents or for appraising the ‘EC’ procedure for verification of the sub-systems | | Notified national rule | Any national rule notified by Member States under Council Directive 96/48/EC, or Directive 2001/16/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Directives 2004/49/EC and 2008/57/EC. | | NSA | National safety authority | | Proposer | One of the following: | | | (a) a railway undertaking or an infrastructure manager which implements risk control measures in accordance with Article 4 of Directive 2004/49/EC; | | | (b) an entity in charge of maintenance which implements measures in accordance with Article 14a(3) of Directive 2004/49/EC; | | | (c) a contracting entity or a manufacturer which invites a notified body to apply the ‘EC’ verification procedure in accordance with Article 18(1) of Directive 2008/57/EC or a designated body according to Article 17(3) of that Directive; | | | (d) an applicant for an authorisation for the placing in service of structural sub-systems. | | RAC | Risk acceptance criteria | | | The terms of reference by which the acceptability of a specific risk is assessed; these criteria are used to determine that the level of a risk is sufficiently low that it is not necessary to take any immediate action to reduce it further. | | Term | Definition | |-------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Recognition | An attestation by a national body other than the national accreditation body that the assessment body meets the requirements set out in Annex II to the CSM RA to carry out the independent assessment activity specified in Article 6(1) and (2). | | Reference system | A system proven in use to have an acceptable safety level and against which the acceptability of the risks from a system under assessment can be evaluated by comparison. | | RDG | Rail Delivery Group (formerly Association of Train Operating Companies) | | RGS | Railway Group Standard | | RIR | Railways (Interoperability) Regulations 2011 | | Risk | The frequency of occurrence of accidents and incidents resulting in harm (caused by a hazard) and the degree of severity of that harm. | | Risk acceptance criteria | The terms of reference by which the acceptability of a specific risk is assessed; these criteria are used to determine that the level of a risk is sufficiently low that it is not necessary to take any immediate action to reduce it further. | | Risk acceptance principle | The rules used in order to arrive at the conclusion whether or not the risk related to one or more specific hazards is acceptable. | | Risk analysis | Systematic use of all available information to identify hazards and to estimate the risk. | | Risk assessment | The overall process comprising a risk analysis and a risk evaluation. | | Risk estimation | The process used to produce a measure of the level of risks being analysed, consisting of the following steps: estimation of frequency, consequence analysis and their integration. | | Term | Definition | |-----------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Risk evaluation | A procedure based on the risk analysis to determine whether an acceptable level of risk has been achieved. | | Risk management | The systematic application of management policies, procedures and practices to the tasks of analysing, evaluating and controlling risks. | | ROGS | Railways and Other Guided Transport Systems (Safety) Regulations 2006 | | RSSB | Rail Safety and Standards Board | | RU | Railway Undertaking (also referred to as Transport Undertaking under ROGS) | | Safe integration | The action to ensure that incorporating an element of a system into a bigger system does not create an unacceptable risk for the resulting system. | | Safety | Freedom from unacceptable risk of harm. | | Safety assessment report | The document containing the conclusions of the assessment performed by an assessment body on the system under assessment. | | Safety management system | The organisation and arrangements established by an infrastructure manager or a railway undertaking to ensure the safe management of its operations. | | Safety measures | A set of actions either reducing the frequency of occurrence of a hazard or mitigating its consequences in order to achieve and/or maintain an acceptable level of risk. | | Safety requirements | The safety characteristics (qualitative, quantitative, or both) necessary for the design, operation (including operational rules) and maintenance of a system in order to meet legal or company safety targets. | | SFAIRP | So far as is reasonably practicable | | SMS | Safety management system | | Structural sub-systems | Rolling stock; infrastructure; command control and signalling; and energy. | | Term | Definition | |-------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Sub-system | The whole, or, as the context requires, part of a subdivision of the rail system as specified in sections 1(a) and 1(b) of Annex II to Directive 2008/57/EC - namely structural sub-systems and functional sub-systems and includes a structural or functional sub-system that is intended to become the whole or part of a subdivision of the rail system. | | System | Any part of the railway system which is subjected to a change whereby the change may be of a technical, operational or organisational nature. | | Technical specification for interoperability | A specification adopted in accordance with Directive 2008/57/EC by which each subsystem or part subsystem is covered in order to meet the essential requirements and ensure the interoperability of the rail system. | | The Agency | European Union Agency for Railways | | Systematic failure | A failure that occurs repeatedly under some particular combination of inputs or under some particular environmental or application conditions. | | Systematic fault | An inherent fault in the specification, design, manufacturing, installation, operation or maintenance of the system under assessment. | | Technical system | A product or an assembly of products including the design, implementation and support documentation; the development of a technical system starts with its requirements specification and ends with its acceptance; although the design of relevant interfaces with human behaviour is considered, human operators and their actions are not included in a technical system; the maintenance process is described in the maintenance manuals but is not itself part of the technical system. | | TSI | Technical specification for interoperability | TVM Transmission Voie-Machine (*English: track-to-train transmission*). A form of in-cab signalling used on high speed railway lines originally deployed in France.
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/1834-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 66,
"total-input-tokens": 118107,
"total-output-tokens": 28365,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
140,
1
],
[
140,
3518,
2
],
[
3518,
6145,
3
],
[
6145,
8957,
4
],
[
8957,
11669,
5
],
[
11669,
14366,
6
],
[
14366,
16929,
7
],
[
16929,
17763,
8
],
[
17763,
19421,
9
],
[
19421,
19750,
10
],
[
19750,
21647,
11
],
[
21647,
24364,
12
],
[
24364,
26446,
13
],
[
26446,
28777,
14
],
[
28777,
30478,
15
],
[
30478,
32674,
16
],
[
32674,
32911,
17
],
[
32911,
35064,
18
],
[
35064,
37157,
19
],
[
37157,
39745,
20
],
[
39745,
42271,
21
],
[
42271,
44183,
22
],
[
44183,
46592,
23
],
[
46592,
49160,
24
],
[
49160,
51307,
25
],
[
51307,
53983,
26
],
[
53983,
56067,
27
],
[
56067,
58568,
28
],
[
58568,
61058,
29
],
[
61058,
63262,
30
],
[
63262,
65705,
31
],
[
65705,
68265,
32
],
[
68265,
68700,
33
],
[
68700,
70721,
34
],
[
70721,
73255,
35
],
[
73255,
74816,
36
],
[
74816,
76850,
37
],
[
76850,
77199,
38
],
[
77199,
79344,
39
],
[
79344,
80246,
40
],
[
80246,
81523,
41
],
[
81523,
83997,
42
],
[
83997,
86175,
43
],
[
86175,
87735,
44
],
[
87735,
88608,
45
],
[
88608,
90575,
46
],
[
90575,
92802,
47
],
[
92802,
95012,
48
],
[
95012,
97103,
49
],
[
97103,
99534,
50
],
[
99534,
101901,
51
],
[
101901,
103624,
52
],
[
103624,
105796,
53
],
[
105796,
106232,
54
],
[
106232,
108849,
55
],
[
108849,
110937,
56
],
[
110937,
114033,
57
],
[
114033,
114767,
58
],
[
114767,
117168,
59
],
[
117168,
118919,
60
],
[
118919,
121893,
61
],
[
121893,
124685,
62
],
[
124685,
127565,
63
],
[
127565,
130514,
64
],
[
130514,
130678,
65
],
[
130678,
130678,
66
]
]
} |
d98990b99163ba3f2924f98ef37022340b41dbbb | Communication and Consultation Strategy for the Pre-submission Joint Core Strategy
1. Purpose
1.1 The purpose of this report is to seek the Joint Strategic Planning Committee’s approval for a Communication and Consultation Strategy to support the Pre-submission version of the Joint Core Strategy.
2. Recommendation
2.1 The Joint Strategic Planning Committee is asked to approve the Communication and Consultation Strategy attached as Appendix 1.
3. The Communication and Consultation Strategy
3.1 A proposed Communication and Consultation Strategy for the Pre-submission Document is attached to this report as Appendix 1. This paper sets out a proposed approach to consultation to meet the requirements of the relevant regulations and the Statements of Community Involvement (SCI) adopted by the partner authorities.
3.2 The Strategy suggests a three stage approach as follows:
1. Information and engagement – Area based engagement to explain the changes to the planning system, the implications for the Core Strategy and the next stages of the process – involving the Partner Councils, Local Strategic Partnerships, Town and Parish Councils, and other key stakeholder groups as specified in the SCIs.
2. Pre-submission publicity – Advanced publicity through press releases, articles in JPU and partner’s newsletters etc., to ensure that as many people as possible are aware of the statutory consultation period on the Pre-submission Document, before this commences.
3. **Pre-submission – 6-week statutory consultation period** – Ensuring compliance with the statutory requirements prescribed by Regulation 27 of the 2004 Regulations (as amended).
3.3 Further detail is provided in the table at Appendix 1. Subject to Business Sub-Group’s approval of the approach, a more detailed action plan will be finalised.
3.4 It should be noted that the primary purpose of the Pre-Submission stage is to publish the draft Core Strategy prior to its submission to the Secretary of State to enable formal representations to be made on the soundness and legality of the Plan. As such it is different from the earlier stages of plan preparation which allow for much wider public consultation and engagement. Whilst there are likely to be significant changes from the Emergent Joint Core Strategy, the key issues and sites have all been subject to previous consultation.
3.5 The primary purpose of the Strategy is therefore to ensure that there is effective communication and advanced publicity to ensure that all stakeholders understand the process and are prepared for the statutory six-week representation period. It is anticipated that during the information and engagement stage the Joint Planning Unit will be able to give some clear messages about the implications of the revised strategy in terms of the overall quantum of development which is being planned for, but will not at this stage provide site specific information. Once the agenda for the Joint Strategic Planning Committee on 31 January is published, there will be the opportunity for more targeted briefings for those communities directly affected by site specific proposals.
4. **Conclusion**
4.1 The Strategy attached as appendix 1 will ensure effective communication with stakeholders regarding the changes the planning system and the key implications for the Joint Core Strategy, and will provide advance notice of the formal representation period for the Pre-submission plan. The Strategy also ensures compliance with the requirements of the Statements of Community Involvement and the relevant regulations.
David Atkinson Head of the Joint Planning Unit 01604 838412 West Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy Communication and Consultation Strategy for the Pre-Submission Document
1. Introduction
1.1 Following the revocation of Regional Spatial Strategies (RSS) by the Coalition Government the Joint Planning Unit are preparing the Pre-Submission Joint Core Strategy for consideration by the Joint Strategic Planning Committee on 31 January 2011.
1.2 This paper sets out the proposed arrangements for communication and consultation with the local community and all other stakeholders in respect of the Pre-Submission Document. The proposals have regard to the legal requirements set out principally in the Town and Country Planning (Local Development) (England) Regulations 2004 and in subsequent amendments to these regulations. Consideration is also given to the Statements of Community Involvement (SCI) which have been adopted by the partner authorities.
1.3 In addition to the statutory requirements the proposals also seek to respond to the recent changes introduced by the Coalition Government. As a consequence of the revocation of the RSS there will be significant changes to the content of the Pre-submission Document in comparison with the Emergent Joint Core Strategy (EJCS). These changes prompt the need for further communication with local communities prior to the publication of the Pre-submission Document.
2. The Communication and Consultation Strategy
2.1 The primary purpose of the Pre-Submission stage is to publish the draft Core Strategy prior to its submission to the Secretary of State to enable formal representations to be made on the soundness and legality of the Plan. As such it is different from the earlier stages of plan preparation which allow for much wider public consultation and engagement. The Pre-submission stage is not the opportunity for consultees to make representations on the wording of the document, or the policy content other than in relation to the test of soundness and legal process. The approach to encouraging public and stakeholder engagement should reflect this constraint.
2.2 However, given the particular circumstances in West Northamptonshire there are strong arguments for the Consultation Strategy to do more than the minimum as follows:
- There will be a significant reduction in the housing numbers proposed in the EJCS. This will have implications for other aspects of the strategy such as job numbers and retail requirements;
- The number and nature of responses to the EJCS indicated substantial objections to the strategy being promoted at the time that document was consulted upon;
- There is a need to respond to criticisms of the consultation on the EJCS in particular in terms of its timing and the accessibility of the document.
2.3 The Consultation Strategy proposes a three stage approach which is summarised below:
1. **Information and engagement** – Area based engagement to seek ‘buy in’ and ownership for the revised strategy – involving the Local Strategic Partnerships, Town and Parish Councils, and other key stakeholder groups as specified in the SCIs.
2. **Pre-submission publicity** – Advanced publicity through press releases, articles in JPU and partner’s newsletters etc…, to ensure that as many people as possible are aware of the statutory consultation period on the Pre-submission Document, before this commences.
3. **Pre-submission statutory period for representations** – Ensuring compliance with the statutory requirements prescribed by Regulation 27 of the 2004 Regulations (as amended).
2.4 The table below sets out this three stage approach in more detail.
## West Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy – Communication and Consultation Strategy for the Pre-Submission Document
| Stage | Timing | Actions | |----------------------------|-------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | 1. Information / Engagement| November – December 2010| 1.1. A briefing note for all Councillors from the partner local authorities to explain the recent changes to the planning system, the implications for the Core Strategy and the next stages of the process.\
1.2. Joint news release to be issued in accordance with the JPU Communication Strategy following the Joint Strategic Planning Committee on 26 October.\
1.3. Three briefing meetings for Councillors from the partner local authorities and representatives from Town and Parish Councils. One meeting to be held in each local authority area\
1.4. Meetings with each of the Local Strategic Partnerships\
1.5. Briefing meeting for community and environmental interest groups as specified in the adopted Statements of Community Involvement.\
1.6. Letters/emails to all those on the JPU Consultation Database. | | 2. Pre-submission Publicity| January 2011 | 2.1 Leaflet / flyer produced explaining the Core Strategy process and giving advanced notice of the Pre-submission Document consultation period.\
2.2 Articles to be included in JPU and partner authority newsletters.\
2.3 Joint news release and press conference for local media. To be agreed by the Chair of the Joint Strategic Planning Committee and the Leaders of the partner Councils.\
2.4 Potential targeted briefings for Parish Councils and Community Groups who will be most affected by proposals in the Pre-Submission Document. | | 3. Pre-submission – statutory period for representations | February 2011-March 2011 (6 week statutory period from Thursday 17 February to Thursday 31 March 2011) | |--------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | 3.1 Statutory advert to be placed in local newspapers circulating across the West Northamptonshire area. All pre-submission related documents to be made available at the partner Councils offices, and in all the other ‘deposit venues’ specified in the adopted Statements of Community Involvement. | | 3.2 A short summary leaflet explaining the key proposals and the consultation process will be circulated to consultees, Town and Parish Councils and made available at all Council offices and other deposit venues. | | 3.3 Full ‘on-line’ consultation hosted on the JPU website with links from the partner authorities websites. | | 3.4 Detailed letters explaining the key changes to the Core Strategy sent to all the specific consultation bodies and Town and Parish Councils, with a CD containing the pre-submission related documents and paper copies of the following documents: | | • The Pre-submission Core Strategy; | | • The statement of representation procedures; | | • The statement of arrangements (i.e. when and where the documents are available); and | | • A Representation Form and Guidance Note for Respondents. | | 3.5 Letters or emails to each of the general consultation bodies and all organisations and individuals on the JPU Consultation database containing the following: | | • The statement of representation procedures; | | • The statement of arrangements; and |
### APPENDIX 1
| | | |---|---| | | • A Representation Form and Guidance Note for Respondents. | | 3.6 | News release for the local media. | | 3.7 | Articles to be included in the JPU and partner authority newsletters. | | 3.8 | Static exhibitions at each of the partner Council’s offices. |
______________________________________________________________________
i The specific consultation bodies are listed in The Town and Country Planning (Local Development) (England) Regulations 2004 (as amended) and relate to organisations responsible for services and utilities and infrastructure provision.
ii The general consultation bodies are also specified in the Regulations and comprise:
- voluntary bodies some or all of whose activities benefit any part of the council's area
- bodies which represent the interests of:
- different ethnic or national groups in the local authority’s area
- different religious groups in the local authority's area
- disabled people in the local authority's area
- people carrying on business in the local authority's area.
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/1835-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 7,
"total-input-tokens": 12277,
"total-output-tokens": 2609,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
1477,
1
],
[
1477,
3644,
2
],
[
3644,
6479,
3
],
[
6479,
7246,
4
],
[
7246,
9348,
5
],
[
9348,
11053,
6
],
[
11053,
12058,
7
]
]
} |
e4e7e14366617f56c996038637a16919e981ddc1 | ## Community Safety Fees & Charges
### Food, Health & Safety and Public Safety Discretionary Fees
| Service Description | £ Current 2019/20 | £ Proposed 2020/21 | |-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------|-------------------| | **Body alteration registrations** | | | | [http://www.torbay.gov.uk/business/licensing/skin-piercing/](http://www.torbay.gov.uk/business/licensing/skin-piercing/) | | | | VAT rate O/S | | | | Tattooing, Electrolysis and Body Piercing (excluding cartridge systems) – Premises | 164.00 | 175.00 | | Tattooing, Electrolysis and Body Piercing (excluding cartridge systems) – Practitioner | 82.00 | 85.00 | | Tattooing, Electrolysis and Body Piercing : Amendment to registration | 47.00 | 51.00 | | Ear piercing using an approved cartridge system – Premises | 93.00 | 95.00 | | Ear piercing using an approved cartridge system – Practitioner | 71.00 | 71.00 | | Ear piercing: Amendment to registration | 47.00 | 51.00 | | **Fish Export Certificates** | | | | VAT rate O/S | | | | Export Certificates (fish) – Basic | 30.00 | 30.00 | | Export Certificates (fish) – Advanced | 60.00 | 60.00 | | Export Certificates (fish) – Advanced (where re-issued required due to error caused by business) | 30.00 | 30.00 | | **Factual reports to Solicitors following accidents** | | | | VAT rate O/S | | | | Factual report | 177.60 | 200.00 | | Photocopying per sheet | 1.10 | 1.50 | | Photographs | Actual costs | Actual costs | | **Sports Grounds** | | | | VAT rate O/S | | | | General or Special Safety Certificate (Sports grounds) - new | 605.00 | 3000.00 | | General or Special Safety Certificate (Sports grounds) – alteration requested by sports grounds | 310.00 | 750.00 | | Regulated Stand (Sports grounds) - new | 330.00 | 750.00 | | Regulated Stand (Sports grounds) - alteration requested by sports grounds | 165.00 | 375.00 |
## Licensing Discretionary Fees
| Street Trading | £ Current 2019/20 | £ Proposed 2020/21 | |----------------|------------------|-------------------| | VAT rate O/S | | | | Annual | 999.00 | 1,099.00 | | Seasonal | 788.00 | 867.00 | | 3 months | 445.00 | 490.00 | | 1 month | 190.00 | 209.00 | | Daily | 133.00 | 146.00 | | Replacement or amendment | 34.00 | 37.00 |
### Small Traders 0-15
| Days | £ Current 2019/20 | £ Proposed 2020/21 | |---------------|------------------|-------------------| | 1-3 days # | 300.00 | 330.00 | | 4-6 days | 438.00 | 482.00 | | 7-9 days | 575.00 | 633.00 | | 10-12 days | 713.00 | 784.00 | | 13-15 days | 849.00 | 934.00 | | 16+ days | 985.00 | 1,084.00 |
### Medium Traders 16-30
| Days | £ Current 2019/20 | £ Proposed 2020/21 | |---------------|------------------|-------------------| | 1-3 days | 727.00 | 800.00 | | 4-6 days | 1,068.00 | 1,175.00 | | 7-9 days | 1,411.00 | 1,552.00 | | 10-12 days | 1,755.00 | 1,931.00 | | 13-15 days | 2,098.00 | 2,307.00 | | 16+ days | 2,440.00 | 2,684.00 |
### High Traders 31+
| Days | £ Current 2019/20 | £ Proposed 2020/21 | |---------------|------------------|-------------------| | 1-3 days | 1,165.00 | 1,282.00 | | 4-6 days | 1,714.00 | 1,889.00 | | 7-9 days | 2,262.00 | 2,488.00 | | 10-12 days | 2,810.00 | 3,091.00 | | 13-15 days | 3,357.00 | 3,696.00 | | 16+ days | 3,907.00 | 4,298.00 | | Miscellaneous Other - Local Community Event | 121.00 | 133.00 | | Miscellaneous Special - Larger Community Event | 363.00 | 400.00 |
If an applicant applying for an event/events, applies for a number of days within a given time period, even if those days are not consecutive or not at the same location then the charge will be based upon total number of days applied for. However this cannot be done in retrospect.
Community Partnership Events applications can be co-ordinated using the same criteria, even if the events are run by different Community Partnerships.
One Street Trading Consent can then be issued for all those events applied for and they will be listed within the Consent.
# Local Community Street Trading Events (i.e. friend of park etc.) where the purpose is charitable, but where stall holders only pay a contribution for charitable purposes - £121 (with agreement from Council)
Charitable Street Trading Events, where ALL money raised is for charitable purposes - Free (with agreement from Council)
# Larger Community Street Trading Events (i.e. Carnivals, BMAD etc.) where the purpose is charitable, but where stall holders only pay a contribution for charitable purposes - £363 (with agreement from Council)
| Zoo Licensing | £ | £ | |---------------|---|---| | http://www.torbay.gov.uk/business/licensing/animals/zoo/ | Current 2019/20 | Proposed 2020/21 | | VAT rate O/S | | | | First ever licence | 731.50 | 804.00 | | Statutory six yearly inspection | 332.20 | 365.00 | | Periodic three year inspection | 366.30 | 403.00 | | Informal annual inspection | 366.30 | 403.00 | | Transfer of Licence | 210.10 | 231.00 |
| Dangerous Wild Animal Licences | £ | £ | |-------------------------------|---|---| | http://www.torbay.gov.uk/business/licensing/animals/ | Current 2019/20 | Proposed 2020/21 | | VAT rate O/S | | | | Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976\*\* | 550.00 | 575.00 | | \*\* Plus costs of vets fees as required |
| All Animal Licences (except Zoo and DWA) (see Footnote) | £ | £ | |--------------------------------------------------------|---|---| | http://www.torbay.gov.uk/business/licensing/animals/ | Current 2019/20 | Proposed 2020/21 | | VAT rate O/S | | | | Home Boarding \*\* | 389.00 | 399.00 | | Kennels inc Catteries \*\* | 399.00 | 425.00 | | Pet Shops | 428.00 | 450.00 | | Dog Breeding \*\* | 428.00 | 450.00 | | Day Care \*\* | 389.00 | 399.00 | | Horses (Riding Establishments) \*\* | 505.00 | 550.00 | | Performing Animals \*\* | 389.00 | 399.00 | | \*\* Plus costs of vets fees as required |
Footnote:
In all cases where there is more than one activity per licence. The fee will be:
- **Highest Cost Activity - Full Fee, plus;**
- **Second (or second Highest) Cost Activity - 30% of fee**
- Any third or subsequent activity add 10% of fee
### Sex Entertainment Premises
| Service Description | £ Current 2019/20 | £ Proposed 2020/21 | |----------------------------------------------------------|-------------------|-------------------| | Sex Shop Establishment: New Application (non refundable) | 6600.00 | 6798.00 | | Sex Shop Establishment: Annual Licence Fee (non refundable) | 3850.00 | 3966.00 | | Sex Shop Establishment: Transfer of Licence (non refundable) | 3850.00 | 3966.00 | | Sexual Entertainment Venue: New Application (non refundable) | 6600.00 | 6798.00 | | Sexual Entertainment Venue: Annual Licence Fee (non refundable) | 3850.00 | 3966.00 | | Sexual Entertainment Venue: Transfer of Licence (non refundable) | 3850.00 | 3966.00 | | Premises Variation | 564.00 | 581.00 |
### Distribution of printed matter
| Service Description | £ Current 2019/20 | £ Proposed 2020/21 | |----------------------------------------------------------|-------------------|-------------------| | Consent under CNEA to distribute free printed matter – one distributor | 130.00 | 134.00 | | For each additional distributor up to a maximum of six | 24.00 | 25.00 |
### Park Homes
| Service Description | £ Current 2019/20 | £ Proposed 2020/21 | |----------------------------------------------------------|-------------------|-------------------| | Annual Licence Fee (Lower band) | 150.00 | 150.00 | | Annual Licence Fee (Higher band) | 2000.00 | 2000.00 | | Application Fee for a Site Licence | 730.00 | 730.00 | | Application to Transfer a Site Licence | 390.00 | 390.00 | | Application to vary conditions on a Site Licence | 390.00 | 390.00 | | To post site conditions on Council website | 90.00 | 90.00 | | Compliance Notice – Cost of Notice\* | 90.00 | 90.00 |
*The costs of enforcement will then be added to this figure*
### Hackney Carriage
| Service | Current 2019/20 | Proposed 2020/21 | |----------------------------------------------|-----------------|------------------| | VAT Rate O/S | | | | Annual - New | 275.00 | 350.00 | | Annual Renewal | 185.00 | 185.00 | | Seasonal\*\* | 115.00 | 115.00 | | Horse drawn annual | 115.00 | 115.00 | | Meter test | 50.00 | 50.00 | | Driver (New) | 323.00 | 348.00 | | Driver (Renewal) | 228.00 | 260.00 | | Drivers badge (replacement) | 27.50 | 30.00 | | Transfer (permanent or temporary)/change of vehicle | 82.00 | 82.00 | | Plate | 66.00 | 66.00 | | Replacement bracket | 24.00 | 25.00 | | Knowledge test | 70.00 | 70.00 | | Knowledge re-test | 35.00 | 35.00 |
\*\* For a period of 7 months, commencing with the Easter School Holidays.
# Vehicle inspection fee levied at cost following procurement process
### Private Hire Vehicles
| Service | Current 2019/20 | Proposed 2020/21 | |----------------------------------------------|-----------------|------------------| | VAT Rate O/S | | | | Annual New | 244.00 | 244.00 | | Annual Renewal | 154.00 | 154.00 | | Driver (New) | 323.00 | 348.00 | | Driver (Renewal) | 228.00 | 260.00 | | Drivers badge (replacement) | 27.50 | 30.00 | | Operator (per vehicle) | 67.00 | 67.00 | | Transfer (permanent or temporary)/change of vehicle | 82.00 | 82.00 | | Plate | 66.00 | 66.00 | | Replacement bracket | 24.00 | 25.00 | | Knowledge test | 70.00 | 70.00 | | Knowledge re-test | 35.00 | 35.00 |
### Other Charges
| Service | Current 2019/20 | Proposed 2020/21 | |----------------------------------------------|-----------------|------------------| | VAT Rate SR | | | | Handbook & replacements | 25.00 | 26.00 | | Assistance/advice appointment | 50.00 | 50.00 | | Application for new premises licence | £ | £ | |-------------------------------------|---|---| | Small Casino | 8000.00 | 8000.00 | | Bingo Premises | 3500.00 | 3500.00 | | Betting Premises (Tracks) | 2500.00 | 2500.00 | | Betting Premises (Other) | 3000.00 | 3000.00 | | Adult Gaming Centres | 2000.00 | 2000.00 | | Licensed Family Entertainment Centre| 2000.00 | 2000.00 |
| Application to vary premises licence | £ | £ | |-------------------------------------|---|---| | Small Casino | 4000.00 | 4000.00 | | Casino (existing) | 2000.00 | 2000.00 | | Bingo Premises | 1750.00 | 1750.00 | | Betting Premises (Tracks) | 1250.00 | 1250.00 | | Betting Premises (Other) | 1500.00 | 1500.00 | | Adult Gaming Centres | 1000.00 | 1000.00 | | Licensed Family Entertainment Centre| 1000.00 | 1000.00 |
| 1st Annual Fee | £ | £ | |----------------|---|---| | Small Casino | 5000.00 | 5000.00 | | Casino (existing) | 3000.00 | 3000.00 | | Bingo Premises | 1000.00 | 1000.00 | | Betting Premises (Tracks) | 1000.00 | 1000.00 | | Betting Premises (Other) | 600.00 | 600.00 | | Adult Gaming Centres | 1000.00 | 1000.00 | | Licensed Family Entertainment Centre | 750.00 | 750.00 |
| Application to transfer the premises licence | £ | £ | |-----------------------------------------------|---|---| | Small Casino | 1800.00 | 1800.00 | | Casino (existing) | 1350.00 | 1350.00 | | Bingo Premises | 1200.00 | 1200.00 | | Betting Premises (Tracks) | 950.00 | 950.00 | | Betting Premises (Other) | 1200.00 | 1200.00 | | Adult Gaming Centres | 1200.00 | 1200.00 | | Licensed FEC | 950.00 | 950.00 |
| Application for re-instatement of premises licence | £ | £ | |----------------------------------------------------|---|---| | Small Casino | 1800.00 | 1800.00 | | Casino (existing) | 1350.00 | 1350.00 | | Bingo Premises | 1200.00 | 1200.00 | | Betting Premises (Tracks) | 950.00 | 950.00 | | Betting Premises (Other) | 1200.00 | 1200.00 | | Adult Gaming Centres | 1200.00 | 1200.00 | | Licensed Family Entertainment Centre | 950.00 | 950.00 |
| Application for a provisional statement | £ | £ | |----------------------------------------|---|---| | Small Casino | 8000.00 | 8000.00 | | Bingo Premises | 3500.00 | 3500.00 | | Betting Premises (Tracks) | 2500.00 | 2500.00 | | Service Description | Current 2019/20 | Proposed 2020/21 | |------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------|------------------| | Betting Premises (Other) | 3000.00 | 3000.00 | | Adult Gaming Centres | 2000.00 | 2000.00 | | Licensed Family Entertainment Centre | 2000.00 | 2000.00 | | **Application for a premises licence for a premises which already has a provisional statement** | | | | Small Casino | 3000.00 | 3000.00 | | Bingo Premises | 1200.00 | 1200.00 | | Betting Premises (Tracks) | 950.00 | 950.00 | | Betting Premises (Other) | 1200.00 | 1200.00 | | Adult Gaming Centres | 1200.00 | 1200.00 | | Licensed Family Entertainment Centre | 950.00 | 950.00 | | **Application checking service for Licensing & Gambling applications** | | | | Premises Licence & Club Premises Certificate applications (Licensing Act 2003 & Gambling Act 2005) | 46.00 | 50.00 | | Transfer and Vary DPS application (Licensing Act 2003 & Gambling Act 2005) | 16.00 | 20.00 | | Personal Licence applications (Licensing Act 2003) | 11.00 | 15.00 | | Permits (Gambling Act 2005) | 11.00 | 15.00 | | Rate per hour for other application checks | | 65.00 | | **Advice and Support** | | | | VAT Rate SR | | | | Licensing advice and support visits for Businesses\* | | | | Application licence advice (Up to 2 hours, including site visit & short report, identifying key issues) | 130.00 | 130.00 | | Food and Safety training, advice and support visits for Businesses\* | | | | VAT Rate O/S | | | | New Business Health Check (Up to 2 hours, including site visit & short report, identifying key priorities) | 130.00 | 130.00 | | FHRS Rescore visit | 180.00 | 180.00 | | **Training** | | | | VAT Rate EX | | | | Training on pre arranged Food Hygiene training courses (Course will run if there are sufficient delegates), per delegate | 60.00 | 65.00 | | On site training for companies for up to 12 | 465.00 | 480.00 | | H&S Courses 1/2 day | 320.00 | 330.00 | | H&S Courses full day | 640.00 | 660.00 |
*These services are in the process of being developed and further notification will be given before the service and therefore the fees are implemented.*
### Pavement Cafe Permit (per annum)
| VAT Rate O/S | £ Current 2019/20 | £ Proposed 2020/21 | |--------------|-------------------|-------------------| | Band 1-up to 10sqm | 295.00 | 325.00 | | Band 2- 10 to 20sqm | 435.00 | 479.00 | | Band 3 - 20 to 30sqm | 585.00 | 644.00 | | Band 4 - over 30sqm | 730.00 | 803.00 | | In addition to Band above - Permit to include non amplified music | 97.00 | 107.00 | | Temporary Event for amplified music | 72.00 | 80.00 | | Appeal to Licensing Committee | 195.00 | 220.00 | | Transfer of Licence | 97.00 | N/A | | Variation | 180.00 | 204.00 |
### Environmental Protection Discretionary Fees
| VAT Rate O/S | £ Current 2019/20 | £ Proposed 2020/21 | |--------------|-------------------|-------------------| | Stray Dogs | | | | Carriage of Stray Dogs | 71.00 | 73.00 | | Carriage of Stray Dogs (Government Fine £25.00) plus dog warden transportation costs | 99.00 | 101.00 | | Payment Plan Arrangement Fee | 13.00 | 14.00 | | Private Water Supply Charges | | | | Risk Assessment | 230.00 | 237.00 | | Sampling Visit | 96.00 | 99.99 | | Investigation | 120.00 | 124.00 | | Granting Authorisation | 120.00 | 124.00 | | Missed Appointment | 42.00 | 43.00 | | Scrap Metal Act | | | | Site Licence Application Fee (3 years) | 920.00 | 948.00 | | Collectors Licence Application Fee | 470.00 | 484.00 | | Variation Cost | 106.00 | 109.00 | | Renewal Fee – Site Licence | 690.00 | 710.00 | | Renewal Fee - Collector | 345.00 | 355.00 | | Service Description | Current 2019/20 | Proposed 2020/21 | |------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------|-----------------| | HMO Licensing - New application | 1241.00 | 1151.00 | | HMO Licensing - New application (enforced) | 1549.00 | 1654.00 | | HMO Licensing - Renewal | 935.00 | 856.00 | | HMO Licensing – Renewal (enforced) | 1242.00 | 1359.00 | | Charges for Housing Act Notices plus reasonable costs incurred by the Council | Variable from 100.00 to 300.00 | Variable from 110.00 to 330.00 | | Immigration Inspection Fee | 136.00 | 140.00 | | Administrative Charge for landlords who fail to submit documentation when requested | 42.00 | 43.00 | | Works in Default (minimum admin charge) | £100 or 30% of total works (whichever is greater) | £103 or 30% of total works (whichever is greater) |
| Service Description | Current 2019/20 | Proposed 2020/21 | |------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------|-----------------| | Personal Search/Solicitor Enquiries | 74.00 | 76.00 | | Contaminated Land Searches (per hour) | 85.00 | 88.00 | | Repayment of fee where error was the applicant’s | 28.00 | 29.00 | | Replacement licence certificates | 33.60 | 35.00 |
Note: Visits carried out partly or entirely outside normal office hours may incur a surcharge of 50% on the standard fee or on the standard hourly rate per Officer hour.
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/1836-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 9,
"total-input-tokens": 21189,
"total-output-tokens": 7372,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
3631,
1
],
[
3631,
6528,
2
],
[
6528,
8406,
3
],
[
8406,
10816,
4
],
[
10816,
14053,
5
],
[
14053,
16944,
6
],
[
16944,
21184,
7
],
[
21184,
22656,
8
],
[
22656,
24897,
9
]
]
} |
e2898260ec82eb2056d29eeafa3c2bdd45a18aaf | Public attitudes to asset recovery and awareness of the Community Cashback Scheme - results from an opinion poll
Eva Gottschalk (Research and Analysis Unit – Home Office)
Key findings
Awareness of asset recovery (the legal powers of the police to recover money, property and belongings from criminals, if they have been gained through criminal activities)
- Awareness of asset recovery was generally low – in an opinion poll carried out in December 2009, around a third (32%) of respondents had never heard about asset recovery. However, 22 per cent said they knew a great deal/fair amount about it. A previous poll, conducted in January 2009, showed similar levels of awareness.
Support for asset recovery
- As might be expected, respondents’ views of asset recovery were mostly positive with 87 per cent of respondents supporting the use of asset recovery powers. Even if respondents had only learned about asset recovery during the interview, 81 per cent said they supported it. Similar levels of support were reported in the previous poll.
- Just over half of respondents (53%) thought that asset recovery was effective in reducing and preventing crime. Again, this proportion was similar to the previous poll.
Knowledge about the Community Cashback Scheme
- One-fifth (20%) of the respondents knew about the Community Cashback Scheme, and 21 per cent of them said it improved their opinion of the local police.
Background
The confiscation of criminal assets by the Courts forms a key part of efforts to tackle the criminal economy and crime more generally. Seizing and confiscating the proceeds of crime has a number of benefits:
- it raises the actual and perceived risks of committing crime;
- it visibly deprives criminals of their profits, reducing their power and status within the community;
- it prevents profits from crime being reinvested into further criminality, or tainting the legitimate economy;
- fundamentally, justice is served in that people are not allowed to profit from crime and this is seen to be the case.
The Home Office commissioned a previous opinion poll in January 2009 to capture public awareness of, and attitudes towards, asset recovery. Results from this opinion poll were generally supportive of asset recovery. To ascertain if and how awareness and opinions have been changing, the Home Office repeated the poll in December 2009.
In addition to the questions on asset recovery, a number of new questions were asked to capture public perception of the Community Cashback Scheme. Community Cashback was launched during the summer of 2009 in England and Wales, designed to give local people a say in how the money of recovered criminal assets (for example, confiscated cash or property) should be spent in the fight against crime and anti-social behaviour in their communities.
The views expressed in this report are those of the authors, not necessarily those of the Home Office (nor do they reflect Government policy). The scheme aimed to:
- raise the profile of asset recovery as an important tool in disrupting and preventing criminal activity and taking the cash out of crime by seizing criminals’ illegally acquired gains;
- give local people more of a say in how the recovered assets can be reinvested within their neighbourhoods and communities; and
- boost public confidence in criminal justice services and demonstrate that justice is being done by making sure that people can see it being done in their area.
This paper outlines the findings from this latest opinion poll. Findings were broadly similar to the previous poll. Key differences are highlighted in the text where relevant.
Research approach
To assess public knowledge and attitude towards asset recovery and the Community Cashback Scheme, a set of 15 questions was included in an Ipsos MORI omnibus survey in December 2009. The questions covered knowledge about the concept of asset recovery and attitudes about its effectiveness, as well as questions aimed to assess knowledge and opinions about the Community Cashback Scheme.
The definition of asset recovery given to respondents in the survey was
“the legal powers of the police to recover money, property and belongings from criminals, if they have been gained through criminal activity.”
In total 1,806 face-to-face interviews with people aged 16 and over in England and Wales were conducted from 10 to 21 December 2009. The survey used quotas to obtain a sample that reflected the population in terms of sex, household tenure, age and working status. The data were weighted to the known profile of the population (using up-to-date weighting targets which compensate for population changes since the 2001 Census).
It should be noted that this is not a random sample, so results cannot necessarily be extrapolated to the broad population and should be treated as indicative. For the same reason, comparisons with results from the previous opinion poll on asset recovery cannot be interpreted as a precise measure of changes in public opinion, and should also be treated as indicative. Therefore, whilst references to results from the previous poll are made throughout the text, no direct numerical or graphical comparisons are made.
Key findings
The following section outlines the main findings of the survey. Results are based on all 1,806 respondents from England and Wales, unless otherwise stated. Where results do not sum up to 100 per cent, this may be due to respondents providing multiple responses, statistical rounding or the exclusion of ‘don’t know’/’not stated’ answers.
Perception of asset recovery as an effective measure against crime
As shown in Figure 1, asset recovery was considered to be one of the most effective crime reduction techniques by over a third (36%) of the respondents. Those with a greater knowledge of asset recovery were slightly more likely to cite it as one of the measures that would be most effective (40% of those who said they knew a great deal/fair amount about it compared to 32% who had never heard of it). When asked to select from a list of options (shown in Figure 1) which
______________________________________________________________________
1 The first opinion poll on asset recovery (Gottschalk, 2009), conducted in January 2009, surveyed 1,861 respondents using the same method and sampling techniques as in the present poll. three actions would be most effective at reducing and preventing crime in their local area, just under three-quarters of respondents believed that a greater police presence on the streets would be most effective (74%) and forty three per cent of respondents thought longer prison sentences would be effective.
Respondents from the North East, North West and South West were the most likely to believe asset recovery would be effective (46%, 43% and 44% respectively); in contrast, just a quarter (26%) of those from London believed it would be one of the most effective methods.
**Figure 1 Actions that were seen as most effective in reducing and preventing crime**
| Action | Percentage of respondents | |------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------| | More police officers on the street | 74 | | Longer prison sentences for criminals | 43 | | The police recovering money, property or belongings from criminals that have been gained through crime | 36 | | More police community support officers (PCSOs) on the street | 35 | | Community service for criminals | 34 | | A greater number of prison spaces available for criminals | 23 | | None of these | 3 | | Don’t know | 2 |
Base: 1,806 respondents from England and Wales. Multiple responses possible.
**Knowledge and attitudes of asset recovery**
Just over half (55%) of respondents claimed they knew something about asset recovery before they were interviewed, although most of these said they did not know very much.
Men were more likely than women to say they knew something about asset recovery (61% and 49% respectively).
Over one in ten respondents (13%) were aware that their local police had used their powers of asset recovery in the last 12 months. This percentage was roughly the same percentage across all Government Office Regions. Only 13 per cent of respondents knew that their local police force had used asset recovery powers to confiscate crime proceeds over the last 12 months.
Reports from the local media remain the most prevalent source of information about asset recovery, with two-thirds (66%) of those who had heard about the use of asset recovery by their local police citing this as their source. When asked to what extent they support or oppose asset recovery, almost nine in ten (87%) respondents said they would ‘strongly support’ or ‘tend to support’ the use of asset recovery powers. Only one per cent stated they would tend to oppose asset recovery. Support for asset recovery increased with age (from 78% of those aged from 16 to 24 to 94% of those aged 65 and over).
Base: 224 respondents from England and Wales who said they have heard of asset recovery being used in their local area.
Figure 4 Sources of information on asset recovery
| Source of Information | Percentage of Respondents | |------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------| | Local media (e.g. newspapers, radio, TV) | 66 | | Family and friends | 18 | | Police e.g. newsletters | 14 | | Experience of this as a victim/criminal/police officer/witness/other personal experience | 10 | | Someone I know has had experience of this | 8 | | Neighbours and the local community | 6 | | Other | 4 | | Don’t know | 2 |
Base: 224 respondents from England and Wales who said they have heard of asset recovery being used in their local area.
Figure 5 Support for asset recovery
Base: 1,806 respondents from England and Wales. Over half of all respondents (53%) said that they thought asset recovery was either very or fairly effective in reducing and preventing crime, compared with around one-third (35%) who did not consider it to be an effective tool.
Those who said they knew a great deal/fair amount about asset recovery were more positive about its use (64% believed it to be very or fairly effective versus 47% of respondents who knew nothing about it). One in ten (11%) respondents did not know whether or not they thought it was effective, almost all of these reported knowing very little or nothing about it.
**Figure 6 Assumed effectiveness of asset recovery in reducing and preventing crime**
Base: 1,806 respondents from England and Wales.
When asked about priorities for asset recovery action, there was broadly twice as much support for focusing on a small number of large-scale national criminals (34%) than a large number of small-scale local criminals (18%). Two-fifths (45%) said that both were equally important. Results from the previous poll conducted in January 2009 were similar.
**Figure 7 Priorities for asset recovery**
Base: 1,806 respondents from England and Wales. The impact of asset recovery on opinions of the police
Half of the sample were asked how their opinion of the local police would change if they carried out more asset recovery. The other half of the sample were asked how their opinion of the local police would change if they were to carry out more asset recovery but reduce other police activities in order to do so.
As demonstrated in Figure 8, in both groups around half of respondents believed that increasing asset recovery would not have any effect on their opinion of the police. However, almost half of the respondents (46%) from the first group believed their opinion of the police would improve. This fell to 25 per cent for the group that was asked about their opinion of the police if asset recovery were to be prioritised at the expense of some other activities. Correspondingly, respondents were more likely to say that increasing asset recovery would lower their opinion of the local police if this meant that other police activities would be reduced as a result.
The proportion of respondents in both groups who said increasing asset recovery would improve their perception of the police is slightly lower compared to the poll conducted in January 2009. More people stated that it would make no difference to their opinion compared to the January 2009 poll, whilst around the same proportion in both polls said it would lower their opinion.
Knowledge and attitudes about Community Cashback
In terms of awareness of the Community Cashback Scheme, seven in ten (71%) had never heard of it before the interview, two in ten (20%) knew something about the scheme, and less than one in ten (8%) had heard of the scheme but knew nothing about it.²
Respondents who knew something about asset recovery were also more likely to know something about the Community Cashback Scheme.
² Please note that the percentages are based on a sample across all of England and Wales and also include areas where the Community Cashback Scheme was not available. As with information on asset recovery, the local media were the most prevalent source of information about the scheme (29%) although one-fifth did not know how they became aware of it (26%).
Three per cent of those who were aware of the scheme said that they had participated in the scheme and had a say in how the money was spent in their local area. The impact of the Community Cashback Scheme on opinions of the police
For more than six in ten (63%) respondents the Community Cashback Scheme made no difference to their opinion of their local police, compared to one-fifth for whom it improved their opinion (21%). These views did not vary depending on whether respondents had previously heard of the scheme or if they first came to hear about it during the interview.
**Figure 11 Community Cashback Scheme and opinion about the police**
Base: Group 1 – 515 respondents, Group 2 – 1,291 respondents.
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/1837-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 9,
"total-input-tokens": 16500,
"total-output-tokens": 3400,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
2973,
1
],
[
2973,
6307,
2
],
[
6307,
8665,
3
],
[
8665,
9045,
4
],
[
9045,
10745,
5
],
[
10745,
12128,
6
],
[
12128,
14138,
7
],
[
14138,
14491,
8
],
[
14491,
15145,
9
]
]
} |
91d095f9a3f011a6001c2c150ff877019e6ffc7d | Contents Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 3 What is a Community Impact Statement? .............................................................................................. 3 Why should CIS be used in Hate Crime cases? ....................................................................................... 3 When should a CIS be used in hate crime cases? ................................................................................... 4 What is meant by ‘community’? ............................................................................................................. 4 Who is responsible for compiling a CIS? ................................................................................................. 5 What should it contain? .......................................................................................................................... 5 Community input and feedback ............................................................................................................. 5 What is the role of the CPS? ................................................................................................................... 6 Examples ................................................................................................................................................. 6 Introduction
Community Impact Statements (CIS) can help criminal justice agencies understand the wider impact of hate crime and can improve decision making and increase public confidence.
These guidelines specifically cover the use of CIS in Hate Crime cases. They should be read alongside the legal guidance published by the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) which can be found on the CPS website. There is separate guidance for adults and for youths.
What is a Community Impact Statement?
A CIS is a section 9 statement which describes the impact of offending upon a community, provides context and gives the community a voice in the criminal justice process. A CIS can be used throughout the criminal justice system to inform:
- charging decisions
- the public interest test
- sentencing decisions
- out of court disposals and restorative justice.
There are two types of community impact statement; generic and specific.
- Generic statements contain information related to a range of offences and anti-social behaviour incidents that have been identified by the relevant community as a concern. The same generic statement can be attached to numerous cases.
- Specific statements relate to a specific offence or anti-social behaviour incident. The specific statement will illustrate the impact and harm on the community arising from the offence / incident, and can be applied to a case which involves the noted offence.
A CIS should be served on all parties as part of the prosecution case.
Why should CIS be used in Hate Crime cases?
Hate crime offences often have a disproportionate impact on the victim because they are being targeted for a personal characteristic, whether it’s their disability, race, religion, sexual orientation or transgender identity. The fear and lack of safety felt by the victims of hate crime can have a ripple effect on the wider community, undermining peoples’ confidence and security. The use of a CIS allows for both the prevalence and the impact of these crimes to be fully understood and taken into account in appropriate hate crime cases.
Both specific and generic CIS can be used in hate crime cases. If, for example, a community is being regularly targeted, the police can compile a CIS to be used in all instances of these crimes. Equally, if a specific crime sends shock waves around a particular community, a CIS can capture the impact of this particular incident.
Victim Personal Statements (VPS) should also be considered in relation to hate crime cases to convey to the court the specific impact the hostility has had on the victim. A CIS should not replace the use of VPS. When should a CIS be used in hate crime cases?
A CIS should be used to show **prevalence** and/or **impact**.
**Prevalence** The MoJ legal guidance, case law and sentencing guidelines make it clear that, unless a CIS can show that a particular type of offending is significantly higher in a particular locality or community than it is nationally, the court cannot pass a harsher sentence on the basis of prevalence.
This means that a CIS should show there is a **particular local or community problem** in order for the offending to be treated more seriously than it would be anywhere else.
**Impact** Hate crime is underreported so statistics on the prevalence of hate crime in a particular community may not reflect the seriousness of the crime. To ensure the CIS accurately and effectively describes the harm to the community, the statement should, alongside relevant data on prevalence, include information emphasising the impact of the crime or type of crime on the community.
A CIS will not be appropriate in every hate crime case. However cases in which CIS are likely to be particularly valuable include:
- serious and high profile cases which have attracted media attention
- cases where the attack is upon a community rather than on a particular identified victim or victims e.g. desecration of a place of worship or cemetery; online hostility towards people on the grounds of disability, race, religion, sexual orientation or transgender identity
- a community that is being particularly or consistently targeted in an area or locality
- a community that is subject to extensive targeting as a result of national or international events
- a community which faces consistent targeting but which is less well known and therefore a CIS may prove particularly useful or enlightening for police, CPS and the courts.
**What is meant by ‘community’?**
The MoJ guidance defines community as a group of people who interact and share certain characteristics, experiences or backgrounds, and/or are located in proximity to each other. Hate crime cases can lend themselves to the use of a CIS because of a recognisable ‘**community of identity**’ that shares the personal characteristic of the victim. A CIS can also relate to the targeting of a building or institutions frequented by a community for example a place of worship or a day centre used by people with learning disabilities.
**Hate crime online** A CIS can be used to demonstrate the impact of online hate crime on communities. As with all hate crime offences, the police will be required to seek a charging decision from the CPS. When prosecutors are considering hate crime offences committed online, they should refer to the CPS **Guidelines on Prosecuting Cases Involving Communications Sent via Social Media**. These guidelines make clear which offences need to be referred to the Director’s Legal Advisor for them to authorise a charge. National and local groups and charities may be able to provide information for generic CIS in relation to the impact of online offending on the communities they represent. Some have published research and reports in this area which those compiling a CIS for online offending may find useful.
If you are considering using a CIS in a hate crime case involving social media, please notify the CPS hate crime policy team at: [email protected]
Who is responsible for compiling a CIS?
The Police are responsible for compiling the information and concerns of the community into a section 9 witness statement. The author should ensure that the general content of the statement could be admissible in court. Once the officer has compiled the statement, they should sign it and insert it in to the prosecution file. MoJ guidance states that the author’s rank should be no less than a Police Inspector and consideration should be given to a more senior officer signing off the CIS for the purposes of quality control.
A prosecutor who is considering requesting a CIS from the police may want to seek further guidance and advice from the Area Hate Crime Coordinator.
What should it contain?
The statement should illustrate, in as much detail as possible, the full extent of the harm caused by the hate crime offending.
It should:
- Be written from an independent and objective standpoint
- Ensure the content of the statement could be admissible in court
- Include, where available, statistical data describing the prevalence of these types of incident(s).
It should not:
- Include any personal views of the author and must be in line with existing policy on equality and diversity
- Relate to a named individual offender
- Include individual names of community contributors.
Community input and feedback
Local police and CPS Areas will have established hate crime contacts within a wide range of communities who can contribute to a CIS.
It is important that police explain to the relevant community why a statement is being taken and the impact it can and has had on the criminal justice process.
It should be noted that:
- A CIS cannot be used to determine innocence or guilt
- The judiciary are independent and have judicial discretion when sentencing
- A CIS is one of a number of factors considered by the court when sentencing
- There should be no expectation that the existence, and use, of a CIS will mean that the defendant will receive a more severe sentence. In all successful hate crime prosecutions, communities will be interested to hear if a sentence uplift was announced and recorded.
**What is the role of the CPS?**
- The CPS can request the police to obtain a CIS as part of pre-charge advice and action plans.
- Hate crime cases must be referred from the Police to the CPS for a charging decision. A CIS can be useful in considering the public interest stage of the Code for Crown Prosecutors.
- A CIS can be used to determine the appropriate conditions for conditional cautions. In hate crime cases however, conditional cautions will only be appropriate in exceptional circumstances. There is a requirement to refer hate crime cases to [CPS Headquarters](#) where a conditional caution is being considered.
- A CIS should be served on all parties as part of the prosecution case.
- On conviction, and before sentence, the CPS should draw the Court’s attention to the CIS and the impact of the hate crime on the community.
**Examples**
The existing MoJ legal guidance provides templates for both [generic](#) and [specific](#) CIS. These should be used when creating a CIS for hate crime cases.
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/1838-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 6,
"total-input-tokens": 9860,
"total-output-tokens": 2168,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
0,
1
],
[
0,
1443,
2
],
[
1443,
4067,
3
],
[
4067,
6979,
4
],
[
6979,
9459,
5
],
[
9459,
10607,
6
]
]
} |
aaea25e09507f15cd7b3087d437340b70fe3bb55 | community leadership and the strategic housing role in local government
contents
01. why is the strategic housing role important? ............... 2
02. the strategic housing role and community leadership .... 5
03. the strategic housing role and overall performance of the local authority ........................................ 8
04. what are the challenges for local authorities? ............ 11
05. the relationship between housing strategy, planning and the economy ............................................. 13
06. regional, sub-regional and local levels of strategic housing engagement ............................................. 20
07. integrating housing strategy into sustainable community strategies and local area agreements ............. 27
08. involving residents and communities in planning and delivering the local authority strategic role ............ 34
09. building capacity and leadership for housing strategy within and beyond local authorities .................. 40
10. what skills does your council need in order to perform its strategic housing role well? ..................... 46
11. how can the IDeA help? ........................................ 48
12. why is the strategic housing role important?
The Local Government White Paper(^1) sets out a role for local government to take up an enhanced role as place shaper and leader of communities. Having a clear vision for the kind of housing that is appropriate for your area and how it might be delivered, is an important component of your sustainable community strategy.
‘Local authorities’ work in producing housing strategies has been a lever for economic and social change in many areas, reflecting a shift towards ensuring local housing markets meet local demands, rather than a narrower focus on directly providing social housing. This strategic housing role is at the heart of achieving social, economic and environmental objectives that shape a community and create a sense of place.’(^2)
______________________________________________________________________
1 Ref. Strong and Prosperous Communities. Local Government White Paper. October 2006. Cmnd 6939, CLG 2 p41, Part 2, Strong and Prosperous Communities An appropriate balance of good quality housing, which provides variety, choice and is accessible, is fundamental to the well-being of the citizens of any local authority area. It involves making the best use of the housing that is already there, as well as working effectively with the market to supply new homes. Crucially, it is also about looking and working across all tenures, and ensuring that appropriate links are made to the support services which people need to live in their homes. Life chances and housing aspirations are a factor in the democratic mandate of any local authority.
The housing role in local authorities has changed greatly in recent years as the majority of local authorities have now transferred their Council housing stock to a separate and distinct organisation (a Housing Association or ALMO) or to an internal landlord service. The core housing function of local authorities is now enabling and strategic, rather than direct provision.
The challenges for housing strategy vary greatly across the country. The major issue that most areas face is a shortage of affordable housing which in many urban and rural areas now threatens the sustainability of communities. The regeneration of run-down urban areas and mono-tenure social housing estates is a pressing issue for the well being of many other disadvantaged communities for which the strategic housing role is crucial. The critical role of the private rented sector in housing many groups of people, including young people and economic migrants, means that local authorities role in ensuring this element of the market offers safe housing at a decent standard for the most vulnerable is as much a part of its strategic housing role as any other intervention.
Nationally, local authorities and their partners are working towards the ‘decent homes’ targets, and maybe beyond that to creating mixed, balanced and sustainable communities. Underpinning this, we all have a duty to assess housing needs, tackle homelessness and to help our citizens access a home suitable for their needs in whatever tenure they choose, and making the critical links with support services and the Supporting People programme. How well we do all of this, recognizing the diversity of needs across communities, is profoundly important for social cohesion and the health of our communities.
Shaping places means coordinating activities in relation to the public realm, planning, housing and economic development and much more. It starts with creating a vision for how a place should look and feel, including creating attractive places and good quality affordable housing, in all tenures, that attracts investment and workers for a vibrant economy. It is also about offering people opportunities and choices over where they live. And it’s about creating high quality well-connected homes, enhancing people’s life chances, making positive impacts on health and wellbeing, connections to skills and employment and an improved environment.
Government is also urging local authorities to be a commissioner of services par excellence. In relation to housing this is about influencing the nature of the housing outcomes in your area. Are the housing products in your area the right ones for your citizens? Is best use being made of existing housing stock across all tenures? Are all possible appropriate affordable housing options being provided? What is the quality of the local service providers and landlords? Is housing contributing to community wellbeing, including making appropriate linkages between housing and support?
There is also the challenge of making local governance relevant to the citizen at a local level. Government is asking for housing strategy to become a part of the local Sustainable Community Strategy, and it will need to be a recognized component of Local Area Agreements. This paper explores some of the issues and barriers that may need to be overcome in your authority in responding to these changes.
We are pleased to be able to draw on much good practice, some of which is highlighted from parallel IDeA work – the Beacon scheme highlights exemplars on affordable housing and resident involvement, the rural excellence programme, the Planning Advisory Service and the ‘effective democracy in growth areas’ project.
Your feedback about how you see the future strategic housing role and any barriers facing you in performing this role would be very welcome. You will find details of how to provide your feedback at the end of this guide. 2. the strategic housing role and community leadership
Joined up government, neighbourhood working and the complex operation of housing markets are rapidly changing the environment within which local authorities operate. This is also changing the strategic housing and enabling role for local authorities. The community leadership role now requires enhanced skills of council members and the professionals (not just housing provision and housing aid but also planning, legal, finance property, environmental health who support them). This is the skill of formulating, leading and working within partnerships that can place housing into its wider context of the local Sustainable Community Strategy.
‘Local authorities are the only parties at the local level with a cross-cutting remit and the democratic legitimacy to intervene to ensure that all the aspects of the housing market in their area operate effectively’.³
³ Sustainable communities: Homes for All: 2005 ODPM In practice what does this mean? One way of conceptualizing this is to understand that housing professionals are now tasked with a very broad range of responsibilities that must be negotiated with other professionals in a partnership environment, namely:
- establishing a robust and shared understanding of the trends and drivers which influence housing needs and demand, and the wider implications for planning, infrastructure and communities;
- activities that involve creating new housing and managing existing housing in the built environment (the harder/physical/material side of what makes a community);
- activities that involve creating functioning neighbourhoods, supporting individuals and providing a safe area to live within (the softer side of what makes a functioning community).
In turn, these combinations of a shared understanding and the hard and soft elements of a functioning community are reflected in the work of local councillors and many stakeholders. For these reasons, housing strategy has an important place at any table where Sustainable Community Strategies are being planned and delivered. Proposals developed in the housing strategy will be articulated in many other plans both inside and external to the local authority, and will be made real by housing providers, including Arms Length Management Organisations, Registered Social Landlords (RSLs), private landlords, developers and providers of accommodation for vulnerable people. Your housing strategy may well be an umbrella for more specific plans to tackle homelessness, for example, or to enforce standards in the private rented sector, and will link to a range of other strategies, such as, community safety and supporting people. The vision articulated in your Sustainable Community Strategy will set the context for your housing strategy, and housing will be an integrated part of the overarching Strategy and its delivery vehicle, the Local Area Agreement.
The strategic housing role has an important part to play in the local leadership that local authorities are being required to show. For example, it can help to secure a joined-up strategic approach to securing mixed and sustainable communities, including:
- ensuring good design which encourages informal social mixing and support community cohesion within estates and neighbourhoods;
- supporting the economy by having the right number of homes of the right tenure and price for workers;
- linking where people live to the services they want and need;
- linking where people live to good transport networks;
- ensuring that all residents’ voices feed into shaping strategy. So, what are the activities that comprise the strategic housing role? The Chartered Institute of Housing and the Local Government Association have recently suggested the following:
- understanding the housing markets operating within and around the local authority area
- assessing existing and future housing requirements, aspirations and types of housing across all tenures
- creating a long term vision for 15 years that is compatible with the sustainable communities strategy for the area
- appraising and testing options that can balance the various housing markets within the area (including for the vulnerable etc)
- producing shorter-term investment strategies and action plans in collaboration with local stakeholders and communities
- involving local stakeholders in communities in sharing and communicating the housing strategy
- working with others by commissioning, funding and coordinating the activities to implement the strategy in order to bring about desired change
- evaluating and monitoring the strategy.
The scope of a local authority housing strategy, which results from these roles, is set out in guidance by Communities and Local Government (CLG) at www.communities.gov.uk.
Many local authorities, and particularly some two tier areas, are still coming to terms with this broad strategic housing role. It requires a more effective level of dialogue, communication, partnership and analysis. For example, there needs to be a new focus on collaboration with planning and economic development colleagues as they tackle the integration of the Local Development Framework (LDF) with the Sustainable Communities Strategy. The LDF and the housing strategy also need to influence and be influenced by iterations of sub regional and regional plans.
The Government’s view of the strategic housing role is that it should start from the unique ability of local authorities to identify local needs and priorities. This will be done in the knowledge that the right quantity, quality and type of housing are essential to the health and wealth of an area. Local authorities are able to take an overview across all tenures using their planning and enforcement powers as well as housing policy to deliver national, regional, local and community priorities. They are in the right place to work with and influence others including social housing providers, private sector landlords, developers, regional housing and planning bodies and residents to deliver successful communities.
______________________________________________________________________
4 Ref. Visionary Leadership in Housing; a new future for local housing strategy. CIH/LGA. Nov 2005. 3. the strategic housing role and overall performance of the local authority
The strategic housing role and the Housing Landlord Service in those authorities still owning stock may be having an impact on the CPA performance score your authority is currently receiving. The evidence suggests that performance on housing is very variable.
There is a wealth of good practice but it is a concern that the results of Audit Commission housing inspections suggest a problem. These are based on risk assessments (weighted towards weaker performers) and report that 84 per cent of relevant housing service inspections conducted over the past two and a half years have been judged to be less than good. At August 2006, after four years of opportunity, almost one quarter of authorities had not achieved fit for purpose accreditation of their housing strategies.
5 Based on all housing inspections published from April 2004 to Sept 2006. The total was 118 inspections – of which 1 received excellent and 18 received good – the remainder were fair or weak. The Audit Commission, when judging performance within the comprehensive performance assessment framework, will look for evidence in relation to housing as follows:
- that the council’s overall ambitions and priorities are encapsulated, in its housing, homelessness, community and supporting people strategies and that they are effective in addressing the area’s housing requirements
- that the council’s overall ambitions include alignment with the local development framework and the Sustainable Communities Plan
- the council’s influencing of the local housing market contributes to, and drives the delivery of, the other shared priorities of the council.
If the housing inspectorate of the Audit Commission inspects your council, it will be judged against a number of key lines of inquiry (KLOE).
The KLOE for ‘the strategic approach to housing’ is different from many of the others as it does not cover a discrete service. It is designed to establish the overall corporate effectiveness of the council’s strategic housing activity. It looks at whether the council is using all available powers and influence to bring about an improved balance in the housing market and to address the challenges faced, such as high demand or an over supply of housing. It specifically examines the quality of the council’s strategic approach to housing and how it relates to strategies such as area renewal, private sector safety and standards, homelessness, and enables the provision of new housing through partnership working and planning powers.
Some examples of the kind of inquiry made are given below:
- how does the organisation respond to the diversity of its community to ensure that housing provision is strategically planned and delivered appropriately to meet local needs?
- how well do different sections within the council work together to understand the housing market and to develop joined-up and coherent strategies?
- how effectively are the council’s internal and external partnerships contributing to balancing the housing market?
In other words, the Audit Commission is looking for, and expects to find, housing strategy integrated and prioritised within the broader corporate objectives of the council. Failure to demonstrate that this is taking place risks a reduction in the scoring for the whole of the assessment. The IDeA will be working with partner organisations over the coming months to develop tools that will enable authorities to scrutinise their own strategic housing functions and to consider how they could better integrate them with other area or authority-based strategies and performance management frameworks. These tools will highlight authorities that have been judged by the Audit Commission to have succeeded in this area. 4. what are the challenges for local authorities?
The policy environment for local authorities is changing rapidly at present. This is particularly so for housing as place-shaping and Sustainable Community Strategies come to the fore. The IDeA commissioned some background research in 2006 in order to achieve an understanding of these challenges and the potential areas for improvement by local authorities. This research identifies five key issues for the strategic housing role:
1. better understanding the relationship between housing strategy, planning and the economy, so that local authorities understand the housing needs and the aspirations for their area in the short, medium and long term. Based on this, they are able to intervene appropriately to create a balanced supply of good quality housing
2. the respective roles of the regional, sub-regional and local levels of housing strategy
3. how to integrate housing strategy into Sustainable Community Strategies, create effective alignment with the Local Development Framework, and translate this into delivery plans, through the Local Area Agreement (with particular issues for two tier authorities) community leadership and the strategic housing role in local government
4 building capacity and providing the right leadership from Members and Directors involved in developing housing strategy within local authorities, drawing on a range of professions and skills within and outside the authority.
5 involving residents and communities in major decisions and in providing feedback on service delivery.
Each of these challenges is examined in turn in subsequent sections of this guide. 5. the relationship between housing strategy, planning and the economy
There has been a growing recognition of the importance of strategic housing and other disciplines working together to improve existing neighbourhoods and to develop new communities. This integration is a fundamental tenet of the Local Government White Paper, and the principle of Sustainable Community Strategies.
The key practical question for local authorities is what form this integration should take. Whilst there is much overlap between disciplines, they also stretch well beyond their common ground. The quantity, location and, to some extent, the type of new housing provision is regulated by the planning system where joint working is essential. The quality, accessibility and suitability of housing is now identified also as a key economic driver and the overall levels of housing demand are driven substantially by economic change. The geography of housing markets is strongly shaped by transport changes, which again are integral to the planning system. The guidance in the recently published Planning Policy Statement 3: Housing(^6) underlines the importance of the planning system for delivering the right quantity and types of new housing. The guidance aims that the planning system should deliver:
- high quality housing that is well-designed and built to a high standard
- a mix of housing, both market and affordable, particularly in terms of tenure and price, to support a wide variety of households in all areas, both urban and rural
- a sufficient quantity of housing taking into account need and demand and seeking to improve choice
- housing developments in suitable locations, which offer a good range of community facilities and with good access to jobs, key services and infrastructure
- a flexible, responsive supply of land – managed in a way that makes efficient and effective use of land, including re-use of previously-developed land, where appropriate.
Local planning policies need to be supported by an evidence base about the level of need and demand for housing and the opportunities that exist to meet it. This should be provided by Strategic Housing Market Assessments(^7) and land availability assessments(^8). The former, in particular, should be prepared jointly by planning and housing so that it draws on all existing information and a good understanding of the trends and drivers of future housing need and demand.
Housing policy also has to recognise that future housing supply and quality will be dominated by the influence of existing housing provision as, even in 20 years’ time, 85 per cent of England’s housing stock will be that currently existing in 2007. The good management and improvement of this stock are therefore also fundamental issues, which reinforces the view that the local authority strategic housing role includes the powers and duties available to ensure that owner occupied and private sector housing contributes to building vibrant and sustainable communities by being in demand and in good condition, as much as it includes powers and duties to enable the development of new housing to meet future need.
______________________________________________________________________
(^6) CLG, Nov 2006. http://www.communities.gov.uk/pub/931/PlanningPolicyStatement3Housing_id1504931.pdf
(^7) CLG, March 2007 http://www.communities.gov.uk/index.asp?id=1509040
(^8) Guidance to be published in summer 2007 A report prepared jointly by the LGA, RTPI and CIH in 2004 argued that there should be a ‘blurring of the edges’ between strategic housing and planning. It offered a variety of models and case studies for closer working in the planning process, whilst recognising that strategic housing has other important roles in preventing homelessness, improving existing housing, supporting neighbourhood renewal, promoting community cohesion and enabling access to housing. In addition to closer joint work, this report suggested:
- a single strategy, or housing development document, for both the Local Development Framework and inclusion in the housing strategy
- joint commissioning of housing assessments, affordable housing policies and supplementary planning guidance, followed by shared working on S106 agreements
- joint policy development also covering housing market renewal and Best Value reviews
- joint protocols and training programmes.
This all suggests that housing and planning should be closely linked, as does the imperative to do more about environmental concerns and climate change. Emerging evidence from examination of positive local authority practice, suggests that close, or even integrated working arrangements, deliver successful results as can be seen in the examples in the boxes below.
The experience of Ashford District Council in Kent, which is in one of the four designated ‘growth areas’ in the South East of England is briefly reported in example a. The Housing and Planning Teams work very closely, for example tailoring affordable housing development briefs for every qualifying site over their threshold for affordable housing. Overall leadership is exercised by the Chief Executive who chairs bi-monthly meetings to consider the status and progress of ‘major sites’, which coordinates the Planning, Housing and Legal Departments of Ashford District Council with Kent County Council and Ashford’s Future (the delivery vehicle for the growth area).
______________________________________________________________________
9 Intelligent Approaches to Housing August 2004. LGA, CIH and RTPI example a
creating a great town within the great garden. planning and strategic housing in Ashford District Council
Ashford in Kent is an example of a district council which has had to rise to the challenge of thinking long-term. Ashford will add 31,000 homes and 29,000 jobs by 2031. This poses significant challenges for both the council and its community. Ashford have worked hard and imaginatively to create a new vision for the ‘Great Town within the Great Garden’. The council, along with the local strategic partnership, has adopted a ten-year Community Strategy. It used imaginative planning tools such as masterplanning and design workshops for community and all other stakeholders, alongside good quality analysis of its housing markets to make this real. The outcome is the creation of compact urban models that sustain the transport network and provide a high level of mixed-use development, catering for all needs in balanced urban communities. These are models developed with and endorsed by the community of Ashford.
Schemes now being built out include a healthy mix of housing and jobs, with affordable housing pepper potted throughout and local centres with social and commercial facilities scaled to meet future needs. Sustainability principles have also been incorporated. For example all new homes have to consume 30 per cent less water than the current averages and there will be no loss of water quality in the River Stour despite a planned doubling in the size of the town. Across the other side of London, Basingstoke and Deane District Council is a growth point. It was awarded Beacon status for affordable housing in 2006 and its success is described in example b. Its housing, planning and regeneration services are all in the same directorate and the leadership has insisted on joint working. The council has recently achieved Beacon status for creating sustainable communities through the planning process. Basingstoke and Deane District Council was awarded Beacon status in 2006 for affordable housing. They were commended for management structures that have been reorganised for improved delivery of affordable housing in ways that support the creation of sustainable communities and tackle social exclusion. Whilst regeneration and design, housing services, property services, planning services and legal services cover all corporate directorates, the council insists that all of the relevant business units work collectively on housing developments. The housing team is consulted on every residential planning application and also works to ensure housing requirements are fulfilled on the borough’s own land releases prior to advertisement.
Basingstoke also has a regeneration design team whose responsibility is to focus upon vision - the vision for the central district, for green areas and for the business district. It is separate and distinct from the housing, property and the planning teams, with a deliberate creative tension with them because it has the time to consider and think. This 'creative tension' has been key in driving up the quality of the place within Basingstoke and is respected by internal and external partners because of its successful record of delivery. This is not, however the only successful type of model. London Borough of Greenwich is a major player in the Thames Gateway growth area and is also an affordable housing Beacon. Greenwich has a projected 20,000 new homes in the period 2006-2020. The strategic housing team operates as part of a Neighbourhood Services Directorate whilst Planning is in a separate Directorate. But there is effective joint working and, perhaps crucially, in the word of a senior officer ‘the council from the Cabinet down has encouraged a cross-departmental and cross-agency approach to delivery’.
In a different policy context, where the major strategic concern is the importance of regeneration, the Tees Valley local authorities have continued(^\\text{10}) to make good progress on developing both their housing market renewal proposals and a complimentary sub-regional housing strategy. Alignment of housing and planning roles has been assisted by co-location within the individual local authorities, by cross-membership on the Tees Valley Living Executive (the housing market renewal partnership) and by the sub-regional co-ordination provided by the Tees Valley Joint Services Unit. The role of the latter has been especially important in aligning the sub-regional element of the Regional Spatial Strategy with the sub-regional Housing Strategy and individual Local Authority plans.
In an area with a similar regeneration focus, an appreciation of the critical relationship between housing, planning and the economy has been very influential in Merseyside. Chief Officers and Leaders work together as a sub-regional group to promote the economic interests of Merseyside. The importance of the quality of the ‘housing offer’ to the sub-region’s ambitions for driving economic growth is recognised in the Liverpool City Region Development Plan. This document required a high degree of collaboration in its writing and drew upon well established sub-regional groupings such as the Merseyside Housing and Planning Officers Group. A sub-regional housing strategy is currently under preparation as a component of the development plan and uses economic and spatial analysis that was jointly commissioned by all of the authorities in Merseyside.
(^{10}) Tees Valley Living featured as a case study in ‘Intelligent Approaches to Housing’. August 2004. LGA, CIH and RTPI. The practical implications and further evidence about good practice in strategy development and joint work between housing and planning for achieving ‘balanced housing markets’ will be explored further in the next topic guide on balanced housing provision (due out in the autumn). This will, amongst other things, consider further the key questions for local authorities on:
- what are the best ways of achieving integrated working by planning, strategic housing and related disciplines? Is it by integrating these functions, or can it work equally well through properly coordinated working arrangements?
- do the preferred solutions vary between different types of authority (unitary/two tier, large/small) or for different policy environments (e.g. growth v. regeneration)?
- what are the best tools for establishing successful strategies for balanced housing provision?
The IDeA is committed to profiling examples of effective cross-authority working, to improve places. Our Planning Advisory Service and Strategic Housing team would like to hear from you if you feel that your authority has developed innovative approaches.
email [email protected]. There is currently an evolving agenda about the respective housing strategy roles to be played at local authority, sub-regional and regional levels. Regional Housing Boards were created in 2003, but in 2006 responsibility for their work passed to the Regional Assemblies (and in London to the Mayor). The regional planning role also sits with the Assemblies and the Mayor. Each has inherited a regional housing strategy from the former Boards.
The English Core Cities(^\\text{11}) are now making development strategies at the ‘city region level’. The emergence of growth areas and the Housing Market Pathfinders has also contributed to sub-regional housing strategies being prepared. This has been further promoted by the guidance from Government about strategic housing market assessment, which stresses the importance of working across local authority boundaries and aligning housing strategies with sub-regional market areas.
All local housing authorities are expected to have a ‘Fit for Purpose Housing Strategy’. Given the policy priorities of this period, many of the fit for purpose housing strategies written over the past five years have had an emphasis on decent homes, stock transfer and ALMO’s. Not all fully explored the wider strategic housing considerations - particularly as now envisaged by the Local Government White Paper. It is also apparent that some local authorities have been struggling with the production of compliant and timely Local Development Frameworks and a new White Paper on the planning system is expected by the time this paper is published. There is therefore a mixed picture across the country – with widely varying quality and content in the housing strategies at all three levels of analysis: local, sub-regional and regional.
At the same time the benefits of working strategically across a number of authorities is recognised. The desirability of understanding how housing markets operate across local authority boundaries was a feature of the Barker Review and is reflected in the PPS3 guidance(^\\text{12}) that there should be Strategic Housing Market Assessments.
______________________________________________________________________
(^{11}) The Core Cities group are the larger provincial Cities, viz Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds, Newcastle, Liverpool, Bristol, Nottingham and Sheffield.
(^{12}) Planning Policy Statement 3: Housing. CLG, Nov 2006. http://www.communities.gov.uk/index.asp?id=1504591 - 14k - 21 November 2006 There are also practical considerations. District councils in particular, may have only one individual or a small team who are devoted to the strategic housing role. Examples are now emerging where authorities are pooling their resources to strengthen professional skills and expertise, improving the quality of a strategic analysis and delivery they are capable of making.
The Regional Assemblies, together with the Government Offices for the regions are working to establish the most effective outcomes from this situation. Sub-regional working is here to stay and in some cases the sub-region is the appropriate level at which housing strategies should be produced. The East of England is an example of where the application of this approach is showing promising results. The local authorities in the East of England established sub-regional working arrangements over the past few years. The progress achieved in this region is described in example c.
**example c**
**sub-regional working in the East of England**
The East of England has forty-eight district councils, four unitary councils and six county councils. It has no big metropolitan area. There has been an element of sub-regional working taking place for several years following the first East of England regional housing statement. However, following the setup of the Regional Housing Board this tendency has become stronger. Several funding recommendations of the Regional Housing Board have been made to the sub-regional level. This has also proven to be an opportunity to consider the capacity issues that many of the district councils face.
Encouraged by the East of England Housing Board virtually all of the nine sub-regions of the East of England have now appointed staff to act as coordinators and be a resource. These partnerships are beginning to mature and a natural progression is taking place, from that of the initial analytical and strategy-making phase, into one that is now considering the practical issues of delivery. In a similar move, the Government Office for the North West in conjunction with its Regional Housing Board has encouraged the local authorities in Cumbria to collaborate together, appoint staff and write a sub regional housing strategy. This has now been approved as ‘fit for purpose’, and is the first such strategy in the country to be accredited at the sub-regional level.
In the South West of England it was economic drivers that were the initial catalyst for sub-regional working as shown in example d of the Plymouth sub-Region.
example d
the Plymouth housing sub-region
A step change has occurred in Plymouth and its surrounding sub-region. This has taken place following responses made to the Machie Report on the economic prospects for Plymouth. The city council began working with the local authorities that share its housing market and travel to work areas. In this case the partnership consists of four local authorities, Dartmoor National Park Authority, three developers, two housing associations and the Housing Corporation. There is agreement that all the partners should contribute financially to the partnership.
The partnership has successfully commissioned and received a housing market assessment and plans to develop a high level sub-regional housing strategy in conjunction with more detailed individual area based housing strategies. It has agreed that it will continue to meet four times each year to promote the interests of the sub-region and to help deliver against investment targets. Clearly central Government believes that sub-regional working is the way forward for the development of housing strategies in sub-regions based around housing markets. This is true not only for sub-regions comprising all or mainly smaller district councils, but also for more urban and metropolitan areas where the councils may have greater capacity to deliver an effective strategic housing role.
We have seen, for example, a high level of cooperation between councils in areas where there are Housing Market Renewal Pathfinders. We have referred in the previous section to Merseyside and the Tees Valley area, but there are further examples in South Yorkshire where the four councils are all part of the Transform HMR partnership and work together with RSL partners as SYHARP (Housing and Regeneration Partnership). This grouping has prepared a sub-regional housing strategy and an investment programme, which formed the basis of a bid for resources from the Regional Housing Board and provided the context for the HMR Pathfinder Scheme Update 2006/08.
In London, sub-regional working has been firmly established comprising the councils and other partners in five geographical sectors of Greater London. Each sub-region has its own housing strategy and this is the basis for delivery of affordable housing through the Housing Corporation, and for investment in the private housing sector through the London Housing Board. It is expected that these sub-regional partnerships will continue to play a key role in the delivery of the forthcoming statutory Greater London Housing Strategy. This will be the only statutory regional strategy.
The South East London Housing Partnership is taken as an example, described in example e. sub-regional working in South East London Housing Partnership (SELHP)
This partnership comprises the boroughs of Bexley, Bromley, Greenwich, Lewisham and Southwark and includes the Housing Corporation, ‘London Councils’ (formerly called The Association of London Government) and housing association partners. It is one of five sub-regional partnerships in London. By sub-regional working, SELHP believes it can offer:
- effective working by sharing and pooling information and good practice
- increased mobility and choice to customers
- a coordinated link to the London Housing Strategy and the Housing Forum for London.
A South East London Housing Partnership operates at member and officer levels. A coordinator has been in post since April 2004. The partnership has established eight work groups and can point to a series of achievements including developing an integrated approach to investment in private sector homes to meet the decent homes standard, joint working on homelessness prevention and a guide to development standards for RSLs and developers.
It is notable that the Partnership continues to be successful in spite of political changes in the boroughs in 2006 because the members think it works, and they see it as adding value in tackling common issues. The enthusiasm for the sub-regional approach amongst the officers, to whom we spoke in researching this issue, was clear.
See more at http://www.selondonhousing.org/ We can also expect that cross-authority and sub-regional working will be encouraged by the new Communities England. Both The Housing Corporation and English Partnerships (the two bodies which will form Communities England) support sub-regional approaches for the delivery of investment programmes and for planning strategic interventions at a scale where strong links can be made with economic development and infrastructure planning. The work of both in relation to examples such as the County Durham Coalfields initiative, or the Meden Valley partnership in the East Midlands signals the approach which seems likely to be favoured.
Working across local authority boundaries, and as part of wider partnerships, is increasingly becoming a normal part of the approach to the strategic housing role. But what are the appropriate matters to be settled regionally, locally and in cross local authority partnerships? Are the partnerships about research, shared resources and efficient delivery or how far are they also about policy-making? If so, what are the implications for the local authority role and responsibilities? Should this vary between different types or sizes of authority? There are further practical questions which the partners will need to address:
- what are appropriate governance structures, given that policy decisions will have to be taken in the sub-regional partnerships, for subsequent ratification by each local authority?
- how closely should the sub-regional areas match strategic housing markets?
- to what extent are dedicated resources necessary for such partnerships?
These issues will be explored further during subsequent topic papers as we aim to identify relevant good practice which will best deliver your objectives for sustainable communities and quality housing for all. 7. integrating housing strategy into sustainable community strategies and local area agreements
Housing strategies can no longer stand on their own. In reality, they have always been referenced to, and take account of, other strategies. But the government’s intention is that:
‘local authorities’ Housing and Homelessness strategies should be incorporated within the unitary or district Sustainable Community Strategy, wherever possible.’
But it is less obvious how this integration will best be achieved. The role of housing strategy within the Sustainable Community Strategy (SCS) is not specifically defined in the Local Government White Paper. This is probably right, as the nature of housing problems varies across the country and national targets would be inappropriate. Housing strategy is also cross-cutting: housing programmes impact on all the four themes around which Local Area Agreements (LAAs) will be negotiated. LAAs will be the delivery plan for the SCS.
______________________________________________________________________
13 Strong & Prosperous Communities – The Local Government White Paper. CLG Oct 2006 para 5.64
14 The 4 themes are children and young people, safer and stronger communities, healthier communities and older people, economic development and enterprise. For further information on LAAs see the IDeA Knowledge web-site http://www.idea.gov.uk/idk/core/page.do?pageId=1174195 The Government clearly expects that Sustainable Community Strategies will articulate how the local authority and its partners will tackle housing issues. Local authorities will continue to prepare housing strategies as part of their SCSs, and that partnership working on these will be considerably strengthened. The White Paper proposes a new duty to co-operate for key local players to work in partnership to agree joint targets through the LAA to enhance local authorities’ leadership role, furthering their ability to set a strong, coherent vision and to bring partners together behind that vision in the Sustainable Community Strategy.
The primary link being introduced in the revised framework for LAAs is that housing will be part of the economic development and the environment theme. At the same time, housing strategies can contribute to the delivery of all themes in the proposed framework. The briefing paper prepared by the Chartered Institute of Housing on ‘Delivering Housing Strategy through Local Area Agreements’ showed the range of approaches being taken. It found that housing was included as an essential element for place shaping and achieving other social outcomes in 95 per cent of the LAAs reviewed. In addition to the mandatory outcome about achieving decent homes in the target areas for the Neighbourhood Renewal Fund, local targets had most frequently been developed for:
- better quality housing and improved access for older people
- reducing homelessness generally and specifically for young people
- increasing the supply of affordable housing.
Many authorities have invested much effort into developing a SCS, through the Local Strategic Partnership, and to developing a delivery plan in the form of an LAA. LAAs are set to become even more important. The Local Government White Paper promises that from 2008, LAAs will be the only place where central government will agree targets with local authorities and their partners on outcomes delivered by local government on its own or in partnership with others. Up to 35 core targets will be drawn from a national indicator set of around 200 that will emerge from the Comprehensive Spending Review of 2007 (CSR07). LAAs will give local areas greater scope and flexibility in target setting. Agreements may also include locally agreed targets drawn from Sustainable Community Strategies.
15 CIH and IDeA. Feb 2007 The White Paper envisages the following conditions for effective partnership working on the SCS and the LAA:
- the local authority must prepare a draft of the local area agreement, but partners and stakeholders must agree to cooperate with each other to establish targets
- the sustainable communities strategy must have regard for other local and regional strategies
- the local authority and its partners offers streamlined processes for engaging the community in decision-making
- there must be better management processes to integrate the writing of the strategy and local area agreement.
From the perspective of those involved in housing, this work through the Local Strategic Partnership on the SCS and LAA must now be seen as vital to the strategic housing role because:
- the local strategic partnership has now become the ‘partnership of partnerships’ and has a central role in local governance
- meaningful local authority leadership in all aspects of the local strategic partnership is vital to its effectiveness, because the local authority holds the democratic mandate
- housing and its implications for spatial policy need to be embedded in aspects of the SCS to be a priority for delivery
- it is a primary route to achieve community endorsement for housing and planning policies that can be locally controversial
- it will contribute to the understanding by officers and members to the key social, economic and environmental and community cohesion issues that go into good housing plans and are manifested in effective planning policy
- LAAs will be vital to an understanding of the inter-dependencies of poverty and social exclusion in an area. The White Paper also recognises that
‘there are a number of outcomes which may be best delivered through collaboration at a sub-regional level. In particular, many of the interventions needed to deliver sustainable economic development rely on action at a broader geographic scale than a single local authority’.
Multi Area Agreements provide the scope for further progress on issues at a sub-regional level. This could be economic development in its very widest sense.
At this stage in developing an enhanced SCS, a key question is how the integration of housing strategy can be best achieved? How far does this require different approaches to developing housing strategies than those used to date?
Some of the recent experience suggests that a thematic partnership focused on housing can play an important and constructive role in helping develop the SCS and shaping the delivery plan through the LAAs. A key issue is to ensure that housing makes the right links with other services, rather than adopting a ‘silo’ approach. The positive experience of London Borough of Croydon is summarised in example f. It has a strong partnership ethos supported by strong performance management. The council’s endeavours have been awarded Beacon status for community involvement with residents and tenants. example f
housing and community involvement London Borough of Croydon
The Local Strategic Partnership now provides the structure for much of what the council and its partner housing associations and developers do in relation to both planning and delivery of good quality housing outcomes. Housing is a thematic priority within the sustainable community strategy.
The Local Strategic Partnership provides the infrastructure for a whole range of engagement in relation to housing issues. For example tenant and leaseholder panels, community housing panels, the housing sounding boards (with more than 1000 active participants), and engagement with a whole range of specialist groups such as the disabled and BME groups. There is a range of imaginative techniques for engaging with residents and tenants that can be viewed on the IDeA Beacon websites.
http://www.beacons.idea.gov.uk/idk/core/page.do?pageld=5615406 Hambleton District Council is a rural authority that understands the influence, impact and contribution a robust local planning policy can have on the delivery of an adequate supply of affordable housing. A strong corporate philosophy recognises the potential of the planning system to deliver community and corporate priorities, including those for housing and regeneration. Therefore the council has chosen to embark on a rapid timetable for the production of its Local Development Framework (LDF). It is one of the first authorities to reach the stage of public examination of its core strategy.
The LDF and the Hambleton Community Plan are inextricably linked – which is one of the most important features of the Hambleton approach. Both depend upon each other for their delivery. Hambleton is taking steps towards ensuring the sustainability of its communities through an integrated process of creating the LDF within the Hambleton Community Plan.
Organisationally coordinated, both plans are being developed from the same unit. There is a corporate consultation strategy that provides coherence to this process. Its methodology and standards were used for example to guide the Hambleton housing strategy challenge events in 2005. Consultation is integrated rather than duplicated. The development of the LSP into a strong and mature structure of main board, strategic theme and area groups has strongly influenced this process. It is able to achieve a full dialogue at district and community level through the networks, which have been built over recent years. Integrating sustainability principles has been a main strand in both areas. This has led to a positive approach to development. Examples are in the process of being developed in affordable housing schemes throughout the district and of regeneration initiatives in the market towns of the district. The current policy and guidance framework for the local authority strategic housing role can be found on the CLG website www.communities.gov.uk. The White Paper sets a new context where housing becomes an integral part of the vision and strategic plan for the area, and is therefore linked to local authority functions more broadly.
Although new guidance is likely to emerge from Government on this broader strategic housing role, some authorities are already developing the techniques and expertise which will serve them well for the future.
It is therefore well worth all authorities considering some key questions:
- how well does the Sustainable Community Strategy articulate the vision for places as well as people and themes? Is there a sense of place in the SCS?
- how well does housing need, condition and market analysis help to articulate this sense of place?
- does the local authority as a whole, its key partners and the community understand the relationship between housing and other outcomes in the community – for instance how a healthy housing market supports the economy?
- how can the Local Area Agreement be used to deliver housing outcomes, and how can housing contribute to outcomes for people and communities?
8. involving residents and communities in planning and delivering the local authority strategic role
Top performing Councils systematically recognise the value of resident and tenants’ feedback and seek to empower them to work alongside the council in shaping services and delivering customer focused outcomes. Top performers usually have staff employed on the consultation and involvement of residents and tenants. Residents become key partners in monitoring the quality of the outcomes for the areas in which they live.
Common features of successful organisations that are customer focused include:
- better strategic engagement and a willingness to understand the customer perspective
- improved customer service standards
- customer service charters that are monitored with input from service users
- customer information available in a variety of accessible formats
- a higher profile given to equality and diversity issues and the engagement of hard-to-reach groups. There is useful discussion in the 2006 CLG publication ‘Formative evaluation of community strategies’ about the value of good quality community engagement. The evaluation shows that the level and types of engagement with local citizens have become very important. The report shows that 84.7% of respondents, to a survey of local authorities, reported that community consultations inform their sustainable community strategies to a significant extent. A commitment to communicate evidence to different groups of stakeholders was also important. It is now commonplace for local strategic partnerships to use consultation techniques to test out and confirm whether priorities are correct and to identify the best way to prioritise and implement their strategy.
Quality community engagement is critical. It can fulfill a number of roles. Some authorities, such as London Borough of Croydon in example h, explicitly acknowledge this contribution in their published partnership documents and thank the community for its many roles and the contribution it makes to a better community life in the borough.
example h
London Borough of Croydon
In the borough of Croydon the local voluntary and community sector is specifically acknowledged for playing the following important roles:
- **representation** – the voluntary and community sector is embedded into the local strategic partnership
- **consultation** – structures for consultation are already in existence and make mature judgments
- **delivery** – the voluntary sector is a major deliverer of services within Croydon
- **scrutiny** – being closer to the public service agencies means that they act differently as agencies
- **audience** – there are always volunteers to help implement the community strategy community leadership and the strategic housing role in local government
In example i you will see that in Woking the outcome from a quality consultation process on affordable housing and development achieves a more sophisticated policy.
Salford City Council’s integrated work on private sector housing is underpinned by a partnership approach to working with private landlords which gives additional weight to its enforcement action in exceptional cases, as can be seen in example j. seeking creative solutions through community engagement – Woking District Council
Woking District Council has written its affordable housing and planning policies following a very consultative process with its citizens. This included information to all households, a series of workshops, two rounds of questionnaire surveys to the citizens’ panel and the wider community. Specific attention was paid to contacting hard to reach groups. These are defined in the council’s social inclusion strategy as those within the geographic areas of highest deprivation, residents with low skills and qualifications, children and young people, older people, and residents with long term limiting illness.
Woking’s approach has a number of innovative components:
- developing a vision of the future through workshop sessions focusing upon ‘what should the future be like’, rather than ‘how do we change or protect the present’?
- validating decisions and understanding the key issues for local people, through statistically representative questionnaire surveys
- developing a range of options setting out alternative ways of delivering the vision based upon different levels of future development. Getting public feedback on these through workshops and statistically representative questionnaires
The outcomes from this process show that contrary to expectations, people in a prosperous place like Woking do not wish to see the lowest possible levels of development in their area. Issues such as affordable housing, access to good quality facilities and climate change are of greater importance. They do have concerns about the transport system, social and community infrastructure, the greenbelt and the quality of new development. The emphasis though is on finding creative solutions. Achieving this level of understanding and engagement takes real effort but brings with it real rewards in terms of trust and community confidence. Private Sector Housing working with landlords to improve the local market Salford City Council
Private Sector Housing is a key component of Salford's Housing Strategy. In seeking to improve the local market, raise standards and encourage greater community involvement the Housing Market Support Team was developed in 2004. This brought together key teams dealing with Landlord Accreditation, HMOs, Housing Standards, Empty Properties, and a Burglary Reduction Initiative.
Salford is the first authority to make an area a Selective Licensing Designation. This is in an existing renewal area which had experienced both low demand and the problem of anti-social behaviour linked to the private rented sector. The implementation of selective licensing will be linked to the proactive inspection (using the Housing Health and Safety Rating System) of all privately rented properties in the designation.
Salford has a strategy for the delivery of selective licensing over a number of phases, the first of which covers approximately 522 privately let properties. Subsequent phases are to be introduced covering the remaining areas of the Manchester & Salford Housing Market Renewal Pathfinder.
A detailed consultation programme included the establishment of a Landlord Licensing Working Group in 2004 which consists of a small focus group of private landlords and council officers. This group meets regularly and has provided a mechanism for private landlords to have a real input into the development of the licensing policies and procedures. The Landlord Licensing Team in Salford have developed close links with the RESPECT task force and are involved in the development of a Housing Management Standard for the private rented sector. By raising standards of housing management (and in particular, improving private landlords’ expertise in handling complaints of anti-social behaviour) this will improve perception of the area and create more sustainable communities. The Licensing Team has a dedicated ASB officer who is funded through the licence fee to provide support and advice to landlords in dealing with their tenants’ anti-social behaviour.
In the rather different context of substantial and radical change in particular communities, the Housing Market Renewal Pathfinders have been developing extensive and innovative community consultation. Working with the strategic housing authorities, they have needed to demonstrate that, where there are proposals for redevelopment, that there is informed community support.
The Audit Commission annual review 2005/06(^\\text{16}) of Pathfinder progress highlights two examples as case studies. These are, firstly, Elevate East Lancashire, where no project is approved until the pathfinder is satisfied that local people are being involved appropriately. A number of innovative approaches to consultation have been used including getting local school children to design their perfect place, holding young people’s conferences to discuss the future of their areas and inviting residents to contribute to masterplanning.
In Gateway Hull and East Riding there have been extensive community consultations on plans for the next four years and extensive coverage of the proposals in the local media. The consultation showed that nearly 80 per cent of people agreed with demolition plans.
(^{16}) http://www.auditcommission.gov.uk/reports/NATIONALREPORT.asp?CategoryID=&ProdID=D9720DA3-ED2C-4190-BF55-7D1816AFE780&fromREPORTSANDDATA=NATIONAL-REPORT We cannot expect that resident and community engagement in housing strategy will normally be easy. The issues are usually complex or controversial, or both, but it is critical to the planning and delivery of a strategic housing role for LAs which in turn is at the heart of the place shaping agenda. Changes affecting peoples’ homes are often the most sensitive and high-profile elements of regeneration and development plans, therefore putting the housing role in the centre of the debate. In a healthy democratic society this requires community consent and therefore planning for effective community involvement is an essential part of the strategic housing role, working in partnership with others.
The implications of this for the design and delivery of the strategic housing role will be explored in the further work during 2007. In the meantime learning can be found in the practice offered by the Beacon authorities for ‘Improving Housing Services through involving tenants’. These show that good quality, effective tenant involvement is integral to improving housing services. The four Beacons, Bolton, Carrick, Croydon and Kirklees have proven this and using the information available found at http://beacons.idea.gov.uk/ you will be able to tap into their wealth of expertise.
9. building capacity and leadership for housing strategy within and beyond local authorities
17 Improvement Drivers in Local Authority Housing, Audit Commission. March 2004 It is a common problem for local authorities, as they drive to achieve the decent homes standard for social housing, that this presents major political and operational resourcing issues. This can deflect authorities from their wider strategic housing responsibilities. In practice, this often means many of the best staff and most significant resources being devoted to stock options and transfer activity and subsequently being allocated to work for the newly created landlord organisation.
An analysis of this phenomenon was undertaken in the report ‘Improvement Drivers in Local Authority Housing’(^\\text{17}). This identified several crucial factors that must be present if there is to be improvement in housing strategy teams. These factors remain central to an effective strategic role and include:
- the crucial importance of good governance and member commitment
- changes to management practice – being prepared to do things differently
- improved performance management
- enhanced tenant and resident participation in service delivery
- better procurement methods
- additional human resources.
The Report shows that where services have improved, members have shown leadership. This has led to a renewed commitment to providing good quality housing services and increased understanding of the importance of this service. Housing moves up the political agenda as a result. Active scrutiny committees and a good understanding between members and staff are also invaluable. Without good member level involvement it was found to be very difficult to put the things that drive improvement into place.
Good governance also means good role definition. Members and officers need to consider how to integrate, through the Cabinet and Committee structure, the complex melange of ‘place making’ activities - including housing, planning, regeneration and social inclusion.
It is commonplace to find that councils have reorganised their housing services as part of their drive to improve performance. Bringing more functions into a larger and more co-ordinated management framework can often ensure better service delivery. Rethinking the role in relation to Local Strategic Partnership thematic or housing partnerships can help the drive to change, and relates to the issues in the previous section. The commitment and energy of frontline staff is an essential ingredient of a successful housing service. This requires that effective support is available for staff – which can include recruiting new staff, filling vacancies in good time and providing good training to support people to carry out their duties. This can produce a virtuous circle, with improved morale leading to the delivery of improved performance.
An effective performance management framework is also an essential ingredient for success. The best performers can be found to have comprehensive systems in place that cover:
- action plans
- milestones
- traffic light information systems
- improved performance indicators (PIs)
- named officers with patch responsibilities.
It is members and the Chief Executive who must ultimately lead the council’s performance management system, supported by sound and comprehensive information systems. There are also tools that a number of local authorities have found very useful when making improvements to their services. These include:
- informal peer review undertaken between authorities
- benchmarking with a group of other authorities
- challenge days to share learning by inquiry and analysis.
Service improvements are hard to achieve against a background of traditional working methods. A common issue is the need for better procurement methods. For example, a thorough procurement exercise that looks carefully at the options and the market for services such as homelessness and advice is likely to drive improvement, whatever the outcome (for example providing the service in-house or outsourcing the services). The process of providing competitive scrutiny will usually lead to improved contractual arrangements and often to the developing of partnering arrangements that can bring mutual benefits to authority and partner alike. Often, the improvements that are necessary to improve housing strategy and enabling services cannot be achieved without extra resources, both in the short and long term. Sometimes this is a direct input from the general fund but others have found imaginative ways of creating income from capital programmes or sharing costs as part of partnership structures. This might also, for example, be achieved by looking at savings in management time and technical co-ordination through working in teams with other disciplines, such as social inclusion or planners.
Wychavon District Council is an example of an authority that was very aware of the type of factors detailed in the report discussed above and made a planned response. The council is one of very few in England that is rated as ‘excellent’ for its housing strategy and ‘excellent’ in relation to its capacity to continue to improve. How did they do this? Example k provides some insights, which reflect most of the principles outlined above.
In South Shropshire District Council similar levels of high performance and effectiveness in terms of creating new affordable housing have been achieved. This can be attributed particularly to the drive and initiative of the leader of the council. Example l highlights South Shropshire’s experience.
In the third example, that of Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council, a review of the housing function at the point of stock transfer and a strong performance management culture led to significant organisational and performance improvements. achieving excellence in housing strategy Wychavon District Council
The council has, for several years, had a culture of challenging areas of weaker performance and being open to external challenge and scrutiny. For example, the prompt manner it addressed the weaknesses identified in the ‘balancing housing markets’ diagnostic section in its Audit Report of March 2004, which criticised the strategic approach to housing. The council responded by ensuring that the housing strategy achieved a ‘Fit for Purpose’ status from the Government Office and also addressed concerns about the quality of plans, partnership working and monitoring arrangements. Close attention was paid by the council officers and members alike to delivering against action plans and ensuring that service improvements actually took place.
The pace of change and improvement to the housing service was rapid and sustained. The council increased financial and non-financial resources available to housing. It increased the profile of the service among staff, members and stakeholders through the use of internal and external briefings, joint training and feedback sessions. The council emphasised the importance of partnership working by carrying out sessions for staff at the two LSVT RSLs operating in the district, and involved all external partners at an early stage of the housing strategy development. External partners are now very positive about the openness of the council and the willingness of officers to engage with them.
There was a new focus on people management. Improvements were driven in part by strengthening the management capacity in the housing strategy section, adding new posts in critical areas, for example an Empty Homes Officer and a Property Standards Officer. There was restructuring to provide a more person-centred approach and a policy of recruiting for attitude followed by the right training. There was also a focus on learning from others.
Use of best value principles made the council develop service improvement plans and challenge existing services. This work has, for example, lead to changes in the procurement of DFG work, a greater emphasis on externally influencing the regional housing strategy and a greater priority given to the importance of homeless prevention work.
The council has a sound five-year strategy ‘Wychavon’s Way Ahead’ that sets out its priorities. This includes continued and sustained commitment to providing an ‘excellent housing service’. Wychavon received the coveted ‘Excellent and Excellent’ Performance Assessment in April 2005 and is LGC’s Council of the Year 2007. example l
tackling the affordability problem South Shropshire District Council
In South Shropshire District Council, high performance and effectiveness have been achieved at least in part due to the drive and initiative of the leader of the council. A housing needs study showed that average house prices in Shropshire were 10 times the local average wage. Homes were not affordable to the average working family in the county. The leader challenged officers to do what they could within the envelope of the law to redress this affordable housing crisis.
Improved coordination between the planning and housing functions has taken place. New thinking on affordable housing was conducted – in part with the assistance of the Rural Housing Commission. A new housing strategy was written. South Shropshire has now achieved great clarity in its affordable housing policies and planning policies. Officers and members alike are entirely clear about what they need to do to create affordable homes. South Shropshire is being very successful in obtaining social housing grant in partnership with its local housing associations and has a good reputation at the sub regional and regional levels. It is making a significant impact for its citizens.
example m
reshaping the strategy role after LSVT Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council
In 2002 Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council was judged by the Government Office North West to have a housing strategy that was well below average. This occurred at the same time as the council housing stock was transferred to a housing trust. Knowsley questioned itself and considered how to respond to the factors discussed above. There was strong cabinet member and senior officer commitment to see improvement take place in an area that faces major challenges of regeneration, neighbourhood quality and economic development.
The staffing of the housing strategy team following stock transfer was increased and its capacity improved, without adding cost to the councils General Fund account expenditure. A lot of care was taken in the process of recruiting a number of new managers and specialists. New methods were found to involve residents in service delivery. A new Housing Partnership was formed within the structure of the Local Strategic Partnership. All of this was bound together by a strong performance management culture driven from the Chief Executive’s office, shared by the Director of Development and Regeneration. Knowsley is community leadership and the strategic housing role in local government
now respected regionally and has a fit for purpose housing strategy, and achieved a ‘Good’ inspection of its homelessness services with ‘promising prospects for improvement.’
These examples underline the importance of leadership to ensure the strategic housing role is focussing especially on the priority issues for local communities, and that the available resources are being well deployed. Successful approaches will include a wider housing partnership and integrate with the Sustainable Community Strategy.
10. what skills does your council need in order to perform its strategic housing role well? As part of the IDeA’s programme of work to enhance local authorities’ ability to be ‘place-shapers’ through their strategic housing role, the CIH and IpsosMORI are conducting work to assess the level of understanding of the new role and of the skills required to effectively undertake the role. It is expected that the main findings from this work will be published in summer 2007 and will inform the shape of an improvement programme. This will help to provide assistance to local authorities as they adapt to the emerging housing strategy challenges.
The first substantial part of this programme of work is a telephone survey of local strategic housing authorities and the initial results are now available. There was an extremely good response rate to this survey with 209 Local Authorities responding within the period allowed.
Participants were asked about their authority’s approach to housing strategy and their organisation’s priorities. In listing these priorities almost 70% highlighted the supply of affordable housing in their borough as one of their top three priorities with only approximately 2% listing building mixed communities. There was wide recognition that partnerships are key to the success of housing strategies. Relationships with Housing Associations and other Local Authorities are reported to be working well. There is work to be done in improving relationships with the private sector, Health and Social Services. 36% of participants felt they could be more successful in their roles with a better understanding of other agendas. In terms of the skills for the job, leadership, influencing and relationship building skills were highly valued. However, in some authorities there was a reliance on other departments or contractors to perform key tasks such as influencing the allocation of resources.
In terms of delivering the role 80% of the authorities have a dedicated team working on housing strategy and the mean size of this team is around 8 posts. However, 82% found it difficult to recruit people with the right skills.
This feedback confirms that the variety of skills and experience in your housing strategy team is a key issue. Some skills are geared to the specialist areas of homelessness, housing market analysis or private sector housing, etc. There will also need to be knowledge of housing development, management, renovation processes and the relevant powers and responsibilities of local authorities. It confirms that there is a set of generic core skills that authorities should also be looking to establish if not already there. Below is a suggested list of the skills that a good housing strategy team should possess, or be able to draw on from others.18
18 This list is loosely based on that developed by the CIH in ‘Visionary Leadership’ community leadership and the strategic housing role in local government
- ability to build trust with, and support council members
- ability to engage with communities and partners
- commissioning of research and understanding housing markets – intelligence led and evidenced
- good influencing, communication and negotiating skills
- financial understanding sufficient to deliver complex funding agreements, loans and equity release products
- commissioning of consultants and service providers
- skills in establishing and maintaining partnerships and understanding the connections between programme areas
- ability to influence the allocation of resources
- ability to write strategies and action plans.
More specific knowledge and skill will be required in:
- understanding the planning system
- understanding social care and supporting people
- understanding local economic drivers.
This programme of work continues with both IDeA and CIH currently developing further initiatives, including regional improvement partnerships and work through the CIH’s regional branches, to promote a better understanding of the nature of the role and of further development of the skills required to undertake the role successfully.
11. helping local authorities to grow emerging good practice
This paper is the first of five topic papers about the strategic housing role to be published by the IDeA during 2007. Its purpose is to bring to your attention the importance of, and the challenges of achieving, good quality housing strategy as a component of your corporate and community planning. The paper has argued that for a local authority to be an effective ‘place maker’ it has to have staff and members who understand how to integrate strategies for housing, planning, economic development and regeneration to improve their ‘places’. Similarly, for places to be socially inclusive then their strategies must also be integrated into a sustainable community plan for the whole of the local authority area.
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/1839-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 48,
"total-input-tokens": 100585,
"total-output-tokens": 16258,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
1174,
1
],
[
1174,
2131,
2
],
[
2131,
5064,
3
],
[
5064,
6660,
4
],
[
6660,
7633,
5
],
[
7633,
10262,
6
],
[
10262,
12858,
7
],
[
12858,
13906,
8
],
[
13906,
16239,
9
],
[
16239,
16667,
10
],
[
16667,
17835,
11
],
[
17835,
18324,
12
],
[
18324,
19363,
13
],
[
19363,
21714,
14
],
[
21714,
23767,
15
],
[
23767,
25267,
16
],
[
25267,
25706,
17
],
[
25706,
26987,
18
],
[
26987,
29343,
19
],
[
29343,
30511,
20
],
[
30511,
32929,
21
],
[
32929,
34936,
22
],
[
34936,
36455,
23
],
[
36455,
38186,
24
],
[
38186,
39630,
25
],
[
39630,
41440,
26
],
[
41440,
42793,
27
],
[
42793,
45189,
28
],
[
45189,
46854,
29
],
[
46854,
48154,
30
],
[
48154,
49070,
31
],
[
49070,
50937,
32
],
[
50937,
52176,
33
],
[
52176,
53152,
34
],
[
53152,
54914,
35
],
[
54914,
55400,
36
],
[
55400,
57324,
37
],
[
57324,
58865,
38
],
[
58865,
60823,
39
],
[
60823,
62286,
40
],
[
62286,
64590,
41
],
[
64590,
66444,
42
],
[
66444,
67985,
43
],
[
67985,
70600,
44
],
[
70600,
73078,
45
],
[
73078,
73757,
46
],
[
73757,
76553,
47
],
[
76553,
78555,
48
]
]
} |
36d924cb0f86e86a7d14788391205a2f0ca75f4b | Community Leadership Councillor workbook
## Contents
| Section | Page | |----------------------------------------------|------| | Foreword | 3 | | Introduction | 4 | | What is community leadership? | | | The context | 5 | | Advocacy and leadership | 5 | | The meaning of leadership | 8 | | How is it done? | | | Leadership characteristics | 11 | | Why does it matter? | 14 | | Working in partnership | 17 | | Final word | 21 | | Appendix: Useful links | 23 | This workbook has been designed as a learning aid for all councillors, regardless of their experience or responsibilities. It makes no assumptions about how long you have been a member or your experience or lack of it as a leader in your community. Those who are relatively new to local government or the practical and philosophical issues concerning their community leadership role may feel there is much ground to cover. This workbook will brief and update you on the key aspects of this role in the context of the opportunities and challenges facing our communities today.
Make your way through the workbook in your own time, in your own way and at your own pace. In all it will take you two to three hours to complete. You might prefer to dip into the book from time to time or tackle it in one go. You could also work through the book with a fellow councillor or councillors, sharing your thoughts and ideas in the in relation to your community.
The important thing is to think about the issues presented in the workbook, their relevance to your local setting, the people you serve and the council as a whole. Introduction
As you work through the book you will find a number of features designed to help you think about community leadership and the councillor’s role:
**Guidance** – used to indicate guidance, research, quotations, explanations and definitions that you may find helpful.
**Challenges** – questions or queries raised in the text that ask you to reflect on your role or approach – in essence, they are designed to be thought-provokers.
**Case studies** – ‘pen pictures’ of approaches used by councils elsewhere.
**Hints and tips** – a selection of good practices that you could find useful.
**Useful links** – signposts to sources of further information that could help with principles, processes, methods and approaches. A full list of useful additional information is also set out in Appendix A of the workbook. What is community leadership?
The context
What do we mean when we talk about community leadership in the context of local government and the roles and responsibilities of councillors?
Many different people and many varied services contribute to the welfare of local communities. But councillors are uniquely placed to develop strategies, shape thinking and take an active lead locally because they alone have been democratically elected to represent the interests of the people and the council. This gives them a legitimacy and a mandate no other local body or individual has, apart of course, from MPs.
“Good councillors make sure voters feel involved, creating a buzz of new ideas. Not much happens that they don't know about.”
Polly Toynbee, ‘The Guardian’
The idea is to give individual councillors greater influence over the services and facilities available in their wards – and the freedom to prioritise provision according to local needs – so long as they were not acting in conflict with the council’s overall interests.
Decentralisation and Localism is an extension of this - giving greater control to local communities and transforming the relationship between central government, local government, communities and individuals. The democratically accountable role of the councillor is uniquely placed to understand the needs of the community and to take a joined up approach to meeting them.
Advocacy and leadership
The publication ‘Vibrant Local Leadership’, sets out a vision for the community advocate and leadership roles of councillors.
Government legislation and guidelines have required and encouraged councils to work in closer partnership with other bodies – such as the police and health authorities – and to empower councillors to take a higher profile as advocates and leaders in their wards.
1 Vibrant Public Leadership, 2005, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, www.communities.gov.uk It said the role of the community advocate includes:
- speaking up for, and on behalf of, individuals and groups
- encouraging residents to engage and participate
- participating in plan making and planning decisions
- communicating residents’ concerns to the council and to other providers such as the police.
But in this role councillors must not, it said, ‘lose sight of the strategic context for the council area as a whole’.
It said the role of the community leader includes:
- stimulating local organisations and individuals to take up opportunities to express their views
- representing local level concerns and perspectives
- maintaining a link between the users and the providers of services
- encouraging the community to organise for themselves
- working with other community leaders in the voluntary, community and business sectors
- offering vision and direction to local groups, and building support for that vision
- brokering agreements between different interests and partners
- contributing as an effective partner in neighbourhood arrangements, including those that deliver delegated functions.
Community leadership can be defined as:
- helping communities to identify and deal with problems in the most effective way
- bringing in help from officers and partners
- acting as the voice for the community to the council, partners and others
- communicating the work of the council and partners to the community
- leading the community and others in developing a vision for the area and the steps to achieve it. Exercise 1
(a) What does community leadership mean to you?
(b) What does community leadership mean to your council?
(c) To what extent have you already developed your role as a community leader for your ward?
(d) Have you identified local problems or ambitions and discussed possible solutions with other local groups and organisations?
(e) What personal obstacles are there to you becoming a leader in your community?
(f) What external obstacles are there? The meaning of leadership
Leadership in this context does not mean taking centre stage – it is about creating the right environment for others to act. It is less directing and controlling, more stimulating, enabling and empowering. County and district councillors need to explore their respective roles – while at the same time acknowledging the important role of parish and town councils and councillors.
The growth in the number of organisations and agencies active at a local level and the localism agenda has made the task of community leadership more complex, and at the same time more important. Councillors have to demonstrate their ability to fulfil that leadership role whilst also convincing their local partners that there is something in it for them.
Community leadership concerns more than the services and functions delivered by the council. The focus of community leadership has to be the whole range of public services delivered locally together with the contribution and impact of the private, voluntary and community sectors.
It is not just about the council’s vision for the locality, it has to be framed around a shared vision – and one backed up by a shared commitment to delivering. The task of taking the difficult decisions – on for example issues where consensus cannot be reached – lies with councillors and cannot be easily ducked. This responsibility goes to the heart of your community leadership role.
A three thousand year old philosophy
Go to the People; Live among them; Love them; Start from where they are; Work with them; Build on what they have.
But of the best leaders, When the task is accomplished, The work is completed, The people all remark: “We have done it ourselves”.
Lao Tzu, ‘Tao Te Ching’ (Chapter 17)
## Do’s and Don’ts
| Do | Don’t | |-------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------| | Find out what groups and organisations are active in your ward – some, like the police, will be obvious, others less so | Try to do everything yourself – your role is to conduit between the various local groups and organizations and between them and the council | | Find out what concerns and ambitions they have and look for common ground and possible areas of disagreement | Attend every meeting and event held in your ward – it is not necessary and you will quickly become exhausted | | Develop a shared vision for the ward that is achievable and not in conflict with council policy | Try to solve every problem that comes your way – other people and organisations may have more resources and expertise than you have | | Develop a plan that will guide you and your partners in making the vision a reality | Forget the needs and opinions of individuals | | Tell fellow councilors and residents about what you are doing | Become associated with pressure groups unless you feel that their agendas are compatible with your role as a councilor | | Encourage and enable others to take the lead on matters close to their hearts | Hoard information – sharing knowledge about local matters will lead to better working relationships and better outcomes | | Remember that as an elected councilor you have democratic integrity and a responsibility to represent everyone in your ward – not just those who voted for you | Expect to agree with everyone or for them to agree with you – some negotiations will be tough and challenging | | Understand that some partner organisations will not have the freedom and flexibility you possess | Complain – get things done instead | | Involve council offers when necessary and appropriate | | | Celebrate success and share your experience with others facing similar challenges | | The future of local leadership
“...leaders must engage communities in a dialogue about the extent of state support available, and about the roles of, and the relationships between, state, individual and community. This dialogue needs to be open, honest and realistic [and] be at the heart of a new way of working where local authorities work together with communities to pursue collective aims”.
Councillor Claire Kober, Leader of London Borough of Haringey
Extract from ‘How does direct democracy change leader’s roles as local activists’? The Next Question, NLGN, August 2011, www.nlgn.org.uk
www.nlgn.org.uk/public/section/publications Leadership characteristics
The Local Government Association, in its publication Powerpack, using the new power to promote wellbeing, suggests there are at least eight characteristics of effective community leaders:
1. **Listening to and involving local communities** - Councillors cannot call themselves leaders if they are not in touch with the communities they purport to represent. They need to be in touch with all parts of their community such as parishes and neighbourhoods, and communities of interest, such as young people and minority ethnic communities.
2. **Building vision and direction** - Local communities face a complex and diverse set of problems and challenges. They want to know that all the relevant organisations in their area – public, private and voluntary – are working together in a common direction. Councillors have to work with the whole gamut of local organisations and interests, in shaping a long-term vision for the areas they serve.
No single person acting alone can respond effectively to the needs of localities. Effective community leadership involves securing the commitment of partners to delivering a shared vision for their area as well as helping to shape it.
3. **Working effectively in partnerships** - No single person, acting alone can respond effectively to the needs of localities. Effective community leadership involves securing the commitment of partners to delivering a shared vision for their area as well as helping to shape it.
4. **Making things happen** - Community leadership involves more than having a sense of direction. It is also about making things happen on the ground – delivering outcomes for local people. Vision, direction and effective partnership are only of any use if they deliver actual change on the ground.
5. **Standing up for communities** - Local people want to know that the people they elected to represent them are doing just that. This ‘advocacy’ role can involve speaking out for local people on major issues that impact on the community – like hospital or factory closures – and acting on behalf of specific groups of individuals.
6. **Empowering local communities** - Community leadership is not about the councillor taking power for him/herself. It is more about creating the environment in which other leadership roles can develop, and fostering the development of active citizenship. Councillors have both to lead and stand back at the same time, investing in the growth and development of communities so that they are able to govern themselves.
7. Accountability to communities - Community leadership involves being accountable to local people – through the ballot box and through the development of active on-going relationships with people such as by listening to and being accountable to local communities through citizens’ juries, people’s panels and area forums.
8. Using community resources effectively - Communities, councils and partners have a wide range of resources they can bring to the table. Community leadership is about ensuring these resources are used effectively to meet local priorities. Community leadership is also about delivering the best outcomes for local people and actively seeking new ways to promote the wellbeing of their area.
Seven behaviours to realise good community leadership
1. Good communications – shift from communication to conversations through adaptable style, facilitation and feedback
2. Openness – transparency, approachable and open minded
3. Empathetic – listening and hearing, being receptive and responsive
4. Negotiating – ‘holding the space’ conflict resolution, reconciliation, mediation
5. Motivating – encouraging, stimulating confidence
6. Managing expectations – set realistic expectations and meet them
7. Sharing – learning to let go, work with different working agencies and organisations
Building Civic Community, LGA, 2010 approach to media enquiries. Be honest, concise and helpful. Exercise 2
(a) What do you believe are your top three leadership behaviours?
(b) How have you recently demonstrated those behaviours? Have you personally led members of your community in resolving a particular issue, challenge or opportunity?
(c) What area represents your greatest opportunity for growth and development? How might you improve in this area?
(d) How would you rate your council’s performance at a ward level – excellent – good – acceptable – poor – non existent?
(e) Who are the other key community leaders in your ward?
(f) How do/might you use your leadership behaviours to further develop the leadership skills of others? Why does it matter?
Research consistently show that communities that are engaged – that is, where different groups, organisations and individuals from the public, private and voluntary sectors communicate with each other and contribute to the well being of their community – tend to have happier, healthier people and lower levels of crime and anti-social behaviour.
At the same time, there is concern about the decline in voting in local elections, more people living on their own, threats to community cohesion and an increasingly detached attitude towards their local area and what is going on there.
Councillors have an important role to play here because they are the interface between citizens and the council and they have the power to demonstrate directly what they have achieved for the people they represent.
Through surgeries, casework, the media, local events, social and voluntary groups, newsletters, blogs and so on, they can effect change and communicate their achievements to local people.
In politics it is often easy to look for the big gesture, the big plan, the big policy statement. But real tangible achievement at ward level need not be like that. Time after time, research and case studies show that little things mean a lot when it comes to improving things for local people.
“For a variety of reasons, life is easier in a community blessed with a substantial stock of social capital. In the first place, networks of civic engagement foster sturdy norms of generalised reciprocity and encourage the emergence of social trust. Such networks facilitate coordination and communication, amplify reputations, and thus allow dilemmas of collective action to be resolved. Finally, dense networks of interaction probably broaden the participants’ sense of self, developing the ‘I’ into the ‘we’.”
Professor Robert Putnam, Harvard. In the USA the number of people who went 10-pin bowling increased by 10 per cent between 1980 and 1993 (30 per cent more Americans go bowling than vote in congressional elections – 80 million people). At the same time, league bowling in teams decreased by 40 per cent.
People were bowling alone, not in company.
Robert Putnam, a political scientist and professor at Harvard University, has taken this as a rather quirky but relevant illustration of the decline of what he calls ‘social capital’ in the USA.
Putnam points out that research throughout Europe, the USA, and beyond indicates the demise of ‘civic engagement’ and the growth of passive, if cynical, reliance on the state.
At the same time research in many countries shows that the quality of public life and the effectiveness of social institutions are likely to be significantly better in ‘engaged communities’ rather than ‘disengaged’ ones. This applies across the whole spectrum of social policy – from health to education, from drug abuse to unemployment, from crime to housing – all show the same trends.
Things are generally better where communities are ‘engaged’ and take part in decisions affecting their own lives. Putnam found that local government in Italy was set up the same in each region but that the level of effectiveness varied dramatically. Over 20 years of study Putnam identified traditions of civic engagement – or the lack of it – as the most important factor in explaining this variation.
Seemingly unconnected factors such as voter turnout, newspaper readership membership of choral societies or football clubs were shown to be related directly to the development of a successful region. The mechanisms that lead to this relative success are inevitably very complex but they seem to come down to the idea of ‘social capital’ – features of social life such as networks, norms, trust, engagement and so on that enable members of a community to act together more effectively and pursue shared objectives.
One way of measuring ‘social capital’ is to conduct a community or social audit. The idea of audit might seem a bit strange in this context but it isn’t really – it means assessing what’s already there before deciding how to improve, modify or change it. “As a councillor, I feel that I have played a part in saving Milton Mount Gardens. This open green space in front of a block of council flats was originally called Worth Park. Over the years, it has suffered neglect and vandalism.
I called out English Heritage, and to my surprise discovered that the gardens were designed by James Pulham, the man who designed the gardens at Buckingham Palace.
I then arranged a public meeting so that local people could get involved in deciding the future of the gardens. Out of the meeting, an active community group got going. They have now put in a £1.5m bid to English Heritage to restore the gardens to their former glory. I am also taking an active role in trying to save areas of special interest within a four-mile greenfield site that is earmarked for development.
It’s ironic that I became a councillor because I was opposed to plans to build 2,500 homes on the land that I knew and loved, which is just at the back of my home, and now, a few years later, I’m having to take forward that very same planning application as the portfolio holder for planning and economic development. I’m still trying to preserve the fundamental root of my objections to the development, which are the shortage of green space in the area and the pressure that building many more homes would have on scarce resources such as water.
The way I am doing this is to focus on those areas that it is critical we preserve within the greenfield site. I’m working with local residents and with English Nature and English Heritage to identify areas that are of particular interest to local residents. For example, it could be a street that is the last remaining Victorian housing street, or an area where there are old ditches and boundaries.
We want to get a planning-led heritage policy adopted by the county council as part of the wider development. It’s all about balance. I now better understand about housing need.
After I became a councillor in 2004, I went through a period of personal study. I looked at high-density housing and heard personal stories from people who desperately needed a home. Crawley Borough Council is working with the county council and neighbouring borough councils to look at building on more landfill sites, improving the transport infrastructure and trying to get the right level of affordable housing.
The councillors I had got to know when I was a planning objector asked me to stand as an elected council member. I didn’t have a strong political viewpoint but I did want to be part of the decision-making process. I had been on the outside saying they’re wrong but I really passionately wanted to make things work.
Planning is really exciting.
I’m also very involved in the £800m redevelopment of the town centre. My portfolio position – which I took up in May 2006 – includes housing, community safety and employment. And the town redevelopment is all about welcoming new businesses to Crawley and improving the jobs and skills in the borough.”
Councillor Claire Denman, Crawley Borough Council Community leadership is about councils, both councillors and officers, enabling local communities to determine their own future. It is not traditional, top-down leadership, but involves councillors and officers using all the tools at their disposal to engage communities in making their own difference. It promotes a partnership of shared commitment to promote a shared vision for the locality. Councillors need to have:
- the ability to build effective partnerships with other local organisations and communities
- a commitment to community engagement and empowerment
- the ability to respond effectively to local priorities
- a sound understanding of local governance arrangements
- an understanding of the local community and the groups and organisations within it
- access to key people in other agencies within that community
- access to officers and key people within local authority.
The landscape of partnership working is shifting with new opportunities emerging. However, the central concern for councils and councilors remains to promote the social, economic and environmental wellbeing of their areas, achieving sustainable communities. The key role is to:
- provide for local communities – articulation of aspirations, needs and priorities
- co-ordinate the actions of public, private, voluntary and community organisations
- shape and focus existing and future activities of these organisations to meet community needs.
Whether you are working at the ward or whole council level, to produce a community strategy there must be a process of community planning. Key stakeholders must be involved in this process. These could be large groups like the police, health authorities and schools, or smaller ones, such as voluntary groups, local businesses and community groups.
Partnerships of all kinds are at the heart of community planning and neighbourhood renewal agendas. While, multi-agency in their composition, their purpose is to bring together statutory, non-statutory, private, voluntary and community organisations for the purpose of promoting and improving residents’ quality of life. Having an agreed strategy can provide a framework for different organisational processes and mobilising a wide range of agencies, organisations and community interests.
Community Organisers
500 community organisers will be trained into enable local people to take action on their own behalf. The community organisers programme will create a new home-grown movement of community organising emerging from the strengths, concerns and hopes of all kinds of neighbourhoods across England.
www.cocollaborative.org.uk Partnerships should:
• build consensus around an agreed vision for the future • see their own interests in the context of a bigger picture • encourage the development of sustainable communities • identify conflicting objectives and needs • build trust and closer working relationships, where appropriate • develop a clear understanding of each partner’s roles and responsibilities • review existing partnership and consultation arrangements • share data and analysis • share resources and provide a coordinated response to community priorities • shape and focus existing and future activities of agencies • produce a community strategy. Exercise 3
(a) What have you achieved in partnership with others – as a councillor, in your private life or in a job – that you could not have achieved alone?
(b) What were the advantages of working in partnership?
(c) What were the disadvantages?
(d) What lessons have you learnt as a result?
(e) Partnerships will not necessarily be cosy, friendly affairs where everyone thinks the same way – have you thought about how you will deal with representatives of other organisation and groups who may have different views and who may even be hostile or aggressive? Councillors at Cheshire West and Chester Council are changing the way they approach their roles, moving from what was considered inward facing, to a more outward facing and engaging role.
In 2009, Member’s budgets were introduced to enhance the ability of Councillors to improve the quality of life and wellbeing of their local communities. In 2010/12 funding of £10,000 was provided to each Councillor to address priorities for action identified within community-led plans. The budgets have been allocated in a variety of ways, including some during Community Forums operating as participatory budgeting events. These events have attracted large numbers of local groups and have helped to bring local people and issues to the table so that they can be discussed with their local councillors. Innovatively, some of these events have taken place outside of a traditional meeting structure and have been incorporated into a summer BBQ, community walks and open days at community centres and buildings. This alternative approach has seen different residents attending and has helped Councillors to engage with the wider community, particularly families and harder to reach groups.
The council has recently secured pilot status for whole-place community budgets. Councillors are sharing their knowledge and experience to influence decisions about services, helping to ensure the work has the greatest impact and delivers the best possible outcomes for communities. Summary Community leadership is essentially about councillors, as democratically elected representatives of their communities, working with local groups and organisations and enabling them the make the best use of their combined skills, talents, expertise, and imagination for the benefit of local citizens.
At one level it is simply about being a good neighbour. At another it could be about driving through major changes affecting everyone in the community involving such things as health, transport, planning, crime and education.
It is down to each individual councillor to have the enthusiasm, commitment and vision to seize the opportunities available that will lead to thriving communities. Exercise 4
(a) Does your council actively encourage and support your role as a leader in your community – and if not how will you change things?
(b) Do you have the encouragement and support of fellow councillors – and if not how will you change things?
(c) Do you feel you have the support of council officers – and if not how will you change things?
(d) How good are your relationships with other groups and organisations represented in your ward?
(e) What three things will you do after completing this workbook to develop your role as a community leader for your ward?
1
2
3 Appendix Useful links
Printed publications
Building a stronger Civil Society, A strategy for voluntary and community groups, charities and social enterprises, (2010), Cabinet Office, www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk
Decentralisation and the Localism Bill: an essential guide, (2010) www.communities.gov.uk
Community engagement and community leadership: a summary, (2007), Joseph Rowntree Foundation, www.jrf.org.uk
Ward Councillors and community leadership: a future perspective, (2007) JRF, www.jrf.org.uk
http://tinyurl.com/6jnucrj
Building Civic Community, (September 2010), LGA, www.localleadership.gov.uk
The Next Question: The future of local leadership, (September 2011), NLGN, www.nlgn.org.uk/public
Creating stronger and more inclusive communities Some lessons for positive action in the context of austerity, (September 2011), NEF, www.neweconomics.org/publications
Keeping it REAL Responsive, Efficient, Accountable, Local services (November 2011), LGA, www.local.gov.uk/c/document_library
Useful websites
www.local.gov.uk The Local Government Association website has many pages discussing community leadership and a number of publications, a series of case studies, the Knowledge Hub, and development programmes for councillors and council officers.
www.21st.cc Supporting 21st Century political leadership.
www.involve.org.uk/councillor-in-the-community/ Councillor in the Community - website designed to support London councilors becoming leaders of their communities.
The following organisations’ websites have pages discussing community leadership. Some also have publications for download.
Local Government Information Unit https://member.lgiu.org.uk
New Local Government Network www.nlgn.org.uk
Joseph Rowntree Foundation www.jrf.org.uk
Community development foundation http://www.cdf.org.uk
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/1840-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 24,
"total-input-tokens": 39096,
"total-output-tokens": 6990,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
41,
1
],
[
41,
838,
2
],
[
838,
1955,
3
],
[
1955,
2780,
4
],
[
2780,
4702,
5
],
[
4702,
6237,
6
],
[
6237,
6701,
7
],
[
6701,
8460,
8
],
[
8460,
10576,
9
],
[
10576,
11219,
10
],
[
11219,
13764,
11
],
[
13764,
15170,
12
],
[
15170,
15817,
13
],
[
15817,
17673,
14
],
[
17673,
19923,
15
],
[
19923,
22981,
16
],
[
22981,
25604,
17
],
[
25604,
26242,
18
],
[
26242,
26809,
19
],
[
26809,
28272,
20
],
[
28272,
28972,
21
],
[
28972,
29559,
22
],
[
29559,
31380,
23
],
[
31380,
31380,
24
]
]
} |
b0b8992ca65370be27e66c7c2699b4d5c3deedc5 | Community safety Councillor workbook
## Contents
| Section | Page | |------------------------------------------------------------------------|------| | Foreword | 3 | | Introduction | 4 | | Community safety | 5 | | The challenge of creating safer communities | 5 | | The focus at neighbourhood level | 8 | | Consulting, engaging and communicating with communities | 13 | | Community safety in action | 15 | | The importance of the ward member role | 18 | | A final word | 23 | | Summary | 23 | | Next steps | 23 | | Appendix A – Sources of further information | 24 | | Appendix B – Relevant community safety legislation and policies | 26 | This workbook has been designed as a learning aid for elected members. It makes no judgement about whether you have been a member for some time, or whether you have been elected more recently. If you fall into the former category the workbook should serve as a useful reminder of the key features of community safety.
Those members who are new to local government will recognise that they have much to learn. This workbook will provide you with an understanding of the importance of community safety for the people you serve.
The workbook offers few firm rules for ward members as it is recognised that each individual must decide how best to support the community safety work in their council area. This will be influenced by the governance arrangements in your locality and the nature of the community safety partnerships that have been set up with your council. As such, there is no presumption about ‘typical wards’ or ‘typical members’ and the workbook should serve more as a direction marker rather than a road map.
In practical terms, the document will take around two to three hours to work through. You do not need to complete it all in one session and may prefer to work through the material at your own pace. The key requirement is to think about the issues presented and how the material relates to your local situation, the people you serve and the council you represent. In working through the material contained in this workbook you will encounter a number of features designed to help you think about community safety. These features are represented by the symbols shown below:
**Guidance** – this is used to indicate research, quotations, explanations and definitions that you may find helpful.
**Challenges** – these are questions or queries raised in the text which ask you to reflect on your role or approach – in essence, they are designed to be thought-provokers.
**Case studies** – these are ‘pen pictures’ of approaches used by other people or organisations.
**Hints and tips** – these represent a selection of good practices which you may find useful.
**Useful links** – these are signposts to sources of further information and support, outside of the workbook, which may help with principles, processes, methods and approaches. A full list of useful additional information and support is also set out in the appendix of the workbook. Community safety
The challenge of creating safer communities
Community safety is best seen as an aspect of our quality of life in which individuals and communities are protected from, equipped to cope with, and have increased capacity to resist, crime and anti-social behaviour.
New ideas have emerged on how public services should be organised and public needs met. There has been a move towards ‘new public governance’ with its emphasis on partnerships, co-working, co-production and collaboration between government departments, local authorities, statutory services, the private and voluntary sectors and other bodies such as users’ groups.
The strategic governance of crime and disorder reduction work has belonged with the local Community Safety Partnerships (CSPs) since the implementation of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. This has meant that local strategic management, the commissioning of the local strategic assessment of crime and disorder, the development of local delivery plans for crime and disorder reduction, tackling substance misuse and reducing re-offending, and the overseeing of performance against crime reduction targets has belonged with the CSPs.
The government is currently developing a programme of reform which will impact on the way in which CSPs deliver their programmes of crime and disorder reduction in England and Wales.
______________________________________________________________________
1 Lessons for the Coalition, Centre for Crime and Justice Studies In summary, the Policing and Social Responsibility Act 2011 contains legislation that will shift the decision-making on policing away from police authorities as well as central and local government. Police authorities in England and Wales will be replaced with directly elected police and crime commissioners (PCCs) who will assume overall responsibility for the totality of policing and reducing crime within a police force area. They will be required to work in partnership across a range of agencies ensuring a unified approach to preventing and reducing crime. The PCC budget may be used to commission services from public, private and voluntary sector partners. The community safety fund and other budgets paid by the Home Office to CSPs will cease on 31 March 2012, and from 1 April PCCs will have a community safety fund from which to commission community safety activity.
A police and crime panel, made up of councillors and a minimum of two independent lay members, will be established for every police force area to provide overview and scrutiny of the PCC and act as the PCC’s ‘critical friend’.
However, community safety is a key concern of all sections of the local community: young and old, men and women, the business community, special interest groups, victims of crime and offenders, indeed all those who live, work or study in an area or visit from other places.
Community safety is also a key concern for ward members. It determines how people perceive their neighbourhood and helps to reduce the fear of crime. In particular, a low crime rate is frequently seen by local people as their priority for a good place to live. And despite falls in crime rates, the public demand for community safety, and in particular a reduction in anti-social behaviour, remains very strong.
For these reasons community safety continues to be a top agenda item for both the public and councils.
Our vision for safe and active communities
“We all want our neighbourhoods to be safe and enjoyable places to live: a united community where we know and can rely upon our neighbours, where parents take responsibility for their children and where people are willing and able to intervene to challenge bad behaviour, confident that they will be supported by their neighbours, police, landlord, local council, ward councillors and their MP”.
Baroness Newlove
A new approach
The government’s new approach to fighting crime involves a radical shift in power from Whitehall to local communities. The police and their partners will be given far greater freedom to do their jobs and use their discretion. The public will have more power to hold the police and community safety partnership to account and feel empowered to reclaim their communities.
A new approach to fighting crime, Home Office Exercise 1 – what do you know about community safety in your area?
Think about some of the community safety concerns in your council area. Write down what you know about the following:
What did the most recent crime statistics reveal about offending behaviour in the area?
What key projects is the council involved in to tackle anti-social behaviour by young people in the area?
What key projects are the council involved in to tackle issues relating to drug or alcohol misuse in the area?
What is being done locally to prevent and reduce all forms of ‘hate crime’, ie threats, physical attacks or abuse driven by the hatred of someone because of their race, ethnicity, nationality, disability etc.?
Reflect on your responses to the questions above. How well do you feel you know about community safety now? Could you learn more? Would you feel comfortable to be asked any of these questions by one of your constituents or the local media? If you feel your knowledge is lacking in any areas, could you speak to any of your councillor colleagues or senior managers to find out what is being done and where you can go for further information? The focus at neighbourhood level
Working in partnership The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 makes it clear that tackling crime should be a partnership matter, with key local organisations working together to achieve a shared strategy for the benefit of local communities. Whatever the structural arrangements covering your council area, it is important that you are aware of the ways in which you can influence the strategies and plans of the CSP for the benefit of your neighbourhoods:
Alongside these formal partnership bodies, other initiatives have helped to tackle the need for improved community safety, not least of which have been local Neighbourhood Management and Neighbourhood Policing schemes. Both have been effective in delivering more responsive services and engaging local residents (Neighbourhood Policing is discussed later in the workbook).
The focus of community safety work varies greatly between areas depending on the priorities identified locally. The services commissioned can be creative and imaginative in tackling all of the factors that give rise to crime, help to prevent offending behaviour or assist in building safer communities (see case study).
Street level crime maps This is an interactive website which provides you with helpful information about crime and policing. Enter any postcode, town, village or street and you will have instant access to street-level crime maps and data, as well as details of your local policing team and beat meetings. You will be able to find out how the police are tackling the problems in your area, and what you can do to help.
www.police.uk
Exercise 2 – community safety: having your say
How much do you know about partnership working arrangements in your council area to tackle community safety? Consider the following:
Who chairs the CSP? How much contact do you have with this person?
Who represents your council on the CSP? How many times have you consulted with them about community safety concerns in your ward?
What channels of communication are in place to enable you to receive feedback from the CSP on its activities and to put forward ideas for consideration by the partnership? Improving the lives of residents in Forestside Avenue and in West Leigh
Forestside Avenue and Oaskshott Drive are two adjoining roads that sit at the centre of West Leigh within the Havant Borough. Since 2007 there had been serious community tensions within the neighbourhood, escalating from low level antisocial behaviour through to assaults, criminal damage and the victimisation of witnesses.
Over 300 incidents of antisocial behaviour and neighbour disputes were reported between 2007 and 2010. Residents in the area were difficult to engage and sought to resolve issues themselves, escalating the problem.
As a result the community safety partnership did the following:
• engaged with local and county councillors • held a community focused problem solving meeting • secured the support of the local football club • conducted a traffic survey • met with the local bus providers • secured funding for family intervention project support • co-ordinated a series of themed partnership meetings across the areas of concern • made the area the subject of a monthly tasking meeting.
As a result, calls for service to the area have dropped significantly, while the atmosphere has improved with people able to walk the streets.
National finalists, Tilley Awards 2011, Home Office Exercise 3 – what’s keeping you awake at night?
Look at the following incidents which could impact on community safety. Which of these would you make enquiries about, or seek to prompt action on, as part of your ward role?
Residents of a sheltered housing scheme being disturbed by frequent illegal motor driving in the area.
A family of asylum seekers who complain of being ‘imprisoned’ in their homes, as they are ‘menaced’ by youths who hurl abuse at them in the street.
A resident who has had his car window smashed every night for a week – the man concerned has recently been released from prison.
Look again at your responses. It is clearly not within your role (or powers) to intervene and take action alone to solve all of these community safety problems. However, it is important that you find out what is occurring, who is taking responsibility and what is being done to prevent and tackling any threats to community safety. In all of these cases it is not sufficient to say ‘this is not my concern’. Holding partnerships to account There is a special Overview and Scrutiny Committee for Community Safety in each council. It is unique in that it can call in representatives from the Responsible Authorities on CSPs to be held to account (eg local police officers).
The scrutiny of community safety partnerships can be useful from a number of perspectives, eg it can help to:
- **Improve what the partnership does** by focusing on the outcomes and outputs of partnership activity.
- **Improve how the partnership operates** by reviewing its membership, strategies, objectives and service delivery.
- **Hold decision makers to account** and assess whether the partnership is really making a difference to community safety.
- **Review performance management arrangements** to ensure that they are robust and effective, eg in measuring and monitoring performance at a neighbourhood level.
- **Review policy development** to ensure that the partnership remains focused on those areas of greatest local concern.
Ward members can contribute effectively to this scrutiny process given their role as community leaders. They can help to ensure that a partnership is ‘fit for purpose’ and delivering best value from the resources available to the partner agencies. As importantly, they can challenge to make sure that CSPs and other agencies are responding to the community safety issues raised by communities.
______________________________________________________________________
**Scrutiny of community safety**
Tameside MBC has used its scrutiny function to review the impact of current measures to tackle violent crime in the area and to consider future plans in order to inform policy development and help ensure targets are met. The objectives of the Review of Violent Crime (Policies and Performance), were to:
- produce accurate and comprehensive information about the level of violent crime and to consider its effects on the community
- evaluate the impact of a range of current policies and procedures, eg reducing youth involvement in violent crime
- consider future plans for tackling violent crime
- assess measures for tackling violent crime in relation to value for money
- identify examples of best practice in other local authorities and make recommendations for improvement.
The Police and Crime Panel (PCP) will have power to scrutinise PCC activities, including the ability to review the PCC’s police and crime plan and annual report, veto the PCC’s precept and choice of chief constable, request PCC papers and request PCCs and their staff to public hearings. Exercise 4 – responding to local concerns
Which of the following would you try to resolve informally, without the need to necessarily refer the matter on to a scrutiny committee? Summarise the steps you would take.
A neighbour complains to you about a group of young people who play football out in the street late into the night and regularly upset local residents.
You are presented with video camera evidence from a local youth club that drug dealers are using the facility to sell illicit substances to teenagers.
A local faith leader points out to you a poster which has been placed in the window of a local convenience store announcing that ‘Due to a number of recent disputes and complaints, we can no longer serve any Muslim customers’.
You are given a 2,000 person petition by local residents calling for some action in relation to the increasing incidents of knife crime on two of the estates in your ward.
Reflect on your answers. A simple referral of each matter to the local police commander or beat officer would probably be the best course of action. Scenario (d) is likely to merit more attention, reflecting, as it does, a widespread community concern. However, as a first port of call, you would still be well advised to refer the matter in the first instance to the local police commander, a portfolio member for community safety or another appropriate member of the CSP. Only if the responsible agencies appeared to take no action would you wish to consider referring the matter to your scrutiny committee. Consulting, engaging and communicating with communities
Engaging communities in community safety activities is essential to the work of CSPs. Doing so can help them to shape effective solutions for preventing and tackling crime and anti-social behaviour and reducing the fear of crime. Many CSPs have developed separate communications plans for this, while others have integrated the need for consultation, engagement and communications into their overall strategies.
It is not the purpose of this workbook to provide guidance on all of the various ways that CSPs can engage with their communities. However, it is worth emphasising some of the ways that you can assist with this engagement process as a ward member.
You should be in the front line of any initiatives to improve community safety in your area. As a community leader, you are best placed to understand the particular challenges faced by local people. And working closely with communities and a variety of local organisations, you can help to decide how best to respond to any community safety issues.
It is only at a local level that problems such as crime, deprivation and anti-social behaviour can be understood and addressed. Few other community leaders have the mandate to co-ordinate different interests, reconcile diverse views and encourage open debate and dialogue in the way that you can.
The particular strengths and knowledge that you bring to the engagement process are:
- **an understanding of your ward** – the demographics, the key issues facing local people and the way that services are being delivered
- **the representation of local voices** – you are a channel of communication between the communities you serve and the council, representing the views of others and speaking up for the unheard
- **communicating and influencing skills** – you can help to ensure that the views of local people are taken into account when decisions are made by the council or outside bodies and community safety matters are reported in the media.
There are many ways that you can assist the engagement process and alongside your role in scrutinising community safety partnerships, this is one of the main ways that you can influence both policy and practice on the ground. Communities are at the heart of the new legislative framework for community safety and few people are likely to be closer to these than ward members. Imagine your CSP has a new, high profile, project to increase community awareness and involvement in a campaign to tackle escalating street crime, eg knife attacks and alcohol-fuelled assaults. You are keen to assist and have been asked by the CSP to present them with a list of your ‘top ten’ ideas. Knowing your patch, what ideas would you put forward?
- Working to build ‘social capital’, eg bringing together networks of people with shared norms, values and understanding in order to solve community safety problems.
- Acting as a broker or intermediary between CSPs and citizens’ groups, eg helping to secure grant funding for a local community group which is working with young people from disadvantaged backgrounds who may be drawn into violent crime involving guns, gangs or knives.
- Building relationships with businesses or third sector organisations to promote active and empowered communities, eg supporting the development of Neighbourhood Watch schemes.
- Posting articles on the CSP website to raise awareness of community safety issues at ward-level.
- Carrying out periodic consultation exercises to elicit views on community safety initiatives, eg surveys or community newsletter feedback. Community safety in action
Community safety is about preventing, reducing and tackling crime, anti-social behaviour and drug abuse. It is also concerned with strengthening community cohesion.
And while this workbook is not intended to be a practitioner’s guide to the subject, it is important that you recognise the wide range of community safety concerns which CSPs and other partnerships are often faced with:
Violent crime Violent crime is a reality in England although the intense media focus is contradicted by the fall in the number of violent offences that have occurred eg Home Office figures for the 2010/11 British Crime Survey (BCS) showed overall violence was down 47 per cent from its peak in 1995. However, the focus on violent crime, and in particular gang-related crime or crime with knives or guns, means that this remains at the top of the community safety agenda, both to tackle the issue itself, and to allay the fears of local people. The crimes that are classed as ‘violent crime’ for the purposes of statistics are robbery, sexual offences, assault and murder.
Acquisitive crime ‘Acquisitive crime’ covers crime where items are stolen or acquired fraudulently, eg theft, burglary, vehicle crime and fraud. It accounts for a large proportion (about half) of overall crime measured by BCS and the police. A large percentage of these crimes are committed by illicit drug users not receiving treatment for their addiction, using the proceeds to fund their chaotic drug use. The Drugs Act 2005 gave powers for drug-misusing offenders to be tested for heroin, crack and cocaine on arrest for acquisitive offences (eg street robbery). And while levels of acquisitive crime are falling, the figures remain high, making it a priority for many CSPs.
Reducing re-offending One of the prime targets for CSPs is to reduce the number of those caught committing crimes who re-offend. It is estimated that out of a million active offenders, 100,000 (some 10 per cent) have three or more convictions and are responsible for half of all crime. Within this 100,000, a further 5,000 (around 0.5 per cent) are super prolific. There are a number of organisations and initiatives targeted at reducing re-offending.
Anti-social behaviour Anti-social behaviour is a broad term that covers any activity that impacts on other people in a negative way, eg noise nuisance, rowdy and nuisance behaviour, fly-tipping, and kerb-crawling. It can drag an area down or prevent the regeneration of an area where other bodies are looking to invest, and has become a major part of community safety work. Anti-social behaviour can be the result of individual problems, problems within the family, problems at school or problems within the community. When applying solutions, it is important not to just look at the behaviour itself, but also at the root causes. Local authorities and their partners have a range of powers and enforcement tools at hand. The Home Office has reviewed these and has set out proposals in the Anti-Social Behaviour White Paper to simplify the tools and powers available to councils and the police by introducing ‘criminal behaviour orders’ and ‘crime prevention injunctions’. It is also proposed that members of the public could use a ‘community trigger’ to require the CSP to take steps to resolve the problem. Responses would be overseen by the PCC who it is proposed would have the power to call in the CSP if they considered it had not given an adequate response. Legislation to introduce these changes is expected in May 2013.
**Alcohol and drugs** Tackling drugs and alcohol substance misuse has been a public sector priority for more than a decade. Through drugs and alcohol action teams, councils, police, health services and other partners have been working across their boundaries to reduce drug and alcohol misuse. Police and probation service research shows that up to 50 per cent of those arrested for trigger offences (property crime and robbery) were using Class A drugs (cocaine, heroin etc.) prior to their arrest. The connections between substance misuse and crime and disorder are well researched.
**CCTV and surveillance** There is much evidence that, used well, CCTV can make streets safer, reduce the fear of crime and help to detect serious offences. There is substantial public support for CCTV and it has brought significant benefits. While the UK has invested heavily in CCTV, improvements can still be made in terms of effective coordination, maintenance, upgrades and use as evidence, and a Code of Practice for the operation of surveillance cameras that councils will have to have regard to will be introduced later in 2012.
**Neighbourhood policing** Neighbourhood Policing has now been rolled out across England and Wales for a number of years, with local teams of police officers and police community support officers working closely with special constables, local authority wardens and other partners. It aims to provide people who live or work in a neighbourhood with ‘access’ to policing services (through a named contact), ‘influence’ over policing priorities, ‘interventions’ by partner agencies and ‘answers’ (sustainable solutions and feedback). Councils have enthusiastically embraced Neighbourhood Policing, which is often integrated into Neighbourhood Management structures to create cohesive local teams (see information box – street level crime maps).
**Domestic violence** Domestic violence covers incidents of threatening or violent behaviour or abuse between adults (usually partners or family members). This covers a wide spectrum of incidents but affects millions of people, spanning 15 per cent of all violent incidents and claiming the lives of around two women a week. Domestic violence is rarely a one-off, and is often a continuing pattern of behaviour by one adult towards another. Figures show that the majority of cases are violence by men against women.
**Hate crimes** Hate crimes are criminal offences committed because the perpetrator is driven by hatred of someone of a different race, ethnicity, nationality or colour, disability, gender or gender identity, sexual orientation or religion. These crimes could be threats, physical attacks or abuse/insults, eg damage to property, offensive graffiti, offensive literature, bullying or intimidation. Imagine you have been asked by a group of local residents to find out what could be done to tackle the following community safety concerns in your ward. What partner organisations (public, private or third sector) would you speak to in assessing what could be done (or is already being done) to tackle the matters?
Spray graffiti appearing on the doors of some garages used by the residents of a large block of flats (both privately-owned and rented public sector accommodation). The parking area is badly-lit as the bulbs in the council-managed street lamps are frequently smashed:
A corner shop which remains open until late in the evening and appears to be selling alcohol to underage drinkers:
Leaflets which keep appearing on a notice-board in a back-street café advertising the services of unlicensed taxi cabs:
Reflect on your answers. There could be any number of organisations that you might wish to consult, including residents’ groups and tenants’ associations where these exist. A key role for you would be in acting as a conduit in mobilising the support of local people and relevant organisations to work collaboratively to tackle the community safety concerns. There is also the crucial task of ‘holding to account’ those responsible for producing community safety strategies and delivering improvements on the ground. The importance of the ward member role
Working with partner agencies and community organisations is a key part of your ward member role. These will deliver services and support locally and contribute to the quality of life for your constituents.
It may be that your council has taken steps to devolve greater powers and resources to neighbourhood forums, giving them influence over the places they live in. Such steps can enable citizens to become more engaged in creating social networks and contribute towards the creation of safer, more cohesive, communities. Whatever arrangements are in place, it is essential that you understand the various mechanisms you can use to facilitate action on the ground.
Your role can also enable you to get closer to marginalised and disadvantaged groups in your ward and provide you with a strong basis on which to act in support of local people on community safety matters. For example:
- **you can assess** whether there is general satisfaction with the council’s work on community safety (and that of its partner agencies) and whether local people believe they are getting best value from the money being spent
- **you can speak** with confidence on behalf of your neighbourhoods or communities when community safety issues affecting them are debated or decisions need to be taken
- **you can promote** partnership working between public, private and third sector organisations on community safety and volunteering by individual citizens in response to recognised community needs
- **you can support** community calls for action and promote self-help by neighbourhood groups by understanding their aims, aspirations, views and tactics
- **you can champion** the work of community groups which act to promote community cohesion and reduce social conflict, eg sports clubs, festival communities etc
- **you can encourage** your scrutiny committee to investigate significant crime and disorder concerns which may not be priorities of the CSP.
“I think that the rioting and looting was a consequence of people feeling unheard, unrepresented and unsatisfied with the living conditions in which they have to live.” (Female, 24)
‘Our Streets’ The views of young people and young leaders on the riots in England in August 2011, British Youth Council Exercise 7 – getting action on community safety
Consider the following questions. They are designed to illustrate the sort of knowledge and information you should have at your fingertips if you are to play an effective role in community safety:
What arrangements are in place for you to receive community safety information relevant to your ward?
How can you be involved in influencing and setting the community safety priorities for your ward area?
How do you find out about what works on certain community safety issues?
What arrangements are in place to fund local community safety initiatives?
What arrangements are in place locally on neighbourhood or beat policing?
How do you access and consult your ward about community safety issues?
What are the key forums that can be used to discuss community safety issues?
If you do not know the answers to any of these questions you will need to do some further research. Speak to your member colleagues (perhaps a relevant portfolio holder if you have one) or chief officers in the first instance. It is essential that you understand all of the key mechanisms you can use to get action on community safety matters. Championing community safety
The Lyons Inquiry identified four roles for members – all of which can be applied to the frontline role of ward members around community safety:
- **Engager** – working with local groups to understand and promote local preferences and influence decisions.
- **Advocate** – speaking up for the local community and challenging political and managerial decisions.
- **Mediator** – reconciling different views in the area and explaining hard decisions that have to be made by the council.
- **Political entrepreneur** – supporting and generating social networks, engaging people in civic and public life and promoting community action to solve problems.
One of the most significant contributions you can make to frontline community safety is in working with others to prevent crime and anti-social behaviour. Much of this does not need to be large-scale or policy-driven, but should be timely, well planned and suitably proportionate given the challenges faced, eg working with a parish council to plan a drop-in centre for teenagers to divert youngsters from street crime.
Clearly, you need to be familiar with the community safety work of your council and its partner agencies before taking any action (and mindful of any guidance or protocols that the CSP has in place). However, most of the preventative work that you are likely to consider will be small-scale and localised and should complement, rather than duplicate or negate, the work of the CSP. Nevertheless your interventions can be invaluable in helping to prevent and resolve potentially explosive crime and disorder matters (see text box). Helping to prevent crime and disorder
Crime prevention is largely about understanding the factors which give rise to criminal or anti-social behaviour and taking action before matters can escalate. Much of this is about keeping your ear close to the ground – understanding what is happening in your ward, what the hot topics of conversation are and what is keeping people awake at night. Some of the early warning signs can include:
- increases in reported racist incidents, racial harassment and racially motivated disputes
- transient populations, both residents and in public spaces
- drug and alcohol activity in public places
- lack of social capital, eg people who don’t know or help their neighbours, don’t participate in local activities or organisations or resent newcomers, particularly those from diverse backgrounds
- increases in gang-related activities
- increasingly visible hate-related graffiti.
It is important to stress that a large proportion of this preventative work will not be about you finding all of the solutions. Sometimes people need to solve their own problems and resolve their own community safety issues. If this is the case, your role may be more about facilitation: bringing people together; helping to build trust and understanding; speaking up for those who may be largely unheard; sharing relevant information; and ensuring that all views are respected. Much of this is likely to be done through face to face discussions, although you may also be required to act as a ‘go-between’ in resolving tensions between groups that refuse to meet or interact directly. In either case, you may need to operate in any one of the following modes:
- **the spokesperson** – summing up other people’s views and being comfortable to put these across to all kinds of people, including large groups
- **the organiser** – making sure that everyone is prepared for meetings and knows when and where they are going to be and what is going to be discussed
- **the communicator** – making sure that everyone understands what is going on before, during and after the meeting
- **the action person** – making sure that meetings are not just a ‘talking shop’ but have a purpose and result in action
- **the mediator** – sometimes finding a compromise between two people or two conflicting ideas – being fair and not letting your own feelings get in the way. Other ideas you could consider around crime prevention include:
- monitoring many of the factors in your ward that may allow crime to breed (e.g., environmental degradation, unemployment, weakening community bonds/ties, poverty etc.) and ensuring that action is taken to address these wherever possible
- providing reassurance to those who may be vulnerable and unable to speak up for themselves
- ensuring that partner agencies take action against individuals who threaten the well-being of the area and may provoke disorder.
A separate workbook on ‘Facilitation and conflict resolution’ can provide you with further guidance on techniques for preventing crime and disorder.
Exercise 8 – crime prevention in your ward
An extremist political organisation is circulating racist and inflammatory material in your ward about the ‘threats posed by immigrants, refugees and asylum seekers’. You are mindful of an earlier incident in which a similar poster campaign led to an attack on an Asian student. In addition to working with the local police, what steps would you take to prevent any outbreak of criminal or anti-social behaviour?
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
A final word
Summary
While the dynamics of crime and disorder can be complex and difficult to tackle, it is clear that early and sustained intervention by partner agencies can reduce and resolve many of the community safety issues faced by local people.
Next steps
Within this, ward members have some important roles to play: helping to engage with the communities they know best, scrutinising the work of community safety partners and working in the front line of many crime prevention initiatives. They have much to contribute to the creation of safer and more cohesive communities in which people can live, work and travel without the fear of becoming a victim of crime.
Exercise 9 – where do you go from here?
Look back over the material contained in earlier sections of this workbook and consider the following:
(a) What key action points can you identify to improve the way that you support the community safety work in your area, ie what three or four things might you start doing, keep doing or stop doing?
(b) Have you identified any gaps in your knowledge or shortcomings in your personal skills? If so, please set these out below and identify how any further training or development might help you, eg further reading/research, attending courses, coaching, mentoring, work shadowing etc. Appendix A – Sources of further information
Printed publications
Anti-Social Behaviour Tools and Powers: Information Pack for Councillors, Home Office/Local Government Association, http://tinyurl.com/9mzhgvk
A Councillor’s Guide, Local Government Improvement and Development
Crime Reduction and Local Safety: The Crucial Role of the New Local Performance Framework, Department for Communities and Local Government/Home Office, www.communities.gov.uk
Guide to Community Safety Legislation and Policy, National Community Safety Network.
The Guide to Neighbourhood Agreements, National Association for Neighbourhood Management, www.localneighbourhood.org
Community Mapping and Tension Monitoring, WLGA, www.shu.ac.uk
Community engagement in policing: case-study evaluations of various projects, www.apa.police.uk
Police and crime commissioners – A guide for councils, Local Government Association, http://tinyurl.com/bt9zxzg
Police and crime commissioners – A guide for community safety partnerships, Local Government Association, http://tinyurl.com/cwm8w6l
Useful websites
www.audit-commission.gov.uk/communitysafety The Audit Commission website has information which can help to guide improvements in local community safety work.
www.cfps.org.uk The website of the Centre for Public Scrutiny contains a specific section on local scrutiny reports relating to anti-social behaviour.
www.community-safety.info/ Provides information and advice on crime and disorder prevention, combating drug and alcohol misuse and related police, justice & penal reform issues to help develop safer communities. www.community-safety.net Website of the National Community Safety Network (NCSN) which is a practitioner-led organisation supporting those involved in promoting community safety/crime reduction throughout the UK.
www.crimeconcernuk.net Crime Concern is a national charity working across England and Wales to reduce crime, anti-social behaviour and the fear of crime.
www.crimereduction.homeoffice.gov.uk Contains a wealth of material on all aspects of crime reduction and community safety work, including a mini-site dedicated to the work of CDRPs.
www.justice.gov.uk A website containing information and guidance for people working in the criminal justice system. During 2008, it was developed to provide a single source for guidance, best practice and news affecting criminal justice.
www.local.gov.uk The Local Government Group’s website is an invaluable source of help and advice for all those in local government. There is a specific section on Community Safety and a ‘community of practice’.
It also contains information on the work of the LGA’s Safer Communities Board which is focused on promoting the health and safety of local communities.
www.nacro.org.uk Website of Nacro which is a crime reduction charity aiming to find practical solutions to reducing crime.
www.popcenter.org Center for Problem-Oriented Policing, USA web site detailing approaches and models like SARA and The Problem Analysis Triangle.
www.statistics.gov.uk The Office of National Statistics (ONS) website contains population data which can be analysed at local authority level.
www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk Sub section of the main ONS website providing data for download by geographical area and topic.
www.police.uk Website providing street level crime information including policing.
## Appendix B – Relevant community safety legislation and policies
| Main legislation/policies | Key features | |--------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | **Crime and Disorder Act 1998** | Gave local authorities and police services duties to work together to develop crime and disorder audits crime and disorder audits and implement reduction strategies and to work in partnership with other agencies – Community Safety Partnerships (CSPs) – to tackle the identified problems. Over the years this has evolved through legislation and practice. | | **Police and Justice Act 2006** | Comprehensively revised the CDA 1998. The new Act places a duty on responsible authorities to share evidenced-based data to support CDRPs. This now also includes the Fire Service, Probation Service, Health Service, local Police Authority and a representative of Registered Social Landlords (Housing Associations).
The legislation also places a new duty on CDRPs to join together in a formal strategic group to undertake frequent strategic assessments of levels and patterns of crime and drug misuse in their area and to produce annual rolling three year community safety plans.
Extended the remit of local authorities to scrutinise the functioning of the local CSPs in England Wales. It puts in place arrangements to ensure that every local authority has in place a committee with power to review and scrutinise, and make reports or recommendations, about the functioning of the CSPs responsible authorities (local authorities, fire and rescue authorities, police authorities, the police, primary care trusts in England and local health boards in Wales). | | **Cutting Crime Together – Policy** | The Coalition government’s reform agenda was outlined in a letter sent to Community Safety Partnership Chairs on 17 December 2010.\
www.community-safety.info | | Main legislation/policies | Key features | |---------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | **Breaking the Cycle: Effective Punishment, Rehabilitation and Sentencing of Offenders- Green Paper** | Covers punishment, rehabilitation, payment by results, sentencing reform, youth justice and working with communities to reduce crime. | | **Policing & Social Responsibility Act 2011** | Covers five distinct policy areas: police accountability and governance; alcohol licensing; the regulation of protests around Parliament Square; misuse of drugs; and the issue of arrest warrants in respect of private prosecutions for universal jurisdiction offences. |
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/1841-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 28,
"total-input-tokens": 48617,
"total-output-tokens": 9756,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
37,
1
],
[
37,
1283,
2
],
[
1283,
2671,
3
],
[
2671,
3652,
4
],
[
3652,
5089,
5
],
[
5089,
7882,
6
],
[
7882,
9029,
7
],
[
9029,
11196,
8
],
[
11196,
12480,
9
],
[
12480,
13496,
10
],
[
13496,
16008,
11
],
[
16008,
17541,
12
],
[
17541,
19937,
13
],
[
19937,
21147,
14
],
[
21147,
24347,
15
],
[
24347,
27480,
16
],
[
27480,
28818,
17
],
[
28818,
31106,
18
],
[
31106,
32279,
19
],
[
32279,
33913,
20
],
[
33913,
36287,
21
],
[
36287,
38311,
22
],
[
38311,
39618,
23
],
[
39618,
41224,
24
],
[
41224,
43011,
25
],
[
43011,
45304,
26
],
[
45304,
46308,
27
],
[
46308,
46308,
28
]
]
} |
228afd9cb474b99eb68093ca14fbba06af612a1b | Community Engagement & Public Consultation
Seminar & Masterclasses
A decade of dialogue Rhion Jones Programme Director The Consultation Institute
Agenda
10.00 A Decade of Dialogue Rhion Jones Looking @ the best Jon Bradley & Elizabeth Gammell More with More...Hugh Flouch
11.15 Coffee
11.30 Successful Engagement with Children & Young People David Jones
12.00 Expert Panel: Rhion (chair) Hugh, David, Jon & Davy
12.30 Lunch
13.15 Facilitated Masterclasses
- Stakeholder Management Rhion & Elizabeth Gammell
- Using Social Media for public engagement & consultation Jon Bradley
- Facilitation Skills for 2011 David Jones
- Applying Big Society ideas Davy Jones
16.00 Ends
Why are we here? Welcome to Watford Gap
Service users, public, community, citizens, stakeholder engagement, involvement, participation, consultation, empowerment.
Coalition promises more public engagement. Coalition promises more public engagement
- Coalition Agreement Commitments
- Comprehensive Spending Review
- Police Reform Bill
- NHS Reform
- Planning Reform
- Localism Bill
The Localism Bill
Culture or Sport?
Art or Sport? Individual perspectives differ
- Whose views?
- How to detect views & opinions?
- Can we use new technology?
- How to reap wider benefits?
Looking @ the best...
Jon Bradley Participate Elizabeth Gammell The Consultation Institute
Different kinds of engagement
- Attracting the public as paying customers
- Seeking their views about what they want ...& what they have experienced
Most public bodies now have a Duty to...
Inform Consult Involve So much depends upon what we learn early in life
- The Culture & Sport Evidence programme concludes childhood experience, education, age & socio-economic status are important predictors of arts attendance
- Relationships between arts attendance & well-being
- Most effective way to increase engagement is to increase public education & promotion
Promoting the North-West Film Archive
- Produced 30 minute film documentary about Hulme & Moss Side
- Intergenerational engagement – explaining to people what the university had collected in ways acceptable to local audiences
- Cultural sensitivity helped!
Behind the scenes at the Theatre Collection
- Accredited Museum & Research Centre opens its doors
- Twilight Talks & visits to widen awareness of what’s available...
We consult when there is something to influence...!
Sport & Recreation in Basingstoke: Oct-Nov 2010
- 240 individual questionnaires
- 46 Clubs surveyed
- 65 Delegates at Sports Sector Conference
Used to determine investment priorities Cowdenbeath Football Club Redevelopment of Central Park Stadium
- Planning decisions often involve potential conflicts
- Retail v Sport
- Football v Stock Car Racing
Consultation is now under way..
Major developments always attract controversy ...
Difficult decisions also in the Arts
- High Art v Popular culture
- Performance Art v Fine Art
- Elite entertainment v Mass participation
Glastonbury Battle Prom
Covent Garden
Graffiti art
Aspirational Consultation... asking people what they want
Focus groups, Documents, Questionnaires, Public meetings, Social media, Diary rooms, World Cafes, Samoan circles... Public Expenditure reductions
People always want to cut the services used by “other people”
- County Councils & London Boroughs making savings in Library Services
- Strong element of “Big Society” alternatives
- Use of new technology
More with More: Local digital communities, neighbourhoods & public services
Hugh Flouch Networked Neighbourhoods
the online neighbourhood networks study
the Networked Neighbourhoods group Study Methodology
- Desk research
- Users – 500+ survey, focus groups, interviews
- Councillors & council officers – 200+, focus groups, interviews
- Site administrators - interviews
Scale of London ecosystem
- Citizen-led sites - >160
- Twitter - >180 neighbourhood-based
- Resident Associations / Friends of groups – 1,320 (est.)
- Commercial local sites
User scale
3,500 / 17,000 members 15,000 members 400 visitors a day 2,500 a day New Groups
Only 13% involved in formal local decision making bodies
Local websites – the menu
- Built and green environment: streets, litter and recycling
- Transport and travel
- Local services, facilities and shops
- Monitoring & campaigning
- Homes and houses
- Exchange, lost and found
- Looking after children
- Governance and politics
- Disturbances and irregularities
- Entertainment and recreation
- Local news & information, local people and local history
- Wider world politics and current affairs
- Homespun philosophy
Local Discussion Site
Placeblog Study focus
- Social capital and cohesion
- Empowerment, civic involvement and co-production
- Relations with councils
- Implications for councils.
Neighbourly relations
Figure 1: Neighbourly Relations change as a direct consequence of using local website
- More likely to see someone in the neighbourhood
- More likely to see someone in the network
- Neighbours more likely to exchange
Legend:
- BC
- RDF
- HOL
- All ‘yes, there’s the occasional idiot, but they are normally shot down by the majority.’
Pulling Together
Information sharing
- People are helpful if someone asks for advice 92%
- Feel much more informed about neighbourhood 95% Social impacts
- Neighbourly relations
- Collective efficacy
- Information sharing
- Belonging and attachment
- Social Inclusion and diversity
Feelings of Influence
As a result of using the local website:
a little or much more able to influence decisions in area 68% Influence
As a direct result of using their local website over the past 12 months:
• up to 54% of users had been in touch with their councillor • up to 42% with a council officer • up to 50% with their MP
Civic participation
As a direct result of using their local website over the past 12 months:
• up to 54% of users had been in touch with their councillor • up to 42% with a council officer • up to 50% with their MP
Attitudes to officials
East Dulwich councillor - can we help?
Posted by James Barber 02 September, 2009 10:05
Hi,
My name is James Barber and I am one of the three East Dulwich ward councillors. My two colleagues are Cllrs Rosie Shimell and Jonathan Mitchell. We’re Liberal Democrats and part of Southwark Liberal Democrats.
If you have any issues or concerns related to East Dulwich or Southwark Council then please let me or one of my colleagues know. I guarantee we will listen and answer all ideas and issues raised and hopefully help you solve them. Normally I will look in two or three times a week to see any new postings. Alternatively you can email me directly on [email protected].
I look forward to hearing from you, James Barber Informing
Listening & understanding
Figure 1: How are local sites perceived by members and officers?
Figure 2: Reasons to participate on neighbourhood websites (officers and members combined)
- Sharing council news and information
- As a route for delivery of online services
- As cost-efficient complement to customer services
- Identifying issues of concern for residents
- To get feedback from residents
- As open communication channel with residents
- Dealing with complaints and incoming information
- Generating and sharing local problems
- Generating & co-ordinating export for residents
Very important | Somewhat important
Informing
Listening & understanding Co-production
Aims • Improve quality of life • Reduce burden of care • Support personalisation • Digital inclusion
Through • Online stimulated • Online & offline informal neighbour care
Neighbourhoods Connect
Delivering Services?
Civic impacts & implications • Feelings of Influence • Civic participation • Improved relations with public officials • Informing & understanding • Support for co-production • Channel for service delivery • Support for behaviour change Successful Engagement with Children & Young People
David Jones DSJ Solutions
General points on consultation
Young Scot Dialogue Youth Key messages
Points to consider........ • Reputation, Credibility and Image • What you are consulting about makes sense to young people • Access all areas – inclusion – seldom heard • Deliver on promises • Understand how young people communicate • Dignity, Respect and Integrity
Provide young people, aged 11 - 26, with a mixture of information, ideas and opportunities to help them get the most of their lives. Dialogue Youth is a partnership between Young Scot, COSLA, Scottish Executive, Local Authorities, their community planning partners and young people.
A national strategy delivered through local action. A nation of informed young people Increased opportunities for young people to access and influence relevant services Increased participation levels in projects, activities and decision-making processes Young people as capacity builders and activists A step change in the public, media perception and image of young people
Impact 4: Capacity builders and activists Access All Areas All In Inclusions Audits Consulting young people..
- Building social capital
- Transforming services
- Democratic engagement
Key Messages
Aim high, young people deserve it! Political and senior official commitment is crucial Genuine involvement - think differently Sustain the excitement, motivation Develop the brand and ownership TRUST the young people involved
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/1842-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 22,
"total-input-tokens": 40283,
"total-output-tokens": 2925,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
699,
1
],
[
699,
890,
2
],
[
890,
1120,
3
],
[
1120,
1570,
4
],
[
1570,
2583,
5
],
[
2583,
2987,
6
],
[
2987,
3204,
7
],
[
3204,
3632,
8
],
[
3632,
4074,
9
],
[
4074,
4641,
10
],
[
4641,
5064,
11
],
[
5064,
5292,
12
],
[
5292,
5563,
13
],
[
5563,
6748,
14
],
[
6748,
7422,
15
],
[
7422,
7893,
16
],
[
7893,
8444,
17
],
[
8444,
8647,
18
],
[
8647,
8647,
19
],
[
8647,
8647,
20
],
[
8647,
9054,
21
],
[
9054,
9395,
22
]
]
} |
edc8a2480ace312ef9e3b5ba67ecead31ebd53f2 | Creating a SPIRE logon account and company registration
CONTENTS
1. INTRO 2
2. WHO SHOULD REGISTER 2
3. CREATE A SPIRE LOGON ACCOUNT 3
4. CREATE A REGISTRATION FOR YOUR COMPANY 5 □ Overview of SPIRE System Level Access 14
5. WHAT HAPPENS NEXT 19
6. COMPANY SCENARIOS 20 □ Company set-up 1 20 □ Company set-up 2 20 □ Company set-up 3 20 □ Company set-up 4 21 □ Company set-up 5 21 □ Consultants (or equivalent) 22
7. Intro
SPIRE is the Export Control Organisation (ECO) export licensing database. You should use this online system to register for Open General Licences or apply for export or trade licences issued by the ECO. SPIRE is accessible at https://www.spire.bis.gov.uk and also via the Businesslink website at http://www.businesslink.gov.uk
This document is intended to guide users through the process of creating a SPIRE logon account and registering their company on SPIRE.
Please read through this document in full before starting to create an account or a registration as there may be aspects of the process that you have not considered. (For example, you should be aware that you need to be the right person to create the SPIRE registration for your company).
If you are going to be using SPIRE on behalf of a company, you have the ability to create a company registration. There are several benefits to using this facility.
- You will be able to add users with different levels of access to SPIRE.
- It will save time when completing applications as information can be automatically loaded from the registration details.
- You can prevent others from applying for licences using your company details.
- Applications can be shared with others from your company who are also users on SPIRE to allow holiday cover, etc.
2. Who should register
The SPIRE system works on the basis of one SPIRE registration per Companies House registration number.
If you have multiple users who want access to SPIRE within an organisation, you will need to decide whom within the company should initiate the registration. You should note that companies can list all sites using the one Companies House registered number on the SPIRE registration and can nominate different users for all sites.
The creation of a SPIRE registration is a decision that each company needs to make and will depend on the set up of your company. It is not compulsory for any company to create a SPIRE registration although we do recommend it as it will give control over who applies for applications on behalf of your company and also gives visibility to users over what applications are being created and processed. 3. Create a SPIRE logon account
- Go to https://www.spire.bis.gov.uk and select ‘Account Registration’.
- The page will refresh and you will see a registration screen, as below
- Enter relevant details in all fields. (All fields are mandatory). Enter the digits displayed in the security image. This shows a 7 digit code that you have to type into the field below and protects against automatic registration.
Once you have completed all fields and confirmed the security image code, you can select to ‘Register’.
You will then be sent an e-mail containing an automatically generated password.
Once you have received this, go to the SPIRE web address again – https://www.spire.bis.gov.uk and enter your e-mail address into the existing users field, then enter the password sent to you by e-mail and click on ‘Login’.
You will then be prompted to enter this password again and then choose a new password (it should be at least 8 characters long and needs to include at least 1 number; also make sure it is easy to remember). You will need to re-enter your chosen password and then answer your security question that you have chosen.
Click on ‘Login’
Provided all the details are accurate, you will then be logged into SPIRE and you will be taken to your workbasket where you will see a welcome message. This message contains information about the layout of SPIRE and common processes which we hope will make using the system easier for you. If you delete this message, you will be able to access the information through the ‘Help’ link in the left hand side banner. 4. Create a registration for your company
Please note that the creation of a company registration involves a letter being sent from ECO to the Company Secretary (or equivalent) who needs to sign a declaration and return it to us before the registration will be activated. This letter will be sent to the Companies House registered address for your company.
- Click on the ‘Manage my Registration’ link. This is found on the left hand side of the screen. You will then get a message stating that you have not yet made any registrations, but pointing you towards the ‘New Registration’ link on the left hand side. Click on this link to start the registration process.
You will then come to the SPIRE Registration screen. You should enter your Companies House Registration Number in the white box and then click on the ‘find Company’ link. This will activate a link to the Companies House website and your official details will be located and entered. You will have to then complete any fields that are not automatically completed.
- Alternatively, if your details are not generated by this search, you can always enter your organisation details manually by selecting the option to ‘enter organisation details’ yourself.
- Please double check the details that you enter here before going to the next screen.
- Entering your organisation details is the first of 4 steps which will allow you to create your registration. The tabs for these steps can be seen across the top of the screen. The tabs are Organisation Details, Sites, Security and Submit.
Tab 1 is for Organisation Details. You will then need to enter details about your company, including your formal address, your VAT number, your EORI number, nature of business, etc. You will also be asked to provide details of the overseas registry name and company registration number if applicable.
You should note that some fields are mandatory (including address and nature of business fields). Mandatory fields are indicated by a \*. If you fail to complete a mandatory field before moving to the next screen you will receive an error prompt to indicate which fields you need to complete.
To enter an address, you should click on ‘Select Address’. You will then be taken to a new screen which contains a postcode search facility. Enter in your postcode and click on ‘Search’. The addresses contained within that postcode will then be displayed.
You should select your address from the available options. If your address is not displayed, you can use the ‘Advanced Search’ or ‘Add a new address’ options. The ‘Advanced Search’ allows you to search a company name, house number, street, town or city. For the ‘Add a new address’ option, you will simply see a screen where you can manually enter the address details. Once this has been done, click on ‘Accept’. Take care to double check all the details of the address you have entered as once you accept them, they will appear in the ‘Organisation Details’ screen and if you have made a mistake, you will need to re-enter all the details again. If you have made an error, click on the ‘Change Address’ link to go through the process again.
- When you have added all the relevant details, select next. If you click on ‘Save and Exit’, you will be taken to a ‘Manage Registrations’ screen. This will show you a list of all your registrations. By clicking on the appropriate option, you can either:
- Resume entering relevant details
- View the registration
- Cancel the registration
If you click ‘Save and Exit’ at any point during the registration process, you will be taken to this screen and all the information you have entered to date will have been saved. Part 2 of the process is setting up sites. A company can operate from a number of sites. This screen will allow you to enter the details of these sites within your registration. You don’t have to add all your sites at this stage, you can add more later; but you will have to add at least one to proceed to the next step.
On screen you have two options:
- If you operate out of one premises, you should select the ‘Create site from previous page’ option and add a department/division name (for example, this may be ‘Commercial Department’ or ‘Shipping Department’ – whichever is a relevant title for the area of the company that is responsible for export controls).
- If your main site is not the same as the one entered on the previous screen, select ‘Add new site’. You will then be taken to the address search screens (shown above) and you can enter the details of the site. You can enter as many sites as you wish to.
If you have an EORI number for each site, you should enter it on this screen. An EORI number is a ‘Economic Operator Registration and Identification’ number. For more details see the Businesslink website.
You should also indicate the ‘occupancy status’ of each site. If you do not currently export from a certain site, you can set the status to ‘Suspended’. If at some point, you need to export from that site, you will just need to amend this status in order to complete an application for that site, rather than creating a site at that time. Click on ‘Next’ to go to the next part of the process. Part 3 is the stage when you define user access. You can do the following:
- set up different levels of access for different users.
- assign users to the organisation (which will allow them the level of access assigned for all sites in the organisation) or to individual sites.
It is at this stage that you can set up the registration according to the way your company operates. To better understand this process, several business set-up scenarios have been described at the end of this document to reflect these.
To set up a person to be an organisation user, click on ‘Set access privileges for the organisation (all sites)’.
You will then be taken to a screen where you can add users or manage the access levels of existing users. You do not have to add all the users at this stage of the registration, as you will be able to do this when the registration is activated. The ‘Copy Team’ button allows you to copy any users that you have added to the organisation level team and the level of access selected. Once you have done this, a ‘Paste Team’ button will appear. If you have a second Companies House registration number for which you are creating a registration, you can go into the ‘Organisation Team Management’ screen for that registration and click ‘Paste Team’ to add the same users for both Companies House registration numbers. You can only copy and paste organisation teams at organisation level, not site level. The ‘Copy Team’ and ‘Paste Team’ buttons also appear for the ‘Site Team Management’ screen and the teams at site level can be copied and pasted to other sites within any Companies House registration number (whether for a site within the initial Companies House registration number or for any subsequent SPIRE registrations that you may be creating).
Additional users are added by selecting ‘Add Person’. You will then be asked to enter their email address and name (again check the details that you add carefully). Then click on ‘Add Person’. You can then enter the required access level for that user. If you see a symbol next to the users name and hover over the symbol, it will tell you that this person does not have a logon account for SPIRE.
Everyone who wants to use SPIRE must have an individual account. Once the registration has been activated, and provided the information entered into the registration matches that entered when the account was created, the user will have access to the company registration to the level allocated to them. The explanations for each of the levels of access are explained below and hints are also given on the screen by hovering over the symbol.
**Overview of SPIRE System Level Access**
- **Organisation administrator**
- Any users with this level of access have full administration rights for an organisation (including all sites).
- They will be able to add, edit and delete users from the organisation registration, and from all sites associated with it.
- They are able to submit, prepare and view applications (and also be a contact on an application).
- They will also be able to amend details within the registration. It is envisaged that the person with overall responsibility for export controls within a company should be an organisation administrator.
- We recommend that there are at least 2 organisation administrators per registration so that a company retains a level of flexibility when amending the registration details.
- **Application submitter**
- Any users with this level of access will be able to prepare and submit applications. They will not be able to amend details within the registration and will not be able to add, edit or delete users from the registration.
- **Application preparer**
- Any users with this level of access will be able to prepare applications, but will not be able to submit them. In order for an application to be submitted, a user with that level of access will have to logon to SPIRE, resume the draft application and can submit the application. It is envisaged that a company would make use of this level if they wanted all applications to be approved by a certain person or team before submission but were happy with others completing most of the application preparation.
- **Application viewer**
- A user with this level of access can view applications for the organisation/site. This level of access may be useful to those involved with export controls who want overview of the export licensing activities of the company but who don’t need the more hands on access that a preparer or submitted has. Note: This person will still be able to prepare and submit applications for themselves, other organisations who are not registered on SPIRE or organisations who have set them up as users on their SPIRE registration with the appropriate levels of access.
- **Application contact**
- This level of access can be assigned to any users who need to be added to the application form as a point of contact to answer specific questions (for example, an engineer or technical contact) but who wouldn’t be involved in export licensing beyond this.
Wherever you set a tick in the row, you automatically give that user access to all the options to the right of the tick. For example, if a tick is placed against a user in the ‘Application Submitter’ column, they will be able to submit, prepare and view applications. If you place the tick against a user in the ‘Application Viewer’ column, they will only be able to view applications but will not be able to prepare or submit applications. However it is recommended that you select any options that you require for all users so that the levels of access are clear. Contact is a separate role and needs to be ticked for all users requiring that type of access.
- You can add as many people as you want as organisation level users and can give any of these users whichever access you deem to be appropriate. Remember they will be able to perform the function you have allocated for all sites within your organisation.
- Should you wish to remove a user at any time (for example if someone leaves the organisation), click on the recycle bin symbol under the users name and they will be removed. A pop-up will appear asking you if you are sure to prevent inadvertent deletions. This will not delete the users account, but will prevent them from accessing your SPIRE registration and related applications (again based on the level of access permitted for that user).
- Once you have set up the organisation users, you should click on ‘Save Contacts’ and you will go back to the User Access screen. You will now be able to set up the site level users.
- Click on ‘Setup Site Privileges’. The options on this screen are very similar to those found on the organisation users screen. You can add as many users as you want to and again you can give each user a suitable level of access. The SPIRE Site Administrators are the equivalent of the Organisation Administrators described above but they only have the access rights to add, edit or delete users for the site (but not for the organisation or for other sites, unless they have administrator rights for these). They won’t be able to change most of the details of the site, this would fall to the Organisation Administrator. Again we recommend that there are at least two Spire Site Administrators per site to retain flexibility for amending details of users at a local level. The final part of step 3 is the security level. The answers to the two questions indicate whether you want anyone to be able to prepare and submit an application on behalf of your company or only those users that have been nominated on SPIRE. For each question, you have one of two options to choose from – either ‘Only people in the list above’ or ‘Anyone’.
- If you select ‘Only people in the list above’, you are ensuring no-one else can make an application in the name of your company and also ensuring that only those users that have been nominated on SPIRE can be involved in the export licensing process (to whatever access level you have determined). You are effectively protecting your organisation and ensuring the security of your interactions with ECO.
- You may decide however, that you need to allow the flexibility for anyone to apply for licences on behalf of your company. If this is the case, you should answer ‘Anyone’ to this question. We would recommend against choosing this answer in all instances. If you need increased flexibility, ensure that you have sufficient sites and users set-up to allow for any unforeseen circumstances to be dealt with and the required licences applied for.
Once you have answered these questions, click on ‘Next’.
NOTE: Completing both questions is mandatory. If you fail to answer the questions before moving to the next screen you will receive an error prompt before you can more forward.
Tab 4 is the last part of the registration process when you can submit the registration. Here we will ask you to upload the company registration documents (for example a Companies House Registration Certificate). You should scan this document in (if possible) and upload it by clicking on ‘Choose File’. You will then be taken to a window where you can browse for the document and choose to upload it. If this has been successful, you will see a green tick (too large to replicate here). (If you see a large red cross, the file has not been uploaded properly and you should try again.) Close that window and details of the file will appear in the ‘Upload Registration Documents’ table shown above. You can choose to replace this file if the wrong document has been added, either delete the file, or click on ‘Replace File’ to choose another document.
This is not a mandatory requirement but it may speed up the registration process if there are relevant documents that you think we should see.
Whether you have uploaded any documents or not, you then need to click ‘Submit’ (provided you are happy with all of the details you have included in the registration). 5. What happens next
- Once you have submitted the registration via SPIRE, ECO will then send a letter (posted in hard copy) to the Authorised Company Executive (e.g., Company Secretary), as nominated in the Companies House registration, at the Companies House Registered address.
- This letter will ask the company secretary to sign a declaration stating that the user that has set up the account is authorised to do so by the company, that they are further authorised to nominate additional users within the registration and at the required access levels.
- They will also be declaring that that initial user is responsible for the overall accuracy of applications made under SPIRE (including those prepared or submitted by other users).
- It is therefore imperative that companies nominate a company representative who has that level of authority and can take responsibility of the SPIRE registration in this way.
- The declaration will then need to be sent in hard copy (with an original signature) back to ECO at the following address: Licence Reception, Export Control Organisation, Floor 3, 1 Victoria Street, London, SW1H 0ET
- The name of the user will be noted in a schedule to the letter so that the Company Secretary (or equivalent) can contact that individual with any questions that they may have. We advise that the user setting up the registration on SPIRE should contact the Company Secretary (or equivalent) once they have submitted the registration to warn them that a letter is on its way and that it is very important that it is signed and returned as soon as possible so that the registration can be activated.
- We will not be able to activate the SPIRE registration without a hard copy of the declaration signed by the Company Secretary (or equivalent). It has proved necessary to include this step in the process to protect companies against fraudulent registrations being made using their Companies House registration details which are available to the public.
- Once the hard copy declaration has been received by us, and providing we are content, we will activate the registration. Once this is done, an e-mail will be sent to the user who set up the registration indicating that they should go to their workbasket. If you then select the ‘Manage Registrations’ option in the left hand banner (as before), you will see your registration and the 3rd column along indicated the registration status which should say ‘Approved’.
- If you need to add additional sites or users, you can do this by selecting the ‘Update’ option in the actions column of the relevant registration.
6. Company scenarios
- **Company set-up 1**
1 Companies House Registration number 1 Site – same as registered address
The person within the company with lead responsibility for export control should register on SPIRE and then set up the company with the CH reg no and the one site listed. There can be as many users (at whatever level is required) as the company would like. As there is only one site, the users can be set up at organisation level or at site level.
If there is only one person who applies for licences, they will be the organisation administrator. However, we advise that another individual within the company is also given this level of access so that they can use SPIRE and set up other users should the main contact leave the company or not be available for whatever reason.
If there is a chance that additional sites will be added to the company at some point in the future, it is advisable that the users are set up at the site level so that the new site can be set up separately from the organisation at that time.
- **Company set-up 2**
1 Companies House Registration number 1 Site – different to registered address
This is done in exactly the same way as ‘Company set-up 1’ except different address details are entered in Part 2 to reflect the fact that the site is not at the same address as the registered company.
- **Company set-up 3**
1 Companies House Registration number 1 or more sites
The person within the company with lead responsibility for export control should register on SPIRE and then set up the company with the Companies House registration number and any or all of the sites using that number. It is recommended that all sites are added even if no exports are currently undertaken from some sites. This will give you the flexibility to export from such sites should the need arise. There can be as many users (at whatever level is required) as the company would like for the organisation and per site.
It should be decided which users need to be set up at an organisation level. These users will have access to all sites at whatever level of access is permitted. Therefore, if a user has submitter access at an organisation level, they will have that access for all sites. At least one administrator should be set up at the organisation level. This is to ensure continuity of access to the registration.
It is not necessary to add all sites and users when the initial registration is made. Once the registration has been activated, the organisation administrator can add the sites themselves or can set up another organisation administration (or more) to add the sites. It should then be decided which users need to be set up for each site. Once an administrator has been added for each site, authority can be delegated to that person to set up other users for the site or the organisation administrators can set up the users themselves. It is entirely up to each individual company to determine how the sites and users are set up and by whom.
- **Company set-up 4**
More than 1 Companies House registration number 1 or more sites
Each separate Companies House registration number will need a separate registration on SPIRE. Each registration should follow the instructions above depending on the set-up of the company in question.
If a user is set up as a submitter for an organisation or site for more than 1 Companies House registration number, they will be able to submit applications for all the organisations or sites from the one SPIRE logon. They will not have to have a different logon for each registration.
- **Company set-up 5**
1 Companies House registration number Several business units involved in different activities
In this scenario, it may be difficult to nominate someone with overall responsibility for export controls within the company if each business unit takes responsibility for their business unit but has nothing to do with the others in the company. Once the registration has been activated, each business unit would be set up as a site and the SPIRE site administrator would set up their users independently of the other business units. Therefore a decision would need to be taken regarding who should set up the registration in the first place. It will be down to the company to make this decision. It would then be recommended that this person be the organisation administrator.
If, however, this user is directly involved with one of the business units, it could be prudent to add a user from each of the other business units as organisation administrators to ensure all have an equal standing within the registration. Once the registration is set up, it could be decided that the company secretary (or equivalent), becomes the organisation administrator on the understanding that each business unit is responsible for their own site administration.
- **Consultants (or equivalent)**
If a consultant is engaged to submit licence applications on behalf of a company, they can register as per one of the company set-ups described above. However, the letter that we send out will still go to the Company Secretary of the company nominated in the registration.
If a consultant is a user in the registration of multiple companies, they will be able to see details (dependent on level of user access) of all applications for all those companies from the one SPIRE logon.
Export Control Organisation Last Updated: March 2010
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/1843-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 22,
"total-input-tokens": 40058,
"total-output-tokens": 6483,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
441,
1
],
[
441,
2625,
2
],
[
2625,
2873,
3
],
[
2873,
4198,
4
],
[
4198,
4654,
5
],
[
4654,
5230,
6
],
[
5230,
6402,
7
],
[
6402,
7079,
8
],
[
7079,
7870,
9
],
[
7870,
9395,
10
],
[
9395,
10272,
11
],
[
10272,
11232,
12
],
[
11232,
11880,
13
],
[
11880,
14711,
14
],
[
14711,
16270,
15
],
[
16270,
16814,
16
],
[
16814,
18352,
17
],
[
18352,
19427,
18
],
[
19427,
22042,
19
],
[
22042,
24253,
20
],
[
24253,
26824,
21
],
[
26824,
27487,
22
]
]
} |
b5bde1f5372b14fc1ca7d2cfbcebcdc92244e9e0 | Compendium of accessible WASH technologies
Hazel Jones and Jane Wilbur (2014) Introduction
• This compendium is designed for use by staff working directly with communities - e.g. health workers and community volunteers working with disabled and older people and their families in rural areas of sub-Saharan Africa.
• A few examples of technologies are presented that families can adapt to suit their needs and budgets. Many more options are possible.
• Most of the ideas are suitable for disabled and older people, but are not only for them. As we get older, many of us find it increasingly difficult to squat and balance, or we might be injured or sick. These technologies might also make facilities easier and more comfortable to use by everyone in the family.
• The ideas are designed to be suitable for household facilities, not for institutional facilities - e.g. schools and clinics - although some ideas might also be useful in these settings.
• This publication and all images in it are free to download here: www.wateraid.org/accessibleWASHtechnologies
Guidelines for use
The compendium can be used in various ways:
• As a starting point for discussion with households • As a way of encouraging communities to consider design options • By disabled people’s organisations • As flashcards - images can be enlarged and stuck on card • As posters - images can be printed and used for group discussions
Technical specifications are not given, because all dimensions should be based on users’ needs. The aim is to provide as much ‘independent access’ as possible - this means facilities that a person can use without help, or with minimum help.
If possible, try out ideas first to work out: how high a seat or support rail should be? How wide the entrance should be?
To work out how much space is needed inside a latrine, mark out the area on the ground using rocks or branches. Ask different users to try moving and squatting/sitting inside, and adjust if necessary.
Costs are not itemised because they will vary between communities. Instead, relative costs of each technology are suggested. Paths
WaterAid/Stephen Segawa
USAID-WASHplus Kenya/Elisha Ratemo
## Paths
**Suitable for:** everyone, especially users with a visual impairment and with physical impairments, including wheelchair users.
| Construction | Advantages | Disadvantages | Improvements/ variations | Cost / labour | |--------------|------------|---------------|---------------------------|--------------| | Guide string from house to latrine and bath shelter | • Easy to construct\
• Simple to maintain\
• Suitable for users with a visual impairment | • Regular maintenance needed\
• String must be carefully positioned so it is not a hazard to other users | • Path could be lined with painted rocks or landmark posts | Low | | Clear, level path, lined with rocks | • Can be made according to budget\
• Suitable for users with visual and physical impairments, including wheelchair users | • Rocks are easily moved or dislodged, which could cause a trip hazard\
• Maintenance would include regular re-positioning of the rocks | • Paint rocks white or a bright colour to increase visibility | Low | | Landmark posts made from local materials | • Can be made according to budget\
• Easy to construct using local materials\
• Provides guidance for users with a visual impairment | • Posts must be firm, and positioned so they are not a hazard to others\
• Regular maintenance needed to check posts are stable | • Posts can be painted/marked with a bright colour to increase visibility\
• Use alternative materials, e.g. rocks, or existing features, e.g. trees | Low to medium | Ramps
WaterAid/Jane Wilbur
Jones and Reed (2005)
## Ramps
**Suitable for:** Users with physical impairments, wheelchair users, older people, people carrying heavy loads
| Construction | Advantages | Disadvantages | Improvements/ variations | Cost/ labour | |--------------|------------|---------------|---------------------------|-------------| | Moveable wooden ramp for wheelchair to access facilities with steps | • Flexible – can be placed wherever needed\
• Cheaper than concrete\
• Raised sides prevent a wheelchair rolling off the side of the ramp | • Less durable than concrete\
• User needs help to move the ramp when needed | • Paint raised sides white or bright colour to increase visibility | Medium | | Wide concrete ramp to handpump apron | • The concrete ramp onto the apron improves access for everyone | • Ramp requires more space than steps\
• Drainage must be in the opposite direction to keep the ramp dry\
• Monitoring needed to ensure masons do not make it too steep to reduce cost | • Paint raised sides white or a bright colour to increase visibility\
• Cross-hatching on ramp would make it less slippery when wet (see page 8 ‘Steps’) | Medium | | Low-gradient concrete ramp with raised sides for safety | • Smooth, firm, durable\
• Gentle gradient so a child can propel her/himself up and make a controlled descent\
• Raised sides prevent wheelchairs rolling off | • Monitoring of construction required to ensure gradient not too steep\
• Maintenance needed to keep the ground the same level as the end of the ramp | • Paint raised sides white or bright colour to increase visibility | High |
Credits (top to bottom): HITS Uganda, WaterAid/Jane Wilbur; Jones and Reed (2005) Ramps
How gradient (slope) is measured
“Gradient” describes the change in height over a specified distance.
Example 1: Gradient 1 in 8
This slope rises one unit over a distance of eight units. For example, if the distance is 8m, the slope rises 1m. If the distance is 80cm, the slope rises 10cm. If the distance is 4m, the slope rises 0.5m. The gradient (slope) is the same, whether the distance is 8cm, 8 feet, 8m or 80m.
Example 2: Gradient 1 in 15
This slope rises 1 unit over a distance of 15 units. If the distance is 15m, the slope will rise 1m. How high will the slope rise if the distance is A. 30m? B. 10m? (Answers to the right)
Slope gradients and level of ease for different users
Only suitable where a helper is always available
Absolutely no steeper than this
1 in 20 is ideal, but it needs a lot of space. 1 in 15 is a reasonable compromise.
Jones & Reed (2005) Page deliberately left blank Steps
Reaching facilities
Jones et al. (2009)
Water: Stephen Segawa
Depth 28 - 42cm
Height 15 - 17cm
Jones & Reed (2005)
Jones et al. (2009)
## Steps
**Suitable for:** steep terrain; where space is limited; households or communities with no wheelchair users.
| Construction | Advantages | Disadvantages | Improvements/ variations | Cost / labour | |--------------|------------|---------------|---------------------------|--------------| | **Recommended step dimensions (for reference).** | • Many users can manage low, even steps, especially when a handrail is provided. | • Steps exclude some users, e.g. those using mobility devices. | • Paint steps white or bright colour to increase visibility. | | | **Steps should be low and even – all the same height and depth.** | • Steps take up less space than a ramp. | | | | | **Low concrete steps with cross-hatching to reduce the risk of slipping** | • Cross-hatching is easy to apply – the concrete is scored while wet. | • No edge protection for unstable or visually impaired users | • Steps should be of consistent height | Low | | **Handrail accompanying steps to a protected spring** | • Useful for all users | • Handrail needs maintenance to ensure it is stable and strong enough | • Paint handrail and steps white or bright colour to increase visibility | Medium |
Credits (top to bottom): Jones and Reed (2005); Jones et al (2009); WaterAid/Stephen Segawa Movement aids
WaterAid/Stephen Segawa
Jones and Reed (2005)
## Movement aids
**Suitable for:** people who move by crawling; wheelchair users who need to get out of their wheelchair; or where a wheelchair is not available.
| Construction | Advantages | Disadvantages | Improvements/ variations | Cost/ labour | |--------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------| | Wooden hand walkers| • Reduce abrasion, cuts and soiling of hands and thereby risk of infection | • Lightweight wood would not be as durable as hardwood, so would need to be maintained and replaced more regularly. | • Weight of wood can be selected to match the user’s strength | Low | | | • Locally available materials | | | | | | • Durable | | | | | | • Easy to clean | | | | | Rubber kneepads made from used car tyres. These fit over the knee, and rubber laces run through loops and tie around the leg. | • Reduce abrasion, cuts and soiling of knees and thereby risk of infection | • Brief initial demonstration might be needed | Low | | | • Durable | | | | | | • Easy to clean | | | |
Credits: Jones and Reed (2005). Rubber pads for knees and leg stumps made by the Uganda Society of Hidden Talents (HITS). Latrines should be no more than 15m from the household. Page deliberately left blank Superstructure
WaterAid Zambia/DAPP
Jones & Reed (2005)
Latrines
WaterAid: Hazel Jones
WaterAid: Hazel Jones
Jones and Reed (2005)
## Superstructure
**Suitable for:** People with mobility impairments.
| Construction | Advantages | Disadvantages | Improvements/ variations | Cost/ labour | |--------------|------------|---------------|---------------------------|-------------| | Grass walls attached to wooden poles; no roof; curtain for privacy. | • Materials locally available\
• Easy and quick to construct\
• Provides some privacy | • Low durability\
• Lack of roof means it is difficult to use when raining or very hot\
• Low privacy | • Useful as a temporary measure but not ideal long term\
• Spiral construction with a wider entrance would provide greater privacy (see photo 1, Handrails and support) | Low | | Plastic sheeting for walls attached to wooden poles, woven mat for curtain, no roof. | • Materials locally available\
• Easy and quick to construct\
• Mat ‘curtain’ can be pulled across for privacy (see image)\
• Wide entrance good for many users | • No roof means it is difficult to use when raining or very hot\
• Curtain difficult to close\
• Plastic sheeting easily damaged, reducing privacy | • Plastic roof could be added | Low | | Rammed earth structure with thatched roof | • Durable\
• Materials locally available\
• Strong enough to attach handrails to the wall | • Difficult to allow enough light in without reducing privacy | • Widen entrance\
• Add a door with lock for privacy and security\
• Increase number of windows (high up) to allow more light in | Medium to high |
Credits (top to bottom): Hazel Jones/Wateraid Zambia, Hazel Jones, WEDC; WaterAid Zambia Entrances
Jones and Reed (2005)
Tom Russell/WEDC
BPKS Bangladesh
## Entrances
**Entrances must be:**
a) wide enough (wheelchair width + 20cm), and\
b) level enough (minimal or no difference between outside and inside).
| Construction | Advantages | Disadvantages | Improvements/ variations | Cost/ labour | |------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------| | Wide and level entrance to allow wheelchair access. Rammed earth floor. | • Can be easily accessed by everyone, including wheelchair users | • No door, so low privacy and security | • Add a door | Low to medium | | Latrine with level concrete entrance, wide enough for a wheelchair user | • The floor of the latrine is the same level as the outside | | • Level flooring could be achieved with any type of materials, not only concrete | Medium to high | | Level concrete threshold with raised cement mound to reduce flooding. Mound is rounded for wheelchair access. | • Reduces water inflow without preventing wheelchair access | • Won’t stop serious flooding! | | Medium |
Credits (top to bottom): Tom Russell/WEDC; BPKS Bangladesh, Jones and Reed (2005) Doors
Jones and Reed (2005) **Doors**
**Suitable for:** users with mobility devices, a helper, or carrying a small child, or people who are overweight.
| Construction | Advantages | Disadvantages | Improvements/ variations | Cost/ labour | |--------------|------------|---------------|---------------------------|-------------| | Latrine with a curtain for privacy made of light cloth | • Easy to open and close\
• Does not obstruct internal space\
• Useful temporary solution | • Easily damaged\
• Very little provision for security or privacy | • Non-door alternatives include spiral-shaped entrance for greater privacy | Low | | Outward-opening tin door on wooden frame. Raised platform edge acts as a door stop. | • Outward-opening door does not obstruct internal space\
• Horizontal wooden struts can be grasped to close door | • Pulling a door is harder than pushing it open\
• Requires a wide, level area in front of door for users to position themselves to open the door | • Add horizontal handrail | Medium | | Outward-opening wooden double doors with a latch on outside to keep closed | • Easier to close for some users\
• Each door is narrow so less obstructive to passers by | • Higher cost than a single door\
• Some users find them difficult to use | • Varnish/paint wood to reduce risk of termite damage\
• Move bolt to the inside | High |
Credits (top to bottom): Jones and Reed (2005); WaterAid/CoU_TEDDO; Hazel Jones/WEDC Door handles and closing mechanisms
WaterAid/Stephen Sagawa
Jones et al (2009)
Internet image
# Door handles and closing mechanisms
**Suitable for:** everyone, especially women and girls.
| Construction | Advantages | Disadvantages | Improvements/ variations | Cost/ labour | |--------------|------------|---------------|---------------------------|-------------| | Horizontal handrail the full width of the door on the inside. Internal bolt. | • User can easily reach\
• Door can be bolted to increase privacy\
• Large, chunky bolt is easy to operate | • Door must be solid enough to fix the rail to\
• Needs monitoring to ensure it is securely fixed and that the bolt slides easily | • Rail could be made of wood (2nd photo, left), g.i. pipe, chain, or cord | Medium | | Carved wooden handle nailed to the inside of the door | • Easy for all users to grasp\
• Materials locally available\
• Easy to construct | • Does not keep the door closed | • Add a bolt or hook to fasten the door closed\
• Handle could also be fixed to the door frame for support when entering | Low | | Metal hook and eye on inside of door | • Ensures privacy\
• Easy to install\
• Materials locally available | • Can be too fiddly for some users to operate | • Instead of a hook, wire can be looped over a bent nail, or a loop of string wound round a bent nail. | Low to medium |
Credits (top to bottom): WaterAid/Stephen Segawa; Jones et al (2009); internet image. Internal Space
WaterAid/James Kiyimba
Hazel Jones/WEDC
WaterAid/Jane Wilbur
# Internal Space
**Think about:** who will use the toilet, and how much space they will need.
**Level 1:** Space for users who can stand and enter using support rails, or blind users.
**Level 2:** Additional space for a carer, to use crutches/sticks or to park a wheelchair but not turn.
**Level 3:** Space for a wheelchair to enter, shut the door, and turn around inside.
| Construction | Advantages | Disadvantages | Improvements/ variations | Cost/ labour | |--------------|------------|---------------|--------------------------|-------------| | Traditional round superstructure, cement seat, wooden handrail each side, curtain for privacy | • Level 1 access: enough space for this household, including a user who needs to use handrails for support. | • Curtain only (no door) so privacy is not ideal\
• No space for a carer to accompany | • Increase size of the superstructure between the seat and entrance, to allow a carer and user to turn easily\
• Install a door | Medium | | Entrance corridor, with wall on left in front of latrine and a gap between corridor and toilet. | • Level 2 access: wheelchair can enter and park in corridor. User can transfer to the toilet using handrails fixed to the inside wall. | • Not enough space for a wheelchair to turn easily\
• Wheelchair is visible from outside, so lacks privacy | • Install a door or curtain to hide the wheelchair from view | Medium to high | | Spacious toilet cubicle, with drop hole located in the corner to provide maximum usable space | • Level 3 access: enough space for wheelchair to enter, turn, close door, and park by the toilet\
• Space for a carer, and/or toilet chair to be moved to one side when not in use | • Handrails on the inside to provide support when transferring to the toilet | High |
Credits (top to bottom): WaterAid/James Kiyimba; WaterAid/Jane Wilbur; Hazel Jones/WEDC Floor finish
- Movable pit-hole cover
- Cement sanplat with footplates
- Earth floor
- Raised, static toilet seat
- Rammed floor made from small stones and sand; finished with cow dung to make it smooth
- Movable pit-hole cover
- Wooden, movable toilet seat
- Latrine pit
- Rammed floor without small stones
## Floor finish
**Think about:** the balance between hygiene and safety. Floors need to be smooth enough to be washed and swept, but not so smooth that they are slippery when wet.
| Construction | Advantages | Disadvantages | Improvements/ variations | Cost/labour variations | |--------------|------------|---------------|---------------------------|------------------------| | Rammed earth floor without marram | • Materials locally available\
• Sweepable but not washable | • Difficult to get the floor texture right: see above\
• Floor dusty and not very hygienic\
• Not easy to clean | • Ensure good water drainage away from the user\
• A slightly rough floor is suitable for people using crutches/sticks. | Low | | Rammed earth floor made of marram (small stones) and sand; cow dung is smeared over to make it even and smooth. | • Materials locally available\
• Repels urine to a certain extent\
• Sweepable and wipeable | • Difficult to get the floor texture right - see above\
• Easier to keep clean than above example\
• Needs regular maintenance (smearing with cow dung) | • Ensure good water drainage away from the user\
• A slightly rough floor is suitable for people using crutches/sticks. | Low to medium | | Cement slab, installed level with earth floor around it | • Locally produced\
• Easy to keep clean - washable\
• Durable | • If the surface is too smooth it can be slippery when wet\
• Surrounding floor might need maintenance to keep it level with slab | | Medium | Handrails and support
WaterAid/Stephen Segawa
WaterAid/Stephen Segawa
WaterAid/Stephen Segawa
WaterAid/Jane Wilbur
# Handrails and support
**Suitable for:** People who are unstable or unable to walk, squat or stand unaided
| Construction | Advantages | Disadvantages | Improvements/ variations | Cost/ labour | |--------------|------------|---------------|---------------------------|-------------| | Bricks protruding from wall for support to a weak or visually impaired person | • Easy to construct\
• Materials locally available | • Walls must be strong enough to support user’s weight\
• Difficult to add after construction\
• Regular maintenance needed to ensure stability | • Half bricks in the wall can also provide mini-ledges for a user to hold on to | Low | | Wooden/ bamboo support rails fixed to floor either in front or on either side of toilet (depending on user’s needs) | • Materials locally available\
• Easy to construct and maintain\
• Allows user to transfer to the toilet from the side\
• Position and height of rails must involve user and an assessment of their need | • Rails must be strong enough to bear users’ weight\
• Not possible to fix to a concrete floor/slab\
• Might be difficult to keep clean\
• Cannot fix to a concrete floor/slab | • Varnish/paint rail to stop termite damage and for easy cleaning\
• For a growing child use longer vertical poles, so bar height is adjustable.\
• Horizontal bars at different heights might suit some.\
• For concrete floors, pipe rails can be cemented in during construction, or screwed to floor later. | Low | | Metal bars (e.g. galvanised iron pipe) fixed to side wall/s of latrine | • Highly durable\
• Can be added to existing facility\
• Easy to clean\
• Bars to be positioned based on user needs | • Walls must be strong enough to fix bars to\
• Walls must be close enough for user to reach the bars | • Paint bars to reduce corrosion and increase durability\
• Several bars at different heights on each side might better suit some users | Medium to high | Fixed seat pan
WaterAid/Hazel Jones
WaterAid/WEDA
Jones and Reed (2005)
## Fixed seat pan
**Suitable for:** people who have difficulty squatting, including overweight people, pregnant women, older people and disabled people.
| Construction | Advantages | Disadvantages | Improvements/ variations | Cost/ labour | |--------------|------------|---------------|--------------------------|-------------| | Twin cement-plastered brick sitting blocks | • More comfortable than it looks!\
• Gap makes anal cleansing easy\
• Smooth cement plaster easy to clean and more hygienic | • Might be uncomfortable if gap between blocks is not right for the user\
• Blocks less stable than a seat so need careful installation | • Paint blocks to repel urine and make them easier to clean\
• Install blocks at an angle to suit different users | Low | | Brick seat with a cement screed | • Durable\
• Comfortable | • Narrow drop-hole may be hard to use hygienically by different sized users\
• Narrow drop-hole makes inner walls hard to clean | • Paint the seat to repel urine and make it easier to clean\
• A wider drop hole would be easier and more hygienic for most users | Low to medium | | Cement bowl made with mould | • Comfortable\
• Durable\
• Easy to wipe, therefore hygienic | • Requires a mould and is more difficult to construct\
• Heavy, so needs a strong sanplat | • Paint the seat to repel urine and make it easier to clean | High |
Credits (top to bottom): Jones and Reed (2005); WaterAid/WEDA; WaterAid/Hazel Jones Moveable seats
## Moveable seats
**Suitable for:** users who have difficulty squatting, including overweight people, heavily pregnant women, older people, disabled people …
| Construction | Advantages | Disadvantages | Improvements/ variations | Cost/ labour | |--------------|------------|---------------|--------------------------|-------------| | Low wooden or bamboo toilet stool with hole in seat, placed over toilet hole, with or without funnel as a splash guard (see lower image) | • Easy to construct\
• Materials available locally\
• Height must be decided based on user’s needs\
• Can be moved to one side out of the way of other users who prefer to squat\
• Light and easy to carry if necessary | • Potential for termite damage\
• Enough space needed inside latrine to move the seat away from the pit when not in use | • Painting or varnishing would make it more durable, easier to clean and more hygienic. | Low |
| Standard varnished wooden chair with hole cut in the seat | • Comfortable\
• Provides back support while seated\
• Materials available locally\
• Varnish makes chair easier to clean so more hygienic | • Needs accurate positioning to reduce risk of splashing or soiling\
• Needs extra space in the latrine so it can be moved to one side when not in use\
• Might be heavy | • Add a splashguard to the front.\
• Add ‘runners’ - horizontal bars joining the bottom of the legs to better distribute the weight on the floor, to reduce damage (see right). | Low | Commode seats
Jones and Reed (2005)
Jones and Reed (2005)
## Commode seats
**Suitable for:** people who cannot reach a latrine; small children.
| Construction | Advantages | Disadvantages | Improvements/ variations | Cost/ labour | |--------------|------------|---------------|--------------------------|-------------| | Painted wooden chair with ‘potty’ inserted in hole in seat. Potty is removed for emptying. | • Can be placed in the most convenient place for the user or carer, either inside or outside the house\
• Fabric straps support a user with poor balance | • Container must be emptied and cleaned after every use\
• A separate private toilet area might need to be created\
• Wood needs regular painting/varnishing | • Padding can be added to back and sides for extra comfort\
• Seat could be used without the potty, placed over the toilet hole\
• A bucket could be used under the seat instead of a potty | Low to medium | | Metal commode chair with plastic inset toilet pan (bought in local market). Container is placed beneath the seat and emptied into the latrine. | • Painted metal and plastic are strong, durable and easy to clean\
• Can be placed in the most convenient place for the user or carer, either inside or outside the house | • Container must be emptied and cleaned after every use\
• A separate private toilet area might need to be created\
• Metal is uncomfortable for some users – a home-made padded ring could be added for comfort\
• Plank and waist belt added to provide extra support | • Car tyre inner tube could also be used as a cushion | Medium to high |
Credits: Jones and Reed (2005) Siting
Bathing
WaterAid/Stephen Segawa Page deliberately left blank Water provision
Jones and Reed (2005)
## Water provision
**Suitable for:** people who have difficulty carrying water; people who prefer to sit while washing
| Construction | Advantages | Disadvantages | Improvements/ variations | Cost / labour | |--------------|------------|---------------|---------------------------|--------------| | Elevated large water storage jar with flexible hose, with tap to smaller secondary jar placed next to bathing bench. Water fed by gravity. | • User does not need to carry water\
• Bather can fill secondary water jar when required, using tap to control water flow at point of use\
• Main water jar filled by rainwater harvesting, or by other family members at their convenience | • Requires space and regular maintenance\
• Relies on rainwater; in dry season large jar must be filled by hand | • A bathing screen would normally be placed around the bathing area\
• Storage tank could be made of locally available materials | Medium to high | | Plastic water container hung high in bathroom, and tipped forward by pulling rope so water flows onto bather. | • User does not need to carry water\
• Container can be filled by other family members at their convenience | • Needs to be filled regularly\
• Height makes it inconvenient to fill | • Could also be installed in a toilet to provide water for anal cleansing/handwashing\
• Connect plastic hose and tap for more controlled water flow | Medium | | Basin/bowl placed on wooden table to raise it to a convenient height for the bather. | • Low cost\
• Little maintenance required | • Bathers are unable to fill basin themselves so are dependant on others to refill it each time they need it | • Basin could be placed on large, flat stone, or a wooden stand | Low |
Credits (top to bottom) Left: Jones and Reed (2005); WaterAid/Stephen Segawa; WaterAid/Jane Wilbur; Right: Arushi India/Trivedi; WaterAid/WEDA Seats
Bathing
Jones and Reed (2005)
WaterAid/Stephen Segawa
WaterAid/CoU-TEDDO
## Seats
**Suitable for:** bathers with difficulty standing to bathe, e.g. poor balance, mobility difficulties, stiffness, heavily pregnant, high fever
| Construction | Advantages | Disadvantages | Improvements/ variations | Cost/ labour | |--------------|------------|---------------|---------------------------|-------------| | **Stone seat** | • Locally available materials (e.g. stones, concrete slab)\
• Durable, strong\
• Repels water, easy to clean | • Stones could be heavy so hard to move\
• Might be rough and uncomfortable | • Use bricks plastered with cement screed or clay paste to make seat smooth\
• Inflated inner tube can be placed on rock for comfort | Low | | **Wooden stool or chair** | • Seat made or bought locally according to the user’s specifications | • Seat lacks drainage\
• Unfinished wood will deteriorate quickly | • Seal wood with paint/varnish to make it waterproof\
• To improve drainage, replace solid seat with slats, or add holes in seat (see right) | Medium | | **Metal framed bathing bench with woven seat made of recycled tyre inner tubes** | • Soft seat is comfortable to sit\
• Rubber repels water\
• Webbing provides good drainage | • User sinks into seat, so can be difficult to get up without support\
• Might start to sag with extended use | • Wood frame instead of metal | Medium |
Credits (top to bottom): Left: WaterAid/Stephen Segawa; WaterAid/CoU-TEDDO; Jones and Reed (2005); Right: Jones and Reed (2005) Bathing equipment
Van der Hulst et al (1993)
# Bathing equipment
**Suitable for: all users**
| Construction | Advantages | Disadvantages | Improvements/ variations | Cost/ labour | |--------------|------------|---------------|---------------------------|-------------| | Hanging string for clothes (ideal height is 1.2 m) | • Made from locally available materials\
• Can be installed at a height suitable for users | | • A wooden pole or a rope can be used\
• The line could also be used to hang a privacy curtain | Low | | Towel or cloth with a loop or handle at each end. One end is attached to a fixed point, to make it easy to use with one hand. | • Made from locally available materials | | • If a longer towel is used, one loop can be held with a foot\
• For a user with no hands, both ends can be fixed | Low | | Bathing sponge: made of old fishing net and sisal wrapped around a stick and tied with a piece of bicycle tube | • Made from locally available materials\
• Not durable | | • Any kind of soft material could be used\
• Can be adapted for anal cleansing use (and then used solely for that purpose) | Low |
Credits (top to bottom): WaterAid/Stephen Segawa; Van der Hulst et al (1993); WaterAid/WEDA Apron layout
## Apron layout
**Suitable for: all users**
| Construction | Advantages | Disadvantages | Improvements/ variations | Cost / labour | |--------------|------------|---------------|---------------------------|---------------| | Community borehole apron with wide circulation area and pedestal for container | • Offers a choice for users of where to stand or sit to operate pump handle\
• Pedestal for container next to water spout\
• Drainage channel is in opposite direction from user | • Layout is not suitable for handpumps\
• User approaches tap from one side. To approach from other side requires a 180° turn.\
• Drainage hole could become blocked, leading to excess water on apron | • A concrete ramp instead of gravel at the entrance will improve access when construction is complete | Medium | | Community tapstand with wide entrance and enlarged circulation area with raised edges (still under construction) | • Layout provides ample space for users to enter and turn easily\
• Raised edges prevent a wheelchair from rolling off the side of the apron | • Raised edge restricts access to placing and retrieving water container | • Can be added to existing borehole structures | Medium | | Community borehole with wide circulation area added to usual circular apron with raised edge | • Additional space enables a person with a mobility device to choose position to operate the handpump from\
• Raised edge round handpump reduces water on apron/provides a resting place when lifting container | • Raised edge restricts access to placing and retrieving water container | | Medium | Apron access via concrete ramps
## Apron access via concrete ramps
**Suitable for:** people using mobility devices, e.g. wheelchairs, crutches, sticks, people carrying heavy loads
| Construction | Advantages | Disadvantages (all disadvantages apply to all examples of ramps) | Improvements/ variations | Cost/ labour | |--------------|------------|---------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------|-------------| | Concrete ramp to access borehole apron | • Provides independent access to apron platform for wheelchair users\
• Improves access for everyone | • Maintenance needed to keep surrounding ground the same level as the end of the ramp\
• Drainage must be in the opposite direction to keep the ramp dry | • Paint raised sides white or a bright colour to make them more visible | Medium (as a proportion of overall installation) | | Concrete ramp to access handpump apron | • As above | • Ramp might need more space than steps\
• Monitoring is needed to ensure masons do not build ramp too steep to reduce cost. (For guidance on gradients, see page 7.) | • Cross-hatching on ramp would ensure it is not slippery when wet (For an example, see page 10.) | Medium | | Concrete ramp to access borehole apron | • As above | • As above | As above | Medium | Pump handles
Messiah College Collaboratory
Norman (2010)
WaterAid/Jane Wilbur
## Pump handles
**Suitable for:** users with limited strength or grip
| Construction | Advantages | Disadvantages | Improvements/ variations | Cost / labour | |--------------|------------|---------------|---------------------------|--------------| | Bent T-bar with tube which slips over the end of a standard pump handle. A screw keeps it in place. | • Provides extra leverage which makes pumping easier\
• Provides choice of position to operate handle from: front or side | • Might invalidate pump warranty | | Medium | | Prototype of adapted pump handle being trialled in conjunction with a concrete seat | • Can be operated from either side or the front, according to user preference\
• Seat is located to one side, so as not to obstruct standing users | • Much heavier than standard handle\
• Handle not liked by community who feared children could be hit on the head | • Based on testing with local users, this handle has been rejected in favour of the P-handle below (but is included for interest). | High | | P-handle with a hollow pipe that slides over the end of India MK II pump handle and is kept in place with screws | • A completely new handle is not needed\
• Local artisans can be trained to make P-handle\
• Can be operated from the side or front according to user preference | • India Mk II handles vary, so artisans must be trained to tailor adaptation to handle dimensions\
• Not applicable to other handpumps, e.g. Afridev | • CAD drawing of the P-handle: | Initially high (training required); subsequently medium | Lifting water containers
# Lifting water containers
**Suitable for:** all users, especially those with limited strength, difficulty balancing or difficulty grasping a container.
| Construction | Advantages | Disadvantages | Improvements/ variations | Cost/ labour | |--------------|------------|---------------|---------------------------|-------------| | Pedestal made of bricks plastered with cement screed. Height about 70cm (adult hip height). | • Lifting the container from floor to head can be split into two separate actions by resting the container midway. | | • Height is ideally decided based on testing and feedback from local users (carrying out accessibility audits). | Low | | Pedestal made of bricks plastered with cement screed. Height about 45cm (adult knee height). | • As above • Lower stand is easier for children and shorter people to use than 70cm pedestal | | • Height is best decided based on testing and feedback from local users. | Low | | Borehole enclosure wall used as a midpoint for resting water container | • As above • User can rest the container, walk to the outside of the wall, and pick it up from there | • Wall must be very sturdy to support heavy containers of water | | High |
Credits (top to bottom): WaterAid/Jane Wilbur; WA/WEDA; Norman (2010) Transporting water
WaterAid/COU-TEDDO
Jones and Reed (2005)
WaterAid/Stephen Segawa
## Transporting water
**Suitable for:** people using mobility devices, poor balance or strength
| Construction | Advantages | Disadvantages | Improvements/ variations | Cost/ labour | |--------------|------------|---------------|---------------------------|-------------| | Transporting a 20L jerrycan of water on wheelchair footrests | • Jerrycan is in an easy-to-access position | • Jerrycan can only be part-filled, otherwise the weight of the water risks tipping the chair | • Jerrycan reduces space for feet | Low | | 20L jerrycans carried on a rack under the seat of a tricycle | • Weight is low down and no risk of tipping the chair | • Rack under the seat might be difficult to access | • A rack behind the seat could be easier to access for some people. | Cost of tricycle is high | | Small jerrycan carried using a hook attached to the crossbar of a crutch | • Avoids difficulty of holding crutch and container at the same time | • Extremely difficult to lift if using only one crutch | • Jerrycan could be placed on the head or in a basket on the back instead | Low |
Credits (top to bottom): WaterAid/CoU-TEDDO; Jones and Reed (2005); WaterAid/Stephen Segawa Accessing stored water
## Accessing stored water
**Suitable for:** children, people with limited strength, difficulty bending or lifting, poor balance, or the use of only one arm
| Construction | Advantages | Disadvantages | Improvements/ variations | Cost/ labour | |--------------|------------|---------------|---------------------------|-------------| | Water stored in a bucket accessed via a tap near the bottom | • Tap enables controlled flow and low risk of contamination\
• Wide opening of bucket is easy to fill\
• Tight-fitting lid reduces risk of contamination | • Might not be on sale locally | | Medium | | Tin can used to dip and draw water from a covered | • Can or cup is widely available\
• No construction needed\
• System can be used with any size of container, e.g. the bucket above | • Storage jar located outside the house so less convenient than inside\
• Potential for water contamination from dipping can | • Add a handle to the tin or cup to reduce risk of contamination\
• Raise the jar and fit a tap to avoid frequent removal of cover\
• Use light materials for cover | Low | | Jerrycan tipper made of square, light gauge, iron tubing | • Enables a person to easily pour water from a jerrycan\
• Robust and durable\
• Easy to use | | • Similar tipper can be constructed for a bucket\
• Can be made more cheaply from wood held together with wire | Medium |
Credits (top to bottom): Left: WaterAid/Stephen Segawa; Jones and Reed (2005); Messiah College Collaboratory; Right: Faiyaz Mulla/DAPP Handwashing
Reed and Shaw (2008)
## Handwashing
**Suitable for:** all, especially people with weak legs or the use of only one hand
| Construction | Advantages | Disadvantages | Improvements/ variations | Cost/ labour | |--------------|------------|---------------|---------------------------|-------------| | 5L jerrycan with hole(s) pierced near the top, hung from a rail. Jerrycan is tipped by pressing a foot on a stick attached by a string to the lid. | • Easy to construct using local materials | • Difficult to use if person cannot use their feet | • Needs to be regularly filled with water | Low | | Suspended gourd; large hole for filling, small hole in plug for pouring | • Locally available | • Not very durable | • Needs to be regularly filled with water | Low | | Cut-away jerrycan; water is scooped out with a ‘ladle’ made of a plastic aerosol lid fixed to a stick | • Made with locally available materials | • Open to contamination | • Put lid or cover on top, e.g. using cut out section of can | Low | | 1L plastic bottle with ballpoint pen casing inserted via a hole near the bottom. Water flows when lid is loosened, stops when lid tightened. | • Easy to make using locally available materials | • Needs constant refilling | • The bottle could be replaced with a jerrycan to reduce the frequency of refilling, as long as the lid was tight-fitting. | Low |
Credits (top to bottom): WaterAid/Jane Wilbur; Reed and Shaw (2008); DAPP/Faiyaz Mulla; WaterAid/Jane Wilbur
## Further resources
| Resource | Overview | Location | |-------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | WEDC Equity and Inclusion resources | Awareness-raising and training materials. Includes guidance on doing accessibility and safety audits for waterpoints, school and household latrines. | [www.wedc-knowledge.lboro.ac.uk/collections/equity-inclusion/](http://www.wedc-knowledge.lboro.ac.uk/collections/equity-inclusion/) | | Jones H and Reed R (2005) *Water and sanitation for disabled people and other vulnerable groups: designing services to improve accessibility.* WEDC, UK. | Accessible WASH designs for people who experience limitations in carrying out activities related to WASH. | [https://wedc-knowledge.lboro.ac.uk/details.html?id=16357](https://wedc-knowledge.lboro.ac.uk/details.html?id=16357) | | Reed R and Shaw R (2008) *Sanitation for Primary Schools in Africa.* WEDC, UK. | Guidelines for primary school sanitation in Africa. | [http://wedc.lboro.ac.uk/resources/books/Sanitation_for_Primary_Schools_in_Africa_Complete.pdf](http://wedc.lboro.ac.uk/resources/books/Sanitation_for_Primary_Schools_in_Africa_Complete.pdf) | | Wilbur J and Jones H (2014) *Disability: making CLTS fully inclusive.* Frontiers of CLTS: innovations and insights, Issue 3, IDS, Brighton. | Short booklet highlighting experiences of disabled people, with practical recommendations for how to make the CLTS process fully inclusive (available in English, French and Portuguese). | [www.communityledtotalsanitation.org/resource/frontiers-clts-issue-3-disability-making-clts-fully-inclusive](http://www.communityledtotalsanitation.org/resource/frontiers-clts-issue-3-disability-making-clts-fully-inclusive) | | Appropriate Technology Centre (2014). *A practical guide for inclusive WASH services at household and community level in Uganda.* | Technical guidance for making WASH facilities more accessible. | To be published | | Ray Normal (2010) *Water sanitation and disability in W Africa.* Phase 1 Report. The Africa WASH and Disability Study - The Collaboratory at Messiah College. | Partnership with World Vision to improve access to safe water, especially for disabled people, in West Africa. Reports, videos and technical drawings available in Additional Resources. | [http://www.africawashdisability.org/](http://www.africawashdisability.org/) For resources go to >About us >Partners & Additional Resources | This compendium was developed in collaboration with:
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/1844-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 58,
"total-input-tokens": 101505,
"total-output-tokens": 12229,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
79,
1
],
[
79,
2109,
2
],
[
2109,
2176,
3
],
[
2176,
3672,
4
],
[
3672,
3723,
5
],
[
3723,
5386,
6
],
[
5386,
6274,
7
],
[
6274,
6303,
8
],
[
6303,
6451,
9
],
[
6451,
7725,
10
],
[
7725,
7787,
11
],
[
7787,
10718,
12
],
[
10718,
10774,
13
],
[
10774,
10803,
14
],
[
10803,
10940,
15
],
[
10940,
12520,
16
],
[
12520,
12588,
17
],
[
12588,
14590,
18
],
[
14590,
14619,
19
],
[
14619,
16042,
20
],
[
16042,
16139,
21
],
[
16139,
17498,
22
],
[
17498,
17577,
23
],
[
17577,
19449,
24
],
[
19449,
19758,
25
],
[
19758,
21261,
26
],
[
21261,
21380,
27
],
[
21380,
23316,
28
],
[
23316,
23391,
29
],
[
23391,
24846,
30
],
[
24846,
24861,
31
],
[
24861,
26344,
32
],
[
26344,
26404,
33
],
[
26404,
27981,
34
],
[
27981,
28022,
35
],
[
28022,
28051,
36
],
[
28051,
28090,
37
],
[
28090,
29957,
38
],
[
29957,
30040,
39
],
[
30040,
31509,
40
],
[
31509,
31555,
41
],
[
31555,
32733,
42
],
[
32733,
32746,
43
],
[
32746,
34339,
44
],
[
34339,
34371,
45
],
[
34371,
35645,
46
],
[
35645,
35726,
47
],
[
35726,
37271,
48
],
[
37271,
37296,
49
],
[
37296,
38561,
50
],
[
38561,
38648,
51
],
[
38648,
39822,
52
],
[
39822,
39845,
53
],
[
39845,
41354,
54
],
[
41354,
41388,
55
],
[
41388,
42841,
56
],
[
42841,
46490,
57
],
[
46490,
46542,
58
]
]
} |
dd176a87f35a9ea00a47c8b0662a76f727ef9a63 | Competition Act 1998 guidance
Guidance on ORR’s approach to the enforcement of the Competition Act 1998 in relation to the supply of services relating to railways
31 March 2016
## Contents
**Introduction** 3
**Chapter 1 – ORR’s powers and concurrency** 6
Summary 6
A. ORR’s concurrent jurisdiction 6
B. How concurrency works in practice 9
**Chapter 2 – Application in a railway context** 13
Summary 13
A. The Competition Act 1998 and Articles 101 and 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union 13
B. Agreements between undertakings – Chapter I and Article 101 16
C. Abuse of a dominant position – Chapter II and Article 102 21
D. General exceptions to the competition prohibitions 23
E. Franchising 26
**Chapter 3 – Prioritisation, choice of tool, and relationship with sector specific regulation** 27
Summary 27
A. Introduction 27
B. Prioritisation criteria 27
**Chapter 4 – Conduct of an investigation** 32
Summary 32
A. Introduction 32
B. Opening an investigation 32
C. The case team and decision making 35
D. Keeping parties informed 35
E. Information gathering and sharing 36
F. Interim measures 40
G. Possible outcomes following investigations 40
**Chapter 5 – After a Statement of Objections** 44
Summary 44
A. Right to reply 44
C. Steps following oral hearings 46
D. Possible decisions 47
E. Sanctions for infringement 48 Introduction
The Office of Rail and Road (ORR) is the independent safety and economic regulator of railways in Great Britain and monitor of Highways England. We are here to ensure the network operates safely, reliably and provides value for taxpayers and customers. We safeguard the public and the workforce by regulating the rail industry’s health and safety performance. We hold Network Rail to account – and we require it to provide passengers with a punctual and reliable service. We make sure that train and freight operating companies have fair access to the rail network, and that the market is competitive and fair.
As part of this mandate we have powers, in relation to the supply of services relating to railways, to enforce the prohibitions on agreements(^1) that prevent, restrict or distort competition and on the abuse of a dominant position, contained in Chapters I and II of the Competition Act 1998 (the Act) and in Articles 101 and 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). ORR exercises these powers concurrently with the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA)(^2).
We are part of the UK Competition Network (UKCN), a forum bringing together the CMA and UK sectoral regulators(^3) to promote competition and assist in deterring anti-competitive behaviour in regulated sectors. We are also a designated National Competition Authority (NCA) within the European Competition Network (ECN)(^4) for the purposes of exercising all of the powers and functions of a competition authority of a Member State of the European Union (EU)(^5).
Purpose of this guidance
The purpose of this guidance is to provide advice and information about how we expect to exercise our concurrent power to enforce the competition prohibitions under the Act and the TFEU and to give practical guidance on how the competition prohibitions may apply in the railways sector. In particular this guidance will provide information on:
______________________________________________________________________
(^1) For the purposes of this guidance, reference to ‘agreements’ should be taken to include decisions taken in trade or other associations of undertakings, and/or concerted practices. See paragraphs 2.14 to 2.18, below
(^2) Section 67(3) of the Railways Act 1993 (the Railways Act)
(^3) The other sectoral regulators are CAA (Civil Aviation Authority), Ofcom (Office of Communications), Ofgem (the Gas and Electricity Markets Authority), Ofwat (the Water Services Regulation Authority), FCA (the Financial Conduct Authority), PSR (Payment Systems Regulator), and the Northern Ireland Authority for Utility Regulation. Monitor (the regulator of healthcare services in England), has concurrent competition powers but not a statutory duty to promote competition; Monitor is not a member of the UKCN but attends its meetings with an observer status
(^4) Council Regulation 1/2003 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles [101] and [102] of the Treaty, OJ L 1, 4.1.2003, p.1. (Regulation 1/2003) and the Commission Notice on cooperation within the Network of Competition Authorities, (OJ C 101, 27.4.2004, p. 43–53), set out the main principles of how the network functions
(^5) The Competition Act 1998 and other Enactments (Amendment) Regulations 2004 (S.I. 2004 No.1261), paragraph 3(1)(b) the scope of our jurisdiction to apply the competition prohibitions and how our relationship with the CMA will work in practice (Chapter 1);
how we consider the competition prohibitions may apply in the railways sector and a number of particular considerations which businesses and individuals with an interest in this sector may wish to have regard to (Chapter 2);
factors we will take into account when: prioritising our resources; determining whether to use our powers under the Act or alternative sector-specific tools which may be available to us to resolve issues in railways markets; and the inter-relationship of our sector-specific powers with competition law (Chapter 3);
how we expect to conduct investigations under the Act, notably the procedures we will adopt and how we will engage with complainants and parties under investigation (Chapter 4); and
the procedures we will follow in cases where we have issued a Statement of Objections and our approach to determining appropriate outcomes (Chapter 5).
This guidance supersedes and replaces the guidelines ‘Application to services relating to railways’(^6). It reflects changes in: EU competition law; sector-specific legislation and policy; case law; and our approach to competition enforcement in light of our evolving experience. It is intended to constitute general advice and information about the application of the competition prohibitions in the railways sector and explain our approach to enforcing the competition prohibitions(^7). We are currently producing separate related guidance on our approach to monitoring and reviewing markets which will include information on how we will undertake our market investigation reference functions under Part 4 of the Enterprise Act 2002 (the Enterprise Act).
This guidance is not intended to be an exhaustive guide to the legal and economic framework for the application of the competition prohibitions to agreements and conduct. It is a complement, rather than a substitute, for relevant domestic or EU legislation, case law and guidance. The CMA alone has powers to make procedural rules, which we must follow when enforcing the competition prohibitions(^8). Only the CMA has powers to issue guidance on the specific areas of penalties and commitments; we must have regard to the CMA’s policy and guidance in these reserved areas. As a general principle, where the CMA’s guidance is more detailed than our own in a material respect, we will consider its guidance in deciding how to proceed.
It is the responsibility of each business to self-assess its compliance with competition law. We recommend that businesses involved in the provision of services relating to railways
(^6) ORR Competition Act Guidelines: Application to Services Relating to Railways (August 2005) and OFT Guidelines, OFT430, Application to Services Relating to Railways, (October 2005)
(^7) Published under ORR’s concurrent powers under section 52 of the Act
(^8) Namely the Competition Act 1998 (Competition and Markets Authority’s Rules) Order 2014 (S.I. 2014 No.458) (the CMA Rules) have regard to this guidance (and, where appropriate, other more detailed guidance published by the CMA) in the course of reviewing their compliance with competition law. We will not endorse or approve any particular compliance programme or give pre-approval to specific agreements or practices. Chapter 1 – ORR’s powers and concurrency
Summary
This Chapter explains the scope of ORR’s powers and how we expect concurrency with the CMA to work in practice.
A. ORR’s concurrent jurisdiction
1.1. ORR has all the powers of the CMA(^9) to apply and enforce Articles 101 and 102 TFEU and the Act to deal with anti-competitive agreements or abuses of a dominant position where the relevant activities relate to the supply of services relating to railways in Great Britain(^10).
1.2. We will assess on a case by case basis whether a matter falls within our concurrent jurisdiction according to the subject matter to which the agreement or conduct relates rather than the identity of the undertakings involved(^11). Our jurisdiction is not limited to cases involving railway undertakings or directly related to railways infrastructure or rolling stock; for example, we have previously undertaken investigations in relation to the supply of grease for use in electric trackside lubricants(^12) and in relation to the provision of real time train information.
1.3. The meaning of railway includes tramways and also any transport system which uses another mode of guided transport but which is not a trolley vehicle system(^13). This means that matters relating to or affecting infrastructure such as the London Underground network, or heritage railways, would be likely to fall within our concurrent jurisdiction.
______________________________________________________________________
(^9) With the exception of powers to enforce the criminal cartel offence in the Enterprise Act (see paragraphs 1.17 to 1.18, below)
(^10) The term ‘services relating to railways’ is defined by section 67(3ZA) of the Railways Act as including:
- railway services (meaning the carriage of passengers and goods by railway and light maintenance, station and network services);
- the provision and maintenance of rolling stock;
- the development, maintenance or renewal of a network, station or light maintenance depot; and
- the development, provision or maintenance of information systems designed wholly or mainly for facilitating the provision of railway services
(^11) CMA10, Regulated Industries: Guidance on concurrent application of competition law to regulated industries, (March 2014), [https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/guidance-on-concurrent-application-of-competition-law-to-regulated-industries](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/guidance-on-concurrent-application-of-competition-law-to-regulated-industries)
(^12) [http://orr.gov.uk/what-and-how-we-regulate/competition/competition-issues/competition-complaints-investigated/ntm-sales](http://orr.gov.uk/what-and-how-we-regulate/competition/competition-issues/competition-complaints-investigated/ntm-sales)
(^13) Sections 81 and 82 of the Railways Act Case study – services relating to railways
In November 2009 we concluded an investigation into the provision of Real Time Train Information (RTTI)(^\\text{14}). RTTI is a key input into many end applications including railway station departure boards and websites about travel by rail. In 2009, strong growth in the use of RTTI was being driven by the then relatively new range of travel ‘apps’ developed for mobile devices. We opened an investigation into this market following a complaint from a software developer arguing that it had been denied access to key RTTI inputs. RTTI is a ‘service relating to railways’ because it involves the development of information systems that are designed for the provision of railway services.
i. ORR’s powers
1.4. Where a matter relates to services relating to railways we may:
- consider complaints about possible infringements of Articles 101 and/or 102 TFEU, and/or the Chapter I and/or Chapter II prohibitions in the Act;
- impose interim measures to prevent significant damage(^\\text{15});
- carry out investigations both in response to complaints and on our own initiative, including requiring the production of documents and information and searching premises(^\\text{16});
- impose financial penalties on undertakings, taking into account the statutory guidance on penalties issued by the CMA(^\\text{17});
- give and enforce directions to bring an infringement to an end(^\\text{18});
- accept commitments that are binding on an undertaking(^\\text{19}); and
______________________________________________________________________
(^{14}) [http://orr.gov.uk/what-and-how-we-regulate/competition/competition-issues/competition-complaints-investigated/real-time-train-information](http://orr.gov.uk/what-and-how-we-regulate/competition/competition-issues/competition-complaints-investigated/real-time-train-information)
(^{15}) Section 35 of the Act
(^{16}) Sections 26 to 29 of the Act
(^{17}) CMA4, Administrative Penalties: Statement of Policy on the CMA’s Approach, (January 2014) [https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/270245/CMA4_Admin_Penalties_Statement_of_Policy.pdf](https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/270245/CMA4_Admin_Penalties_Statement_of_Policy.pdf)
(^{18}) Sections 32 to 34 of the Act
(^{19}) Section 31A of the Act agree to settle a case where the business under investigation is prepared to admit that it has breached Article 101 and/or Article 102 of the TFEU, and/or the Chapter I prohibition and/or the Chapter II prohibition in the United Kingdom and to agree to a streamlined administrative procedure to govern the remainder of the investigation, in return for which ORR may agree to impose a reduced penalty on the business.
ii. Conforming with European competition law
1.5. As a designated NCA, when enforcing national competition law in relation to agreements and/or conduct which may affect trade between Member States, we are required to also apply Articles 101 and 102.20
1.6. We may not prohibit an agreement or concerted practice under national competition law if it would not be prohibited under Article 101. This does not however prevent the application of stricter national law to an agreement if the national law being applied pursues an objective which is predominantly different from those pursued by Article 101.
1.7. National competition law is not limited to the application of the domestic competition prohibitions in the Act. We will, where necessary, assess on a case by case basis whether a particular matter has as its objective the enforcement of national competition law or whether the objective pursued is predominantly different from those pursued by Article 101. We note that when exercising our functions and powers under the Railways Act we have a number of different duties to promote a variety of objectives in the UK rail industry. Only one of those duties is the promotion of competition in the provision of railway services for the benefit of users of railway services. Other objectives include consumer protection, the environment, safety, financing and efficiency. We must, on any particular issue or case, make a judgment on the priority and balance to be achieved among these different objectives. Therefore, as a general principle, “the protection of competition in the market” may not be the predominant objective for us when exercising our powers and functions under the Railways Act.
1.8. We may apply national law in a way which is stricter than Article 102 in respect of unilateral conduct.
1.9. When applying and enforcing the prohibitions in Articles 101 and 102 we are bound by the fundamental principle of the primacy of EU law. We must therefore follow the case law of the European Courts21 in interpreting the scope of the prohibitions in the TFEU. We must also ensure, in so far as it is possible, that any questions arising in relation to the application and enforcement of the prohibitions in the Act, are dealt
______________________________________________________________________
20 Article 3(1) of Regulation 1/2003
21 Namely, the General Court and the European Court of Justice with in a manner which is consistent with the treatment of corresponding questions arising in EU law\\textsuperscript{22}.
**B. How concurrency works in practice**
1.10. Our functions under the Act are exercised concurrently with the CMA and with other sectoral regulators where their respective concurrent jurisdiction overlaps with our own. We will cooperate with the CMA and other sectoral regulators in the exercise of our concurrent functions, for the purpose of strengthening the competition framework and to ensure consistency of approach. There are rules on concurrency to which we and other sectoral regulators must adhere\\textsuperscript{23}. The CMA has published detailed guidance on how the concurrent application and enforcement of competition law works in practice\\textsuperscript{24}. The CMA and ORR have agreed a Memorandum of Understanding which sets out working arrangements between the two organisations in relation to the application and enforcement of the competition prohibitions in circumstances where there is concurrent jurisdiction\\textsuperscript{25}. These documents contain greater detail on the concurrent enforcement of the competition prohibitions and should be read in conjunction with this guidance.
**i. Case allocation**
1.11. In all circumstances there will be an overlap between ORR and the CMA in terms of which authority should take forward a case. There may also be instances where there are overlaps between ORR and other sectoral regulators. As only one authority can exercise prescribed functions\\textsuperscript{26} in respect of a case at any moment in time, cases must be allocated to one authority, and, where appropriate, transferred between concurrent authorities.
1.12. In determining case allocation the guiding principle to be applied is that a case will be allocated to the regulator that is better or best placed to exercise the concurrent
\\textsuperscript{22} For more information on the operation of Regulation 1/2003 see OFT442, Modernisation, (December 2004), https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/284432/oft442.pdf
\\textsuperscript{23} The Competition Act 1998 (Concurrency) Regulations 2014 SI 2014 No.536 (the Concurrency Regulations)
\\textsuperscript{24} CMA10
\\textsuperscript{25} Memorandum of Understanding between the Competition and Markets Authority and the Office of Rail Regulation: Concurrent competition powers, (May 2014), (the Memorandum of Understanding) https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/318909/MoU\_-\_CMA_and_the_ORR.pdf
\\textsuperscript{26} Prescribed functions are those functions in Part 1 of the Act which are, or would be, exercisable concurrently under Regulation 2 of the Concurrency Regulations. These include: the opening of a formal investigation pursuant to the Act, the withdrawal of an exclusion from the Chapter I prohibition in relation to an individual agreement, and the making of certain formal decisions including requiring that an infringement be brought to an end, ordering interim measures, accepting commitments by decision and imposing fines competition enforcement powers. We will endeavour to reach agreement on which authority will have jurisdiction to exercise its powers to enforce the competition prohibitions in respect of each particular case and will engage with the CMA and any other sectoral regulators in a spirit of constructiveness and cooperation. If agreement cannot be reached, the CMA may determine which relevant competition authority should exercise its concurrent power.
1.13. The CMA may direct that a case in progress be transferred from ORR to the CMA, if it is satisfied that to do so would further the promotion of competition within any market or markets in the United Kingdom, for the benefit of consumers.
1.14. Where Article 101 and/or Article 102 may apply, a case will also be subject to the case allocation principles for determining whether a UK NCA or a NCA from another Member State is best placed to act. The European Commission has the power to take over cases involving an alleged breach of Article 101 and/or Article 102 TFEU from NCAs by initiating proceedings. Further details on case allocation as between NCAs from different Member States are provided in guidance adopted by the CMA.
ii. Information sharing
1.15. We will share information with the CMA and other sectoral regulators for the purposes of general liaison and, in relation to specific cases where it is appropriate to do so, in order to facilitate the discharge of our functions under the Act. The procedures for sharing information with the CMA are set out in the Memorandum of Understanding.
1.16. Prior to sharing any information with the CMA and other sectoral regulators we will have regard to the provisions in Part 9 of the Enterprise Act.
iii. Criminal cartels
1.17. The criminal cartel offence was created with the intention of criminalising and deterring behaviour by individuals leading to the most serious and damaging forms of anti-competitive agreements, namely ‘hard-core cartels’. In essence, a hard-core cartel is an agreement between competitors to fix prices, share markets, rig bids or
______________________________________________________________________
27 CMA10 contains a list of factors relevant to determining which regulator is ‘better or best placed’ at paragraph 3.22 28 Regulation 5 of the Concurrency Regulations 29 Regulation 8 of the Concurrency Regulations; the CMA may only issue such a direction prior to a statement of objections being issued 30 OFT442 31 Paragraphs 37 to 48 of the Memorandum of Understanding 32 Notably the considerations in section 244 of the Enterprise Act limit output at the expense of the interests of customers and without any countervailing customer benefits. Typically, hard-core cartels are secret arrangements under which competitor businesses agree to coordinate their activity, usually in order to preserve or drive up prices.(^{33})
1.18. We do not have concurrent jurisdiction to prosecute the cartel offence. In the event that we uncover a suspected criminal cartel, we will refer the matter to the CMA.
**iv. Leniency**
1.19. It is in the interest of the economy of the UK, and the EU more generally, to have a policy of granting lenient treatment to undertakings which inform competition law enforcement authorities of cartel activities and which then cooperate with those authorities. It is the often secret nature of cartel activities which justifies such a policy. The interests of customers and consumers in ensuring that such activities are detected and prohibited outweigh the policy objectives of imposing financial penalties on those undertakings which participate in cartel activities but which cooperate to a significant degree with competition authorities.
1.20. Further information on the types of lenient treatment which may be available to businesses and the conditions which must be met to secure those benefits, is set out in guidance published by the OFT and adopted by the CMA.(^{34})
1.21. We would suggest that initial applications for leniency markers in cases involving the railways sector be made to the CMA in accordance with its published leniency process and procedure.(^{35}) The CMA is the only authority empowered to grant a no-action letter with respect to prosecutions under the criminal cartel offence and, for that reason, generally administers the grant of markers (in collaboration with sectoral regulators where relevant). We will consider ourselves bound by the type of any marker granted by the CMA, subject to the conditions of leniency continuing to be met. However, the ORR will be responsible for deciding the amount of any leniency discount ultimately granted in cases which have been allocated to it for enforcement under the Act.
1.22. In leniency cases in the railways sector, leniency information given to the CMA may be passed to us if the case is allocated to ORR for enforcement under the Act. We
______________________________________________________________________
(^{33}) See CMA9, Cartel Offence Prosecution Guidance, (March 2014)
(^{34}) See OFT 423, OFT’s guidance as to the appropriate amount of a penalty, (September 2012) [https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/appropriate-ca98-penalty-calculation](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/appropriate-ca98-penalty-calculation), and OFT1495, Applications for leniency and no-action in cartel cases, (July 2013) [https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/leniency-and-no-action-applications-in-cartel-cases](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/leniency-and-no-action-applications-in-cartel-cases). In the event that we are initially approached by a leniency applicant, we will direct the applicant, in the first instance, to the CMA.
(^{35}) OFT1495 will use leniency information passed to us only for the purposes of enforcing the Act unless the leniency applicant agrees otherwise.
1.23. In considering immunity from, or applying any reduction in, financial penalties under the Act, we will follow the CMA’s guidance and policy\\textsuperscript{36}, though as noted at paragraph 1.21 above, we cannot grant a no-action letter with respect to prosecutions under the criminal cartel offence.
\\textsuperscript{36} OFT423 Chapter 2 – Application in a railway context
Summary
This Chapter describes how the competition prohibitions may apply in the context of the railways sector and how this is likely to affect our approach to enforcing the competition prohibitions.
A. The Competition Act 1998 and Articles 101 and 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union
2.1. For the purposes of this guidance, a competition infringement is a breach of any of the competition prohibitions contained in the Act or the TFEU. The UK prohibition in Chapter I of the Act is equivalent to the EU prohibition in Article 101 TFEU. The UK prohibition in Chapter II of the Act is equivalent to the EU prohibition in Article 102 TFEU.
2.2. This chapter first sets out principles applicable across all of the prohibitions, before providing guidance on how each of the prohibitions may apply in the railways sector.
i. Undertakings
2.3. The competition prohibitions apply only to agreements between undertakings, and, abuses committed by dominant undertakings respectively.
2.4. The term ‘undertaking’ is a broad concept which may, in the particular circumstances of each case, refer to any entity engaged in an economic activity, regardless of its legal status and the way in which it is financed. The term may therefore include: companies; firms; businesses; partnerships; individuals operating as sole traders; associations of undertakings (including trade associations); non-profit making organisations; and (in some circumstances) public entities that offer goods or services in a given market. Key participants within the rail industry including train operating companies and fully or partly publicly owned players such as Network Rail, TfL, and others, are likely to be viewed as undertakings for most of their activities.
2.5. Organisations with separate legal personalities (for instance distinct limited companies) may be considered to be part of one and the same undertaking if they are found to form a ‘single economic unit’. A parent company may be part of the same undertaking as a subsidiary if the parent exercises a decisive influence over
______________________________________________________________________
37 For further guidance on the application of competition law to the activities of public bodies see OFT 1389, Public Bodies and Competition Law: A guide to the application of the Competition Act 1998, (December 2011) https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/public-bodies-and-competition-law the subsidiary. Companies in the same corporate group will often be considered to constitute a single undertaking.
2.6. In the railways context, holding companies which exercise decisive influence over subsidiary companies that (for example) have been specifically incorporated to undertake defined activities, such as a rail franchise, should be aware that they may be held liable for the actions of the subsidiary.
2.7. It is for businesses to self-assess the extent to which they form part of the same undertaking with other legal entities.
ii. Market definition
2.8. To assess the application of the competition prohibitions, it will generally be necessary for us to define a relevant market or markets. Defining a relevant market is not an end in itself; rather, it provides a framework for competition analysis. Defining the market is generally a key step in identifying the competitive constraints acting on a supplier of a given product or service and analysing the effects of agreements or conduct. Markets are defined in terms of the products or services involved, geographical scope and, in some cases, the time period in which those products or services are sold.
2.9. In broad terms, defining markets involves an analysis of the extent to which identified products or services are substitutable, for example by reason of their characteristics, prices or intended use. ‘Demand-side substitution’ takes place when consumers switch from one product to another in response to a change in the relative prices of goods. Supply side substitution refers to suppliers switching production facilities in order to expand the range of goods that they sell. Where an identified product or service is readily interchangeable with another, it is likely to be considered to be within the same market. On the other hand where a product or service is not interchangeable or interchangeable only to a limited extent, it is likely to constitute a separate market. For example in relation to rail passenger transport, customers utilising railway services at peak times may not view rail travel during off peak times as a viable substitute for rail travel at peak times (because using off peak services would mean passengers would not get to work on time). Rail travel at peak times will constitute a separate market to rail travel at off peak times if customers with fixed preferences regarding time of travel are sufficiently numerous.
2.10. In cases involving transport markets, the definition of geographic and product markets are typically closely related as the geography in which a service is being delivered typically represents a key intrinsic element of the service’s value.
______________________________________________________________________
38 This can apply, for example, to joint ventures and where the parent company has less than a 100% shareholding but still exercises decisive influence over the subsidiary. 2.11. There are a range of economic tools which may be used for the purposes of determining the substitutability of products and services. We will define the relevant market(s) for each individual case based on the particular facts of that case; in doing so we will follow the framework set out in guidance adopted by the CMA\\textsuperscript{39}. Typically in defining markets we will utilise the ‘hypothetical monopolist’ test, which involves assessing how customers (the demand side) and other suppliers (the supply side) would react to an attempt by a hypothetical monopolist to introduce a small but significant non-transitory increase in price (SSNIP) (usually 5% to 10%) to the product or service in question. Analysis of the hypothetical monopolist test will typically involve consideration of:
- the extent to which customers would switch to other products or services in response to a SSNIP, and how long this would take;
- the extent to which alternative suppliers would start supplying the product or service in question in response to a SSNIP and how long this would take; and
- the extent to which customers would switch to other suppliers in other areas in response to a SSNIP and the extent to which suppliers from other areas would start supplying the relevant product or service in the relevant geographic area.
2.12. We will also consider product characteristics in our definition of markets. For example, in a railway transport context, we may typically consider factors such as, for passenger services, journey purpose, and, for freight services, the relative merits of different modes of transport from a customer perspective.
**Case study**
In November 2006 we concluded an investigation into the market for coal haulage by rail\\textsuperscript{40}. In this investigation we had to carry out a market definition exercise. We concluded that, in Great Britain at the time, there was a national market for coal haulage by rail, distinct from other transport modes and from the haulage of other goods by rail. In order to reach this conclusion we examined factors such as: the relative costs and service quality levels that it was possible to achieve using rail as opposed to road transport; and from a supply side perspective the speed and ease with which rail freight operators could procure network capacity and rolling stock.
\\textsuperscript{39} OFT403, Market Definition, (December 2004) [https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/market-definition](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/market-definition). We will also have regard to the Commission Notice on the definition of the relevant market for the purposes of Community competition law (OJ C 372, 9.12.97, p5)
\\textsuperscript{40} [http://orr.gov.uk/\_\_data/assets/pdf_file/0017/3527/ca98_decision_ews-dec06.pdf](http://orr.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/3527/ca98_decision_ews-dec06.pdf) Our conclusions rested on analysis that we carried out using evidence gathered from the companies involved using our powers of investigation.
B. Agreements between undertakings – Chapter I and Article 101
2.13. ORR may investigate where it has reasonable grounds to suspect there are agreements between undertakings which have as their object or effect the appreciable prevention, restriction or distortion of competition. Article 101 applies to agreements that may affect trade between Member States of the EU. The Chapter I prohibition applies to agreements which may affect trade within the United Kingdom.
i. Anti-competitive agreements
2.14. Reference to ‘agreements’ includes informal co-operation falling short of a formal agreement, concerted practices and decisions taken by associations of undertakings (often taking the form of trade associations).
2.15. In particular, these prohibitions apply to agreements which:
- directly or indirectly fix purchase or selling prices or any other trading conditions;
- limit or control production, markets, technical development or investment;
- share markets or sources of supply;
- apply dissimilar trading conditions to equivalent transactions with other trading parties, thereby placing them at a competitive disadvantage; or
______________________________________________________________________
41 As noted above at paragraph 2.5, the Chapter I and Article 101 prohibitions do not apply to agreements between group companies which are part of a single undertaking
42 In assessing whether or not an agreement may affect trade between Member States, we will have regard to the European Commission’s Notice – Guidelines on the effect on trade concept contained in Articles 81[101] and 82[102] of the Treaty (2004), OJ C 101, 27.4.2004, p.81. This Notice states that the concept of trade is not limited to traditional exchanges of goods and services across borders, rather it is a wider concept, covering all cross-border economic activity, including establishment
43 General guidance on assessing whether agreements and concerted practices are anti-competitive is described in the OFT401, Agreements and Concerted Practices (December 2004) https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/agreements-and-concerted-practices-understanding-competition-law. General guidance on the application of competition law to the activities of trade associations, professions and self-regulating bodies is set out in the OFT408, Trade Associations, Professions and Self-Regulating Bodies (December 2004) https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/trade-associations-and-professionalsex-regulating-bodies-and-competition-law make the conclusion of contracts subject to acceptance by the other parties of supplementary obligations which, by their nature or according to commercial usage, have no connection with the subject of such contracts.
2.16. Examples of potentially anti-competitive agreements which may constitute infringements of the Chapter I prohibition and/or Article 101 that may arise in the railways sector include:
- Agreements or conscious cooperation between companies not to compete for certain business, for example contracts, such as: passenger rail franchises; freight contracts; contracts to supply rolling stock; and contracts to supply Network Rail.
- Agreements regarding the setting of technical standards for the supply of products and services to Network Rail or train operators. Such agreements may lead to efficiencies by reducing costs, and/or raising quality or compatibility, but could be harmful overall where their principal overall effect is to limit competition, for example by raising entry barriers.
- Agreements between competing train operators or other industry participants about prices to be charged for certain products or services. Recognising the benefits of a national network, the rail industry currently encourages a degree of co-operation between train operating companies, but the lawfulness of such agreements must still be considered on a case by case basis.
2.17. Such agreements may also fall within the scope of the prohibitions if they are carried out in the context of discussions between members of a trade association or the agreement manifests itself in the form of a decision by a trade association to be recognised by its members.
2.18. This list is non-exhaustive and is only illustrative. We may apply the Chapter I prohibition and the Article 101 prohibition to other types of agreements which may restrict, distort or prevent competition to determine whether they constitute an infringement of competition law.
ii. Exemptions to Chapter I and Article 101
2.19. An agreement may be exempt from the Chapter I and Article 101 prohibitions if it meets certain criteria, which are set out at section 9(1) of the Act and Article 101(3) TFEU respectively.
______________________________________________________________________
44 A notable example of this is the UK’s system of interoperable fares, whereby customers are able to buy a single ticket to complete a journey which includes services provided by more than one operator. 2.20. The criteria are that the agreement in question:
- contributes to improving production or distribution or promoting technical or economic progress;
- allows consumers a fair share of the resulting benefit;
- does not impose on the undertakings concerned restrictions which are not indispensible to the attainment of these objectives; and
- does not afford the undertakings the possibility of eliminating competition in respect of a substantial part of the products or services in question.
2.21. We will not give pre-approval for a particular practice or agreement. It is for businesses to self-assess whether the agreement or arrangement in question is covered by this exemption; the European Commission has published guidance to assist businesses and their advisers for this purpose(^45).
### iii. Block exemptions
2.22. The Secretary of State may, by order, on a recommendation from us or the CMA, exempt categories of agreement from the Chapter I prohibition(^46) where they fall within the criteria set out in section 9 of the Act (UK Block Exemptions). The European Council and the European Commission may make block exemption regulations which have the effect of exempting particular categories of agreements which are considered to satisfy the criteria set out in Article 101(3) (EU Block Exemptions).
2.23. It is for businesses to self-assess whether their conduct falls within either a UK or a EU Block Exemption.
#### EU Block Exemptions – Council Regulation 169/2009
2.24. Where an agreement falls within a EU Block Exemption it is not prohibited under Article 101 and it will also be exempt from the Chapter I prohibition(^47).
2.25. Of particular relevance to the railways sector(^48) is Council Regulation 169/2009(^49). By the terms of this Regulation the prohibition in Article 101(1) does not apply to
______________________________________________________________________
(^{45}) Guidelines on the Application of Article 101(3) of the Treaty (OJ C 101 27.04.2004, p.97)
(^{46}) Under section 6 of the Act
(^{47}) Sections 10(1) and (2) of the Act provide that any agreement which benefits from a EU Block Exemption, or that would do so if it were to affect trade between Member States, will also be exempted from the domestic Chapter I prohibition
(^{48}) Other EU Block Exemptions which may be applicable in the railways sector include: Commission Regulation (EC) No 2658/2000 on the application of Article 101(3) of the Treaty to categories of specialisation agreements (OJ, L 304, 5.12.2000 p.3); Commission Regulation (EC) No 2659/2000 on the application of Article 101(3) of the Treaty to categories of research and development agreements (OJ L 304, agreements in rail, road and inland waterways, the object or effect of which is to apply technical improvements or to achieve technical cooperation by means of:
- the standardisation of equipment, transport supplies, vehicles or fixed installations;
- the exchange or pooling, for the purpose of operating transport services, of staff, equipment, vehicles or fixed installations;
- the organisation and execution of successive, complementary, substitute or combined transport operations and the fixing and application of inclusive rates and conditions for such operations, including special competitive rates;
- the use, for journeys by a single mode of transport, of the routes which are most rational from the operational point of view;
- the coordination of transport timetables for connecting routes;
- the grouping of single consignments; and
- the establishment of uniform rules as to the structure of tariffs and their conditions of application provided such rules do not lay down transport rates and conditions.
**UK Block Exemptions– public transport ticketing schemes**
2.26. An agreement which falls within the category of agreements specified in a UK Block Exemption order will be automatically exempt from the Chapter I prohibition.
2.27. The Competition Act 1998 (Public Transport Ticketing Schemes Block Exemption) Order (SI 2001 No 319) came into force on 1 March 2001 and was subsequently amended, by the Competition Act 1998 (Public Transport Ticketing Schemes Block Exemption) (Amendment) Order 2011 (SI 2011 No. 227 and the Competition Act 1998 (Public Transport Ticketing Schemes Block Exemption) (Amendment) Order 2016. This domestic block exemption covers ticketing schemes that provide multi-operator travel cards, multi-operator individual tickets, through tickets and short and long distance add-on tickets for local travel on buses, trains, trams and domestic
______________________________________________________________________
5.12.2000, p.7); Commission Regulation (EC) No2790/1999 on the application of Article 101(3) of the Treaty to categories of vertical agreements and concerted practices (OJ L 336, 29.12.1999, p.21); and Commission Regulation (EU) 316/2014 on the application of Article 101(3) of the TFEU to categories of technology transfer agreements (OJ L 93, 28.3.2014, p.17-23)
49 Council Regulation 169/2009 applying rules of competition to transport by rail, road and inland waterways (OJ L 61, 5.3.2009, p.1)
50 This order was published on 8 February 2016 (SI 2016/126). The order, which came into force on 29 February 2016, makes certain amendments to the block exemption and extends the duration for 10 years. ferry services. The block exemption sets out a number of conditions which a ticketing scheme must satisfy in order to benefit from it.
2.28. The public transport ticketing schemes block exemption automatically exempts the agreements within its scope from Chapter I of the Act insofar as they meet certain specified conditions. It allows for public transport operators to enter into agreements to offer passengers tickets that they can use on the services of two or more operators. This normally increases the mobility of passengers and makes travel more flexible.
2.29. The CMA is proposing to issue revised guidance, to reflect amendments made to the block exemption, to clarify some areas which are thought to be unclear, and to update certain aspects of the guidance to take account of new formats and products that have emerged (such as the introduction of smart tickets) 51.
Withdrawal of block exemptions
2.30. We may withdraw the benefit of a EU Block Exemption in cases where the following conditions are met:
- the territory of the UK or part of it, in the relevant case, has all the characteristics of a distinct geographic market; and
- the agreements in question have effects that are incompatible with Article 101(3) TFEU in the territory of the UK.
2.31. No later than 30 days prior to adopting a decision withdrawing the benefit of a EU Block Exemption we will inform the European Commission52.
2.32. We may also, in certain circumstances, withdraw the benefits of a UK Block Exemption. For example, we may withdraw the benefit of the Public Transport Ticketing Services block exemption in relation to a particular agreement if we are satisfied it does not meet the statutory exemption criteria53, notwithstanding the fact that it would otherwise meet the conditions of the block exemption itself. Before taking this step, we must give notice in writing of our proposal and consider any representations made.
iv. Appreciable effect on trade between Member States, or, competition
2.33. In order for Article 101(1) to be applicable the agreement in question must affect trade between Member States, or, competition to an appreciable extent. In assessing whether or not an agreement has an appreciable effect on competition or
51 OFT439, Public transport ticketing schemes block exemption, (November 2006) https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/public-transport-ticketing-schemes-block-exemption 52 Article 11(4) of Regulation 1/2003 53 Namely those in Article 101(3) and the equivalent provisions in the Act trade between Member States we will have regard to the European Commission’s *Notice on agreements of minor importance*(^{54}) which sets out, using specified market share thresholds, the Commission’s views as to what is and is not an appreciable restriction of competition under Article 101.
2.34. If an agreement has as its object(^{55}) the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition it will, by its nature, have an appreciable effect on competition(^{56}).
**C. Abuse of a dominant position – Chapter II and Article 102**
2.35. Chapter II of the Act and Article 102 TFEU prohibit conduct by one or more undertakings which amounts to an abuse of a dominant position in a market. Article 102 applies to conduct within the EU or in a substantial part of it in so far as it may affect trade between Member States of the EU(^{57}). The Chapter II prohibition applies if the dominant position is held within the whole or part of the UK and the conduct in question may affect trade within the whole or part of the UK.
**i. Dominance**
2.36. In order to contravene the prohibitions in Chapter II and Article 102 an undertaking or undertakings must first be found to be dominant or collectively dominant(^{58}) in a market.
2.37. A dominant market position is defined as a position of economic strength enjoyed by an undertaking which enables it to prevent effective competition from being maintained in the relevant market by affording it the power to behave to an appreciable extent independently of its competitors, customers and ultimately its consumers(^{59}). Central to the determination of whether an undertaking is in a dominant position in a market is an assessment of its market power. In assessing
______________________________________________________________________
(^{54}) OJ C 291, 30.8.2014, p. 1–4 (commonly referred to as the *De Minimis* Notice)
(^{55}) In assessing whether an agreement has as its object the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition, we will look at the objective meaning and purpose of the agreement in its economic context. If the object of an agreement is the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition, it is not necessary to show that it also has an anti-competitive effect in order to establish an infringement
(^{56}) Case C-226/11 *Expedia* [2012] ECR I-000, in particular paragraphs 35, 36 and 37
(^{57}) In assessing whether conduct has an appreciable effect on trade between Member States we will take the same approach as outlined for Chapter I/Article 101(1), see footnote 42, above
(^{58}) The concept of collective or ‘joint’ dominance was first defined in cases T-66,77 and 78/89 *Società Italiana Vetro v Commission* (Italian Flat Glass) [1992] ECR II-1403, [1992] 5 CMLR 302. Further guidance on the concept of collective dominance is set out in OFT415 *Assessment of Market Power* (December 2004) [https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/assessment-of-market-power](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/assessment-of-market-power) paragraphs 2.13 to 2.16
(^{59}) Case 27/76 *United Brands v Commission* [1978] ECR 207, [1978] 1 CMLR 429 whether an undertaking enjoys a dominant position we will have regard to guidance adopted by the CMA\\textsuperscript{60} and guidance issued by the European Commission\\textsuperscript{61}.
2.38. A non-exhaustive list of factors that we will take into account when assessing dominance under Chapter II or Article 102 includes:
- the presence of existing competitors;
- the likelihood of potential competitors entering the market;
- whether countervailing buyer power exists;
- barriers to entry; and
- the market share of the undertaking(s) over a period of time. There are no specified market share thresholds for dominance under Chapter II or Article 102, although the European Court has stated that dominance can be presumed, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, if an undertaking has a market share persistently above 50%\\textsuperscript{62}.
ii. Abuse
2.39. In general terms, conduct may be abusive when it is directly exploitative of customers (for example through the charging of excessive prices) or where it has an adverse effect on the competitive process (for example conduct which raises barriers to entry or increases competitors’ costs).
2.40. Examples of conduct within the railways sector which could potentially constitute an abuse of a dominant position include:
- Owners of facilities that are essential to operating a downstream rail transport service, denying downstream competitors access to their facilities without justification, or charging excessive or discriminatory prices for those competitors to use those facilities. Similar issues may exist where firms have access to essential non-physical inputs, such as data or information.
- A dominant firm that is vertically integrated and controls an essential upstream input may be able to eliminate downstream competition by creating a ‘margin squeeze’ between downstream retail prices and costs, where the latter includes the cost of procuring the essential upstream input.
\\textsuperscript{60} OFT415
\\textsuperscript{61} Commission Communication: Guidance on the Commission’s enforcement priorities in applying Article [102] of the EC Treaty to abusive exclusionary conduct by dominant undertakings (2009/C45/02) (OJ C 45, 24.2.2009 p.7) (the Commission’s Article 102 Enforcement Priorities Guidance), paragraphs 9 to 18
\\textsuperscript{62} Case C62/86 AKZO Chemie BV v Commission [1991], ECR I-3359. Railway undertakings in a dominant position boycotting certain suppliers, as a result of, for instance, ancillary matters unrelated to the service being tendered for.
Pricing practices by rail freight operators that limit rivals’ ability to compete. Competition on prices (alongside quality, choice, etc.) is generally a sign of a market working well and of consumer benefits, but in certain circumstances low pricing and discounting, when exercised by firms with substantial market power, may be anti-competitive. One key example of anti-competitive pricing is ‘predatory pricing’, whereby a dominant firm sets very low prices with the aim of driving its competitors out of the market. Other examples include certain types of rebate schemes.
2.41. An undertaking can also contravene Chapter II or Article 102 where it is dominant in one market but the abuse takes place in a separate related market. An example of this in a railway context could be a dominant supplier of specialist railway equipment tying in a purchaser (perhaps by means of warranty conditions which are not objectively justifiable) to long-term maintenance services or products, thereby preventing other suppliers of those services or products from competing effectively in the market.
iii. Exemptions from Chapter II/Article 102
2.42. There is no legal exemption regime specific to Chapter II or Article 102. Conduct which is otherwise anti-competitive may however be subject to the general exclusions from the competition prohibitions (see below). It is also a defence for the dominant undertaking to show that its conduct is objectively justified. A dominant undertaking may achieve this by demonstrating that its conduct is objectively necessary or by demonstrating that its conduct produces substantial efficiencies which outweigh any anti-competitive effects on consumers.
2.43. Of particular interest in the railway context is that anti-competitive conduct may, in certain circumstances, be considered objectively necessary for health and safety reasons related to the nature of the product or service in question. We will draw upon our significant knowledge of health and safety in the railways sector in determining the merits of such arguments.
D. General exclusions to the competition prohibitions
2.44. In addition to the exemptions noted above there are a number of general exclusions from the competition prohibitions which apply regardless of the category of conduct. It is for businesses to self-assess whether conduct is excluded from the application
______________________________________________________________________
63 See the Commission’s Article 102 Enforcement Priorities Guidance, paragraphs 28 to 31 of the competition prohibitions or whether conduct which may otherwise infringe the competition prohibitions may nonetheless benefit from the application of an exclusion.
i. Services of general economic interest
2.45. Conduct which is carried out by undertakings entrusted (by a public authority)(^{64}) with the operation of services of general economic interest (SGEI) or which have the character of monopolies producing revenue for the State are excluded from the application of the competition prohibitions insofar as the application of those prohibitions(^{65}) would obstruct the performance, in law or fact, of the particular tasks assigned to the undertaking(^{66}).
2.46. It is ultimately for businesses to self-assess whether their conduct, which may otherwise be prohibited, benefits from the SGEI exclusion.
2.47. We consider that the legal threshold for establishing that the SGEI exclusion should apply is a high one. In considering any argument that the SGEI exclusion should apply, we will have regard to the guidelines adopted by the CMA(^{67}).
2.48. We note that this exclusion may be relevant in the franchised passenger rail transport sector, to the extent that transport services provided pursuant to a public service contract (i.e. franchise agreement) may, in certain circumstances, be classified as a SGEI(^{68}). When considering the application of the exclusion in this context, we will take into account the extent to which the relevant service is a specified part of the franchise agreement, the nature of the obligation placed on the franchisee by virtue of that agreement, the degree and nature of competition, and the wider market structure. We will also consider on a case by case basis the extent to which a franchisee has the character of a revenue producing monopoly and
______________________________________________________________________
(^{64}) In order for a matter to be ‘entrusted’ with the operation of services of a general economic interest, there must have been an act of a public authority
(^{65}) The exclusion also dis-applies other rules contained in the European Treaties
(^{66}) Article 106(2) TFEU
(^{67}) OFT421, Services of a general economic interest exclusion, (December 2004) https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/services-of-general-economic-interest-exclusion
(^{68}) We will carefully consider the criteria set out in Case C-280/00 Altmark [2003] ECR I-7747, [2003] 3 CMLR 339 which considered that there was no ‘advantage’ by way of a state aid if compensation is paid to an undertaking to discharge public service obligations in the following circumstances: (i) the recipient of compensation must actually have clearly defined public service obligations to discharge; (ii) the basis of compensation must be established in advance in an objective and transparent manner; (iii) the compensation cannot exceed the costs incurred in discharging the public service obligation (and taking into account the relevant receipts and also a reasonable profit margin); and (iv) where there is no public procurement procedure, the level of compensation must be determined by comparison with what a typical undertaking might incur whether the application of the competition prohibitions would obstruct the tasks assigned to it.
ii. Agreements and conduct which are subject to legal direction
2.49. In situations where national legislation or the legal framework created by such legislation requires undertakings to engage in certain conduct, and operates to entirely eliminate the possibility of competitive activity or autonomy on the part of the undertaking, the undertaking itself will not be in violation of the competition rules for carrying out the conduct required of it(^69). However, to the extent that an undertaking has any autonomy within a legal regime, or in situations where there is some scope for residual competition, the competition prohibitions will apply to the undertaking's conduct.
2.50. Therefore undertakings remain responsible for ensuring that their conduct does not infringe the competition prohibitions, even in cases where there has been an approval of conduct under sector specific legislation by a regulator (for instance in relation to pricing practices). We will consider, when applying the competition prohibitions, the extent that the undertaking has a degree of discretion within the limits set by the regulator and/or has the ability to revert to the regulator for further authorisation(^70).
2.51. In the railways sector there are agreements entered into by railway undertakings to meet licence obligations or by virtue of directions pursuant to sections 16A, 17, 18, 19, 19A (and Schedule 4A), 22A and 22C of the Railways Act(^71). We consider that conduct carried out as a result of these agreements will only be excluded from the application of the competition prohibitions to the extent that such conduct engaged in by undertakings relates specifically to meeting legal requirements placed on them by such licence obligations or directions which can be met in no other way.
______________________________________________________________________
(^69) *Commission and France v Ladbroke Racing* [1997] ECR I-6265, 4 [CMLR] 27
(^70) *Deutsche Telekom v Commission* [2010] ECR I-09555
(^71) Namely: section 16A (directions to provide, improve or develop railway facilities); sections 17,18 and 19 (directions to enter into access agreements or installation access contracts); section 19A and Schedule 4A (directions to amend access agreements following a review by ORR of access charges); and sections 22A and 22C (directions to amend an access agreement following an application by the beneficiary, or to give effect to conditions of a licence) E. Franchising
2.52. The franchise process is one where potential competitors compete to offer a range of services over a group of routes(^{72}). This process means that there is ‘competition for the market’ as opposed to significant levels of competition in the market. Potential franchisees need to assess their expectation of overall costs and revenues which they will be able to achieve. The Department will regulate certain fares by price caps or tariff baskets whilst leaving other fares unregulated, and will also specify service levels, for example frequency of trains on any given route.
2.53. When considering competition complaints about services which fall within a franchise package (for example passenger rail fares), we will have regard to the fact that there has been competition for the market; however we will also consider the length of time that has passed since such competition took place, the number of participants in the franchising competition and the extent to which the franchisee has exercised its discretion within the parameters set by the franchise agreement.
(^{72}) The most common form of passenger rail franchises in Great Britain are contracts which the franchisee (rail transport operator) enters into with the Department for Transport (the Department) following a competitive tender process conducted by the Department. There are other forms of contracts entered into by way of competition ‘for the market’. We will assess the application of competition law to each form of franchise process on a case by case basis. Chapter 3 – Prioritisation, choice of tool, and relationship with sector specific regulation
Summary
This Chapter sets out how we will prioritise competition enforcement cases and how we will determine whether to use powers under the Act or use sector specific legislation.
A. Introduction
3.1. Our competition enforcement powers operate in parallel to a number of other regulatory tools which we may utilise in discharging our duties as an economic regulator. These regulatory tools include:
- consumer law enforcement powers;
- licensing powers (both in terms of modifications to licences and the enforcement of licence breaches);
- regulation of access to services and facilities on the rail network, including track access and access to stations and light maintenance depots, through the approval of access agreements; and
- setting the efficient price for delivery of performance and investment in the railways and monitoring and enforcing delivery of regulated outputs.
3.2. We have published separate guidance in relation to our licence enforcement functions and will publish separately our approach to regulating access to services and facilities on the rail network.
B. Prioritisation criteria
3.3. We apply prioritisation principles to help us focus our resource in a way that will deliver most value from our interventions. When applying the prioritisation principles in the context of discharging our concurrent functions under the Act, we will afford particular weight to prioritising the protection of consumers and other users of railway services. The weight attached to each of the criteria will also be influenced by our strategic objectives. Otherwise, the criteria below are not ordered by priority or significance.
3.4. Our prioritisation criteria are:
73 Available at http://orr.gov.uk/news-and-media/news-and-announcements/2015/rail-and-road-users-at-heart-of-orrss-approach-to-enforcement
- **Strategic significance** – We will consider how our intervention will deliver outcomes which are in line with our strategic objectives; for example to secure value for money from the railway, for users and funders.
- **Is ORR better/best placed to act** – We will examine whether an investigation is best carried out by ORR. We work in partnership with a number of concurrent competition authorities, most notably through the UKCN. Consideration of this criterion will typically involve determining which regulator is better or best placed to investigate according to the factors set out in CMA10 (the concurrency guidance)(^74).
- **Impact** – An important consideration for us will be the likely impact of our intervention. Factors which we will take into consideration in measuring that impact include:
- the actual or potential level of harm (which, depending on the circumstances, could be harm to passengers, taxpayers or other users of the railways);
- evidence to suggest a systemic issue, rather than an isolated incident;
- circumstances that suggest conduct that is recurrent and/or on-going;
- whether the conduct in question is leading or could lead to inefficiencies in the market, either in terms of costs or end prices to consumers; and
- the likely deterrent effect or any other beneficial effects, such as raised awareness amongst consumers. This impact can be in the market in question or in related markets.
- **Costs** – We will estimate the internal and external costs attached to our intervention. The internal costs will include any opportunity costs (for example, knock-on effects on ORR’s current and future portfolio of strategic work). It is important that the costs of our intervention are proportionate to the impact that we are seeking.
- **Risks** – We will adopt a risk-based approach when assessing whether or not a matter constitutes a priority. The risks that we will consider include:
- the probability of a successful outcome particularly in terms of better outcomes for taxpayers, passengers or other users of the railways; the legal risks, notably the strength of the evidence available or likely to become available during the investigation; and
______________________________________________________________________
(^74) Under the current domestic concurrency arrangements a case will be allocated to the regulator that is better/best placed to exercise the concurrent competition enforcement powers. CMA10 contains a list of factors relevant to determining which regulator is ‘better/best placed’ at paragraph 3.22. Where Article 101 and/or Article 102 may apply, a case will also be subject to the case allocation principles for determining whether the United Kingdom NCA or a NCA from another Member State is best placed to act. the impact of our decisions on our reputation, since credibility plays an important role in the overall effectiveness of the regime.
3.5. The list of criteria set out above is not exhaustive and we may consider other factors where appropriate. We will keep our prioritisation assessment of any particular case under review.
3.6. If we decide not to open an investigation into a matter under the Act on prioritisation grounds, it would nonetheless remain open to the CMA, or any other regulator with concurrent jurisdiction in relation to the matter in question, to take action under the Act, following consultation with us.
C. Choice of tool
3.7. Anti-competitive agreements or abusive conduct in the railways sector may breach conditions or requirements in licence agreements, or may give rise to grounds for us to take action under one, or a range, of our sector specific regulatory powers. There are therefore many conceivable circumstances in which we could proceed to address problems or issues that have come to our attention either by way of our powers under the Act or by using our sector specific tools.
3.8. In certain circumstances we are required to give ‘primacy’ to pursuing enforcement action under the Act. This ‘primacy’ duty stipulates that we must, before making a final order or confirming a provisional order for the purpose of securing compliance with a licence condition or requirement, consider whether it would be more appropriate to proceed under the Act. We must not make a final order or make or confirm a provisional order if we consider it would be more appropriate to proceed under the Act.(^75)
3.9. In practice we will, at an early stage, both in relation to licensing and other matters, determine on a case by case basis which tool is most appropriate to deal with the particular issues being raised. The appropriateness of the tool being utilised to address a particular issue will be kept under review at regular stages in enforcement cases.
3.10. The overriding principle is that we will seek to use the most effective, efficient and expeditious solution where an issue is found to exist. In order to make this assessment we will have regard to our prioritisation criteria with particular consideration of:
- the resource and timing implications of the tool being used;
- the potential outcomes which may be achieved; and
(^75) Sections 55(5A) and (5AA) of the Railways Act any other advantages or disadvantages between using particular tools, for example potential deterrent effect and establishing case precedent.
i. Procedure
3.11. We will endeavour to keep interested parties informed of what powers we are using in relation to on-going investigations. If we decide midway through an investigation to investigate under different powers, we will write to all parties involved and explain our reasons for switching between powers.
3.12. We will inform the CMA of all cases which we could have taken under the Act, even if ultimately we decide to deal with the case under sector specific legislation.
D. Inter-relationship with sector specific regulation
i. Safety
3.13. Alongside our economic functions we also regulate health and safety for the entire mainline rail network in Great Britain, as well as the London Underground, light rail, trams and the heritage sector. As well as giving advice to the industry, we also have a range of formal enforcement powers given to us under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 197476.
3.14. In cases raising issues relating to safety, for instance where compliance with health and safety law is raised as a possible justification for otherwise anti-competitive conduct, we will draw upon our expertise of enforcing health and safety law in a railway context.
3.15. In considering arguments that otherwise anti-competitive conduct is justified on health and safety grounds, we will take into account that it is usually for public authorities to set and enforce public health and safety standards. It is not the task of undertakings to take steps on their own initiative to exclude products or services which they regard, rightly or wrongly, as dangerous or inferior to their own or alternatives77.
ii. EU Railway Packages
3.16. The European Commission has recognised that differing frameworks and technical and operational standards across Member States can create barriers to competitive entry, which can frustrate the policy of liberalisation of rail markets in the EU. It has therefore enacted a number of railways packages which have been transposed into
76 http://orr.gov.uk/what-and-how-we-regulate/health-and-safety/health-and-safety-enforcement 77 The Commission's Article 102 Enforcement Priorities Guidance paragraph 29; Hilti v Commission [1991] ECR II-1439 paragraphs 118 to 119 UK law to establish sector specific tools aimed at liberalising railway markets and harmonising standards across Member States.
3.17. An example of a measure adopted under the railways packages is Directive 2012/34/EU (the Directive) which has the objective of strengthening further the governance of railway infrastructure, thereby enhancing the competitiveness of the railways sector vis-à-vis other modes of transport. When implemented into UK law the Directive will give us powers (exercisable on our own initiative) to monitor the competitive situation in rail services markets and control arrangements for access to rail infrastructure and services. Guidance on our approach to monitoring and reviewing markets is being produced separately; we are also preparing guidance in relation to how we will discharge our functions in relation to access to infrastructure.
______________________________________________________________________
78 For more information, see [http://ec.europa.eu/transport/modes/rail/market/index_en.htm](http://ec.europa.eu/transport/modes/rail/market/index_en.htm)
79 Directive 2012/34/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 establishing a single European railway area (recast) (OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, p.32)
80 The Department is currently consulting on the transposition of the Directive into UK law [https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/recast-first-railway-package](https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/recast-first-railway-package)
81 We expect to consult on separate guidance shortly after the transposition of the Directive Chapter 4 – Conduct of an investigation
Summary
This Chapter sets out how we expect to conduct investigations under the Act, and explains the possible outcomes of investigations.
A. Introduction
4.1. In conducting investigations under the Act we are required to follow the procedural rules set out in the CMA Rules. We will also have regard to the CMA’s guidance on investigation procedures. This guidance is intended to be a supplement to those documents and explain our particular approach to conducting investigations under the Act.
i. Transparency and proportionate use of powers
4.2. We aim to exercise our functions in a transparent manner. As such we aim to ensure that appropriate information is provided on our decision making process and that we are open and accessible to affected stakeholders. This applies throughout the course of any investigation which we undertake. Interested parties are encouraged to make representations to us at appropriate times during the course of investigations and otherwise engage with us so as to assist our decision making in cases.
4.3. We are committed to carrying out our investigations and making decisions in a procedurally fair, transparent and proportionate manner.
ii. The Procedural Officer
4.4. Parties who are aggrieved by any procedural step we take during our investigations have recourse to a procedural complaints process. Such complaints are determined by a Procedural Officer.
B. Opening an investigation
4.5. In order to open an investigation we must have reasonable grounds for suspecting that at least one of the competition prohibitions is being infringed, or has been infringed at some time in the past (the ‘Reasonable Suspicion’ test).
______________________________________________________________________
82 CMA8, Competition Act 1998 Guidance on the CMA’s investigation procedures in Competition Act 1998 cases, (March 2014) https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/guidance-on-the-cmas-investigation-procedures-in-competition-act-1998-cases
83 To be appointed as and when necessary. The identity of the Procedural Officer will be communicated to relevant parties as soon as possible after an appointment is made. CMA Rules, Rule 8; see also CMA8, Chapter 15 4.6. We may launch an investigation under the Act in response to a complaint made or information supplied by a customer, a competitor, a party to a possible infringement (for example a leniency applicant), or another third party (for example, a whistle-blower). Details of how to make a complaint about a possible infringement of the competition prohibitions are set out on our website(^{85}).
4.7. We may also decide to investigate a possible breach on our own initiative, for example following a market review or other research undertaken by us.
4.8. Designated consumer bodies(^{86}) may make ‘super-complaints’ to sectoral regulators, where there are or appear to be market features that may be significantly harming consumers. A super-complaint may be made to us in relation to the rail industry. We will have 90 calendar days to respond to a super-complainant stating whether we will take action and what that action is likely to be. Only designated consumer bodies can make a super-complaint(^{87}).
i. Formal complainant status
4.9. We will grant formal complainant status to any person who has submitted a written, reasoned, complaint to us and whose interests are likely to be materially affected by the subject matter of the complaint. Formal complainants will have the opportunity to be involved in key stages of the case and, where appropriate, will be kept updated in writing and orally about the status of the investigation.
4.10. Individuals who make complaints but do not wish to have formal complainant status should inform us of this in writing. We will typically withdraw formal complainant status in response to such requests.
ii. Initial enquiry phase
4.11. In appropriate cases we may undertake an ‘initial enquiry phase’ in order to determine whether the threshold for opening an investigation is met. Any resources dedicated to an initial enquiry phase will be proportionate and commensurate with our continued assessment of the merits of the case and its likelihood of ultimately constituting an administrative priority for ORR(^{88}).
______________________________________________________________________
(^{84}) Section 25 of the Act
(^{85}) [http://orr.gov.uk/what-and-how-we-regulate/competition/competition-issues/how-to-complain-under-competition-law](http://orr.gov.uk/what-and-how-we-regulate/competition/competition-issues/how-to-complain-under-competition-law)
(^{86}) Entities designated as consumer bodies include: the Consumer Association; National Consumer Council; Citizens Advice; Energywatch; Consumer Council for Water; Postwatch; CAMRA and General Consumer Council for Northern Ireland
(^{87}) Further guidance on super-complaints is available in OFT514, Super-complaints, (July 2003) [https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/how-consumer-bodies-can-make-super-complaints](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/how-consumer-bodies-can-make-super-complaints)
(^{88}) See ‘Prioritisation Criteria’ above 4.12. The initial enquiry phase may include engaging further with complainants, and, where there is minimal risk of any future investigation being jeopardised, may involve engaging with third parties and the party(ies) who may have committed an infringement. We may make informal requests for information at this stage; however, as our formal information powers under the Act are not engaged prior to the opening of an investigation, parties are not required by law to respond to our requests.
4.13. Where there is more than a minimal risk of any prospective investigation being jeopardised, for example where we would expect to utilise our powers to conduct a site inspection in order to obtain evidence which otherwise might be destroyed or difficult to obtain, we will not engage in any initial enquiries with third parties or the party(ies) who may have committed an infringement.
iii. Informing the CMA and the European Commission
4.14. If we determine, in relation to any matter, that the Reasonable Suspicion test is met, we will inform the CMA within 7 workings days in order to commence the case allocation procedure. We will inform the CMA of each case which we consider meets the threshold for opening an investigation.
4.15. We will inform the European Commission if we open an investigation involving the application of Article 101 and/or Article 102 TFEU. If we have already opened an investigation, the European Commission will consult us before exercising its power to take over the investigation.
vi. Communication with parties
4.16. If we decide to open an investigation under the Act, we will generally send the businesses under investigation a case initiation letter setting out brief details of the conduct which we are investigating, the relevant legislation, our indicative proposed timescale, and our relevant contact details.
v. Warning letters
4.17. In some cases we may consider it appropriate to deal with suspected infringements of competition law which do not constitute an administrative priority for ORR by issuing a warning letter. A warning letter will set out, amongst other things, that we have been made aware of a possible breach of competition law and although we are not currently minded to pursue an investigation at that stage, we may do so in future if we receive further evidence of a suspected infringement or if our prioritisation assessment changes.
______________________________________________________________________
89 Article 11(3) of Regulation 1/2003 90 Article 11(6) of Regulation 1/2003 C. The case team and decision making
4.18. We will assemble a case team to conduct the investigation, which is likely to consist of a case officer, lawyers, economists and others with the necessary expertise from across ORR, depending on the issues raised by the matter being investigated. For example, in cases involving access issues or those raising issues about safety we may include specialists from those areas of ORR within the case team, or ensure that the case team draws upon their experience as appropriate.
4.19. Each case team will always include a Senior Responsible Officer (SRO), the identity of whom will be notified to the parties as soon as practicable. During the course of the investigation, the SRO will have the responsibility of taking decisions in relation to whether:
- there is sufficient evidence to issue a Statement of Objections;
- to close the case on the grounds of administrative priorities;
- to make an interim measures direction;
- to accept commitments offered by a party under investigation; and
- the case is appropriate for settlement.
D. Keeping parties informed
i. Publishing a timetable
4.20. We will publish indicative timetables for on-going investigations on our website. We will update case timetables where changes occur during the course of investigations. We will also, where possible and subject to the confidential nature of cases, provide broad details of the nature of the case under investigation.
ii. Communication with parties
4.21. The amount and frequency of communications with the party under investigation will vary depending on a number of factors, including the number of parties under investigation, the extent to which they co-operate with us and the complexity of the conduct under investigation.
4.22. Typically we will, as a minimum, hold ‘state of play’ meetings at appropriate points with each party under investigation. The proposed estimated dates of state of play meetings will be included on our published timetables. The first state of play meeting will usually take place soon after an investigation is opened.
4.23. State of play meetings are an opportunity for those being investigated to meet with the case team and the SRO. In state of play meetings we will keep each party informed of the stage the investigation has reached and provide information on the next steps in the investigation and proposed timings. We will provide as much information as possible to parties under investigation as is appropriate, bearing in mind any restrictions due to confidentiality and market sensitivity. We will endeavour, where it is appropriate to do so, to appraise parties of our preliminary thinking in relation to key aspects of the matter being investigated.
4.24. In addition to state of play meetings, we will provide, as appropriate, additional updates to parties under investigation either by telephone or in writing.
iii. Communication with complainants
4.25. Complainants will not, as a matter of course, be offered formal state of play meetings. We would expect however to provide regular updates to complainants either by telephone or in writing where it is appropriate to do so.
E. Information gathering and sharing
i. Information gathering powers under the Act
4.26. Once we have opened an investigation under the Act(^91) we have a number of formal information gathering powers. Further detail on our information gathering powers is set out in the CMA’s guidance(^92). In summary, under the Act our information gathering powers include that we:
- can issue requests for information and documents (commonly referred to as section 26 notices);
- can conduct compulsory interviews with any individual connected to a business under investigation; and
- have the power to enter business and domestic premises, require the production of documents and take copies of documents. Such entry may be either with or (for business premises) without a warrant. If we have received a warrant, we may search for and seize documents.
4.27. The CMA’s guidance describes the limits on its information gathering powers under the Act(^93). These limits also apply to us. As such we:
- cannot require the production or disclosure of privileged communications; and
- cannot force a business to provide answers that would require an admission that it has infringed the law.
______________________________________________________________________
(^91) Under section 25 of the Act
(^92) See CMA 8, Chapters 6 and 7 and OFT404, Powers of investigation, (December 2004) [https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/cma-powers-of-investigation-of-anti-competitive-behaviour](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/cma-powers-of-investigation-of-anti-competitive-behaviour)
(^93) See CMA 8, Chapter 7 ii. Use of information gathered under the sector specific powers
4.28. There may be circumstances in which information gathered using our sector specific powers may be utilised for the purposes of enforcing the competition prohibitions; though once we have launched an investigation under the Act (or transferred a case for enforcement under the Act), we would expect to use our powers under the Act.
4.29. Our information gathering powers under sector specific legislation are primarily contained in the Railways Act, or are otherwise governed by its provisions. There are restrictions on the disclosure by ORR of information it has obtained under or by virtue of the Railways Act and which relates to the affairs of a business or an individual unless consent for such disclosure has been obtained from that business or individual. However, the Railways Act(^94) does permit disclosure for the purpose of facilitating the carrying out by ORR of any of its functions under the Railways Act and the Transport Act 2000, including our concurrent competition powers. Therefore we can use or disclose information gathered under the Railways Act to facilitate our functions under the Act.
4.30. Similarly, Part 9 of the Enterprise Act restricts disclosure of information which has been obtained under the Act(^95) if such information relates to the affairs of any individual or to any business of an undertaking, unless a relevant statutory gateway is available – for example, the individual or business concerned gives its consent(^96) or the disclosure is made for the purpose of facilitating the performance of any function ORR has by virtue of any enactment(^97). It is possible for information obtained by us in the course of an investigation under the Act to be disclosed by us to facilitate our regulatory functions under the Railways Act(^98).
4.31. Before making any such disclosure, we must have regard to three considerations(^99):
- the need to exclude from disclosure (so far as practicable) any information whose disclosure we think is contrary to the public interest;
- the need to exclude from disclosure (so far as practicable):
______________________________________________________________________
(^94) Section 145(2) of the Railways Act (^95) Sections 237 and 238 of the Enterprise Act (^96) Sections 239(3) and (4) of the Enterprise Act (^97) Section 241(1) of Enterprise Act (^98) Under Schedule 15 of the Enterprise Act, which lists both the Act and the Railways Act as enactments conferring functions (^99) Section 244 of the Enterprise Act commercial information the disclosure of which we think might significantly harm the legitimate business interests of the undertaking to which it relates; or
information relating to the private affairs of an individual the disclosure of which we think might significantly harm the individual’s interests; and
the extent to which the disclosure of the information is necessary for the purpose for which we are permitted to make the disclosure.
iii. Freedom of Information Act
4.32. The Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) gives any person the right to request non-published information from us, as a public authority. We, as an organisation, are committed to openness and transparency; however, we recognise that we will obtain information in the context of competition investigations that should not be widely disclosed, or in some circumstances not disclosed at all.
4.33. Where information obtained by us in the course of investigations made under the Act falls within the prohibition on disclosure contained in Part 9 of the Enterprise Act, such information would be exempt from disclosure under section 44 of the FOIA. This provides that where the disclosure of information is “prohibited by another enactment” it is considered exempt information for the purposes of the FOIA100.
4.34. We might also seek to rely on other absolute or qualified exemptions contained within the FOIA, including:
- section 31(1)(g) of the FOIA, which allows us to withhold information if we consider that its disclosure would, or would be likely to, prejudice our ability to exercise our statutory functions for the purposes set out at section 31(2) of the FOIA. This is a qualified exemption and is subject to a test of whether, in all the circumstances, the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information; and
- section 32 of the FOIA, which provides an absolute exemption where the requested information is held by a public authority in a document placed in the custody of a person conducting an inquiry, for the purposes of that inquiry.
______________________________________________________________________
100 To benefit from the section 44 exemption in FOIA, information must fall within the general prohibition on disclosure in section 237 of the Enterprise Act. To fall within the prohibition information must be specified information, namely it came to a public authority pursuant to a number of prescribed functions (including enforcement of the Act). Such specified information must also relate to the affairs of a living individual or the business of an undertaking which remains in existence. iv. Exchange of information and restrictions on use of information
4.35. As a designated NCA we are required to carry out our EU competition law functions in close cooperation with our European competition partners(^{101}). We may, for instance, share confidential information with the European Commission and NCAs of other Member States(^{102}). Prior to sharing any information in accordance with this obligation we will have regard to the provisions in Part 9 of the Enterprise Act(^{103}).
4.36. NCAs of Member States, when applying Articles 101 and 102, are permitted to provide each other with, and use in evidence, any matter of fact or law (including confidential information)(^{104}). The information may only be used as evidence in the application of Articles 101 or 102 TFEU(^{105}) and in respect of the specific investigation for which it was collected by the original NCA. Information gathered from another member of the ECN during the course of an investigation under the Act enjoys a similar degree of protection and therefore should not be used for any other purpose.
4.37. The exchange of information between ORR and the CMA is permitted both for the purpose of determining who has jurisdiction to exercise functions under the Act(^{106}) in relation to a case under the Act and/or EU law, and generally for the purpose of facilitating the performance by us of our concurrent competition functions(^{107}).
v. Penalties for non-compliance
4.38. We may impose penalties if parties fail to comply with our information gathering powers without reasonable excuse(^{108}). In determining whether to proceed, we will follow the CMA’s policy on administrative penalties(^{109}). In addition, it is a criminal
______________________________________________________________________
(^{101}) Article 11(1) of Regulation 1/2003
(^{102}) Article 12(1) and (2) of Regulation 1/2003. Information shared under this provision may only be used by the recipient NCA for the purposes of applying the EU competition prohibitions. However if national competition law is applied in parallel to the EU prohibitions, and does not lead to a different outcome, the information may also be used for the purposes of applying national competition laws. Further guidance on the operation of information sharing within the ECN is set out in the Commission Notice on cooperation within the Network of Competition Authorities (OJ 2004 C 101 p.3)
(^{103}) Notably the considerations in section 244 of the Enterprise Act
(^{104}) Article 12 of Regulation 1/2003
(^{105}) Or national competition law, subject to the criteria at footnote 104 above
(^{106}) Namely, Part 1 functions which are any functions under the Act which are or would be exercisable concurrently (see the definition in regulation 2 of the Concurrency Regulations).
(^{107}) Regulation 3 and 9 of the Concurrency Regulations; CMA10 paragraphs 3.41 to 3.62; and, the Memorandum of Understanding paragraphs 37 to 48
(^{108}) Section 40A of the Act
(^{109}) CMA4, Administrative Penalties: Statement of Policy on the CMA’s approach, (January 2014) https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/administrative-penalties-statement-of-policy-on-the-cmas-approach offence to provide false or misleading information, or to destroy, falsify or conceal documents (subject to certain statutory conditions\\textsuperscript{110}).
**F. Interim measures**
4.39. We have the power to require a party to comply with temporary directions, called ‘interim measures’, where an investigation has been started but not yet concluded and we consider it necessary to act urgently either to prevent significant damage to a person or category of persons, or in order to protect the public interest\\textsuperscript{111}.
4.40. We can impose interim measures on our own initiative or in response to a request to do so. If a person wishes to make an interim measures application, they should contact the case team leader and provide sufficient information to demonstrate the need for interim measures.
4.41. In considering an application for interim measures we will follow the procedure outlined in the CMA’s guidance\\textsuperscript{112} which outlines rights for representations to be made by applicants and the party against whom an interim measure is sought. Each application will be assessed on a case by case basis, with determinations made by the SRO. In determining whether or not to impose interim measures in any particular case we will seek to ensure that:
- any interim measures are imposed only where specific conduct or behaviour is identified which we consider is causing or is likely to cause significant damage\\textsuperscript{113} to a particular person or category of person, or is likely to be contrary to the public interest; and
- any interim measures prevent, limit or remedy the significant damage identified by ORR and are proportionate to address any significant damage which is being caused or is likely to be caused.
**G. Possible outcomes following investigations**
4.42. There are a number of possible outcomes which may arise following an investigation. Each of these possible outcomes is addressed below.
\\textsuperscript{110} Sections 43 and 44 of the Act
\\textsuperscript{111} Section 35 of the Act
\\textsuperscript{112} CMA8, Chapter 8
\\textsuperscript{113} We consider damage may include actual or potential: financial loss; restrictions on obtaining supplies; or, loss of goodwill. Damage will be significant where a particular person or category of persons is or is likely to be restricted in their ability to compete effectively in the market(s) such that this is causing or is likely to cause significant damage to their commercial position i. Issue a statement of objections
4.43. If the SRO reaches the provisional view that the conduct under investigation amounts to an infringement of competition law, the SRO can decide to issue a Statement of Objections to each business under investigation.
4.44. We will generally follow the CMA’s approach in relation to the issue of a Statement of Objections. We will normally announce the issue of a Statement of Objections on our website and on the Regulatory News Service. However depending on the circumstances of the case and any market sensitivities, we may vary the extent of publication or decide not to announce the issue of the Statement of Objections.
4.45. The Statement of Objections sets out our provisional view based on our legal and economic assessment of the case. It also sets out our proposed next steps, and gives the business under investigation an opportunity to know the full case against it and to respond formally in writing and orally. The processes to be followed and possible outcomes following a Statement of Objections are set out in Chapter 5, below.
ii. Closing a case on the grounds of administrative priorities
4.46. At any time before or after issuing a Statement of Objections, the SRO may decide that a formal investigation no longer merits the continued allocation of resources. At regular intervals throughout an investigation the merits of continuing the case will be assessed against our prioritisation principles.
4.47. If the SRO decides that a case no longer constitutes an administrative priority, we will inform the business under investigation as well as any formal complainants in writing and set out our reasons for not taking forward the investigation. We will give formal complainants an opportunity, usually within two to four weeks, to submit representations and any additional information. Businesses under investigation will also be allowed the same time frame to submit representations.
4.48. After considering any representations and further evidence received, the SRO will reach a view on whether to close the case. If the SRO decides to close the case on the grounds of administrative priorities, we will inform the business under investigation. In appropriate cases we may issue a warning letter stating that although we are not minded to pursue the investigation further at the current time, we may pursue an investigation in the future. We will always reserve the right to keep our prioritisation decisions under review.
4.49. A decision to de-prioritise a case by us is not binding on other competition authorities (e.g. the CMA and the European Commission). Other competition
______________________________________________________________________
114 CMA8, Chapter 11 authorities with the requisite jurisdiction may wish to undertake an investigation in relation to a matter otherwise deprioritised by us.
iii. Issuing a no grounds for action decision
4.50. If the SRO considers that there is insufficient evidence of a competition law infringement the SRO may issue a decision that there are no grounds for action. In such a case, we will provide a non-confidential provisional version of our proposed ‘non-infringement’ decision to any formal complainant(s). We will invite representations from any formal complainants within a time frame of two to four weeks. We will consider any representations made before proceeding to make a non-infringement decision or not.
iv. Accepting commitments on future conduct
4.51. The SRO may accept commitments from one or more businesses for the purposes of addressing the competition concerns that we are investigating in a particular case. Commitments may be offered at any time during a case; however, the SRO is less likely to exercise their discretion to accept commitments the further a case has progressed.
4.52. Commitments constitute binding promises from a business in relation to its future conduct. We will follow the CMA’s guidance on the circumstances in which it is appropriate to accept commitments.
4.53. If the SRO accepts commitments we will discontinue our investigation and we cannot make a final decision or give a direction. However, we can continue the investigation, make a decision or give a direction if we have reasonable grounds:
- to believe that there has been a material change of circumstances since the commitments were accepted;
- to suspect that a business has not adhered to the commitments it has accepted; or
- to suspect that the information that led us to accept the commitments was incomplete, false, or misleading in a material particular.
4.54. We will give notice of any proposal to accept commitments and allow at least eleven working days for interested parties to give their views on the proposed commitments. Where appropriate, we will have a meeting with each business that
______________________________________________________________________
115 Section 31A of the Act 116 Once a case has formally begun, but before any infringement decision has been made 117 See OFT407 paragraphs 4.1 to 4.28; and, CMA8 paragraphs 10.15 to 10.23 118 Section 31B(2) of the Act (giving a direction would include ordering interim measures) offered commitments to inform them of the general nature of responses received. If necessary we will indicate whether we consider that changes are required to the commitments before we would consider accepting them. If the parties offering commitments offer material modifications to the proposed commitments, we will allow interested third parties a further period of at least six working days in which to comment on the modified commitments.
4.55. The SRO will make the decision as to whether to accept commitments. Once accepted we will publish the commitments, and a decision explaining our reasons for accepting commitments, on our website.
v. Informing the CMA and the European Commission
4.56. We will share a draft notice, decision or copy of commitments with the CMA and any other competition authority with concurrent jurisdiction prior to:
- issuing a Statement of Objections;
- making a decision or publishing a notice of intention to accept commitments;
- issuing an infringement decision;
- issuing a non-infringement decision; or
- making any decision not to proceed with an investigation (including on administrative priority grounds)(^{119}).
4.57. We will allow concurrent regulators ten working days to provide comments on the relevant documents shared with them. We will take into account any comments provided before reaching any final determination.
4.58. We will also, no less than 30 days before the adoption of a decision accepting commitments, inform the European Commission and provide sufficient information for the European Commission to assess the case(^{120}). We will take into account any comments provided by the European Commission before making any final determination.
(^{119}) The full list of scenarios in which we would share a draft with concurrent competition authorities is set out at Regulation 9 of the Concurrency Regulations
(^{120}) Article 11(4) of Regulation 1/2003 Chapter 5 – After a Statement of Objections
Summary
This Chapter sets out the procedure we will follow in cases where we have issued a Statement of Objections and our approach to determining appropriate outcomes.
A. Right to reply
5.1. Businesses who receive a Statement of Objections have the opportunity to exercise their rights of defence (otherwise known as the ‘right to reply’). The stages in this process and the approach we will take to allow parties to exercise this right are set out below.
i. Appointment of a case decision group
5.2. The right to reply involves the opportunity to make oral and written representations to a case decision group (CDG). This group consists of at least two expert individuals who were not part of the original case team, to be appointed by ORR’s Board on a case by case basis. The role of the CDG is to scrutinise the case as set out in the Statement of Objections and to carefully consider and take into account any representations made by businesses alleged to have infringed/be infringing the competition prohibitions. Parties will be informed of the identities of CDG members when they are appointed.
5.3. The CDG may receive advice and assistance from the original case team but will make its determination independently.
ii. Access to the file
5.4. After issuing a Statement of Objections to a business we will give it a reasonable opportunity (typically six to eight weeks) to inspect the disclosable documents which we have on our case file and which relate to the matters referred to within the Statement of Objections. We will follow the CMA’s guidance in relation to access to the file. We will exclude from disclosure certain confidential information and internal documents. We may also exclude routine administrative documents from the file, for example correspondence setting up meetings.
5.5. We will comply with the provisions in Part 9 of the Enterprise Act 2002 when considering what information is confidential and/or whether it is appropriate for such
______________________________________________________________________
121 CMA Rules, Rules 3(2) and (3) 122 CMA8, Chapter 11 information to be disclosed for the purposes of facilitating our functions under the Act. We consider\\textsuperscript{123} that confidential information is:
- commercial information, disclosure of which might significantly harm the legitimate business interests of the undertaking to which it relates;
- information relating to the private affairs of an individual, disclosure of which might significantly harm the individual’s interests; or
- information, disclosure of which would be contrary to the public interest.
5.6. In order for us to determine what information is confidential, it is our policy to request that third parties who provide information to us indicate which parts of that information they consider to be confidential, in line with the above criteria. We have discretion, even where third parties have claimed confidentiality, to disclose such information if we consider that it is necessary to do so in the exercise of our powers under the Act. Requests to restrict disclosure of confidential information should therefore be supported by reasoned arguments as to what harm would ensue from its disclosure and why.
5.7. We will consider representations on confidentiality from affected parties and assess the merits of each case put before us, following the procedure in the CMA Rules\\textsuperscript{124}. If we propose to disclose confidential information provided by a person, we will inform that person of the proposed disclosure and give them a reasonable opportunity to make representations on the proposed action. We will typically not accept blanket requests for confidentiality (i.e. confidentiality over an entire document, or part of it) and may request that parties specifically redact parts of documents which they consider to be confidential.
5.8. Depending on the nature of the information to be disclosed, we may make use of electronic disclosure techniques, or, where appropriate, utilise data rooms to effect access to file. The arrangements for disclosure of information will be assessed on a case by case basis.
iii. Written representations
5.9. Recipients of a Statement of Objections will have an opportunity to make written representations. We would expect to give parties between eight to twelve weeks to respond to the Statement of Objections, depending upon the complexity of the case. We will ask for a confidential and a non-confidential version of their representations\\textsuperscript{125}.
\\textsuperscript{123} See Enterprise Act 2002 section 244 \\textsuperscript{124} CMA Rules, Rule 7 \\textsuperscript{125} See paragraph 5.6, above, for the principles we will apply 5.10. We may give formal complainants and third parties, who may be able to assist with the CDG’s assessment of the case, an opportunity to submit written representations. In order to facilitate that process we will provide them with a non-confidential version of the Statement of Objections or the particular part on which we are seeking their representations, not usually including annexed documents. Any documents disclosed in this regard should be used solely for the purpose of providing representations to us and should not be disclosed to other third parties.
iv. Oral hearings
5.11. The CDG will invite the parties under investigation to attend an oral hearing to discuss the matters set out in the Statement of Objections. If appropriate, formal complainants may also be invited to attend and make representations at oral hearings. Hearings will be attended by members of the case team as well as the CDG.
5.12. The hearing will be conducted by a duly appointed Procedural Officer.
5.13. We will agree with the party under investigation an agenda for any oral hearing in which it is involved in advance of the hearing. The party under investigation will have an opportunity to highlight to the CDG directly any issues of importance to its case, and to clarify the detail set out in its written representations. Although it is helpful to us if the party under investigation answers the questions raised in the oral hearing, there is no obligation to do so and it is possible to respond to questions in writing following the hearing. A transcript of the hearing will be taken.
5.14. Following the oral hearing, the Procedural Officer will report to the CDG indicating any procedural issues that have been brought to the attention of the Procedural Officer during the investigation and an assessment of the fairness of the procedure followed during the oral hearing126.
C. Steps following oral hearings
5.15. Following an oral hearing, the CDG will consider the Statement of Objections and the representations which have been submitted in writing and orally. It may then take any or all of the steps set out below.
i. Letter of Facts
5.16. If the CDG receives new evidence supporting the objections contained in the Statement of Objections, and the CDG intends to rely on it to establish an infringement, it will put the new evidence to the addressee of the Statement of Objections in a ‘Letter of Facts’ and allow time for it to respond.
126 CMA Rules, Rules 6(6) and (7) ii. Supplementary Statement of Objections
5.17. If the CDG receives new information in response to the Statement of Objections which indicates that there is evidence of a different suspected infringement from that set out in the Statement of Objections, or that there is a material change in the alleged infringement, the CDG will issue a ‘Supplementary Statement of Objections’ setting out the new facts on which it proposes to rely, and giving the addressee an opportunity to respond in writing and orally, and to inspect the new documents.(^{127})
iii. Draft penalty statement
5.18. If the CDG is considering reaching an infringement decision and imposing a financial penalty on a party, it will provide that party with a draft penalty statement(^{128}), which will set out the key aspects relevant to the calculation of the proposed penalty, based on the information available to it at the time. Parties will be given an opportunity to comment on the draft penalty statement in writing and to attend a further oral hearing with the CDG.
D. Possible decisions
5.19. Following consideration of the Statement of Objections and the representations received, the CDG will decide to either issue an infringement decision or a decision that there are no grounds for action.
i. Infringement decision
5.20. If the CDG issues an infringement decision, it will set out the facts on which it relies to prove the infringement and the action which it will take. It will also address the material representations made to us during the course of the investigation. The infringement decision may impose a financial penalty(^{129}) and may issue directions to bring the infringement to an end(^{130}). If a party then fails to comply with our directions, we may seek a court order to enforce the directions(^{131}).
5.21. We would normally issue a press announcement regarding an infringement decision and make an announcement on the Regulatory News Service. We will also publish a summary and a non-confidential version of the infringement decision.
(^{127}) Subject to the considerations listed above in relation to access to the file
(^{128}) CMA Rules, Rule 11
(^{129}) Section 36 of the Act
(^{130}) Sections 32-33 of the Act
(^{131}) Section 34 of the Act ii. No grounds for action
5.22. If the CDG does not find sufficient evidence of a breach of competition law, it will consult any formal complainant. Following any such consultation, the CDG may decide to close the case.
5.23. We would expect to follow the same procedure as for issuing an infringement decision, in terms of publication and announcements.
E. Sanctions for infringement
i. Penalties
5.24. If we find an infringement of competition law we may impose a penalty on the infringing undertaking(s). The infringement decision will explain how the CDG decided on the appropriate level of penalty, having taken into account our statutory obligations in fixing a financial penalty(^{132}) and the parties' written and oral representations on the draft penalty calculation.
5.25. We will follow the CMA’s penalty guidance when setting the amount of a penalty(^{133}).
ii. Settlements
5.26. In the context of enforcement cases under the Act, settlement is the process whereby a business under investigation is prepared to admit that it has infringed competition law and confirms that it accepts that a streamlined ‘right to reply’ procedure will govern the remainder of the investigation of that business's conduct in return for a reduction in its financial penalty.
5.27. We will retain a broad discretion in determining which cases are appropriate for settlement. Businesses do not have a right to settle in any given case. We will follow the CMA’s guidance in relation to: determining which cases are appropriate for settlement; the procedure to be followed in settlement cases; and calculating discounts from financial penalties/granting immunity from sanctions such as competition disqualification orders(^{134}).
5.28. A party wishing to settle will have to admit liability in relation to the nature, scope and duration of its infringement, immediately cease the infringing behaviour and refrain from engaging in the same or similar infringing behaviour. A party wishing to settle will also have to accept that there will be a streamlined administrative process for the remainder of the investigation, including streamlined access to file
______________________________________________________________________
(^{132}) Section 36(7A) of the Act
(^{133}) OFT 423, OFT’s guidance as to the appropriate amount of a penalty, (September 2012) https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/appropriate-ca98-penalty-calculation
(^{134}) CMA8, Chapter 14 arrangements and a streamlined process for making representations. A settling party will have to accept that there will be an infringement decision against it, and that such a decision will remain final and binding\\textsuperscript{135}.
iii. Voluntary redress schemes
5.29. Both we and the CMA are empowered to approve certain voluntary redress schemes\\textsuperscript{136}.
5.30. Approved voluntary redress schemes are a form of alternative dispute resolution. Where a business offers a redress scheme, those affected by the infringement are able to claim compensation through such a scheme without the need to pursue litigation in the courts.
5.31. In cases relating to the provision of services relating to railways, where there is no pre-existing investigation, a person (which may include more than one undertaking applying jointly) who has infringed competition law may apply to ORR or the CMA for approval of a voluntary redress scheme. When either authority proposes to exercise these powers, pursuant to the Concurrency Regulations, it shall liaise with the other authority as appropriate.
5.32. Where potential applications for approval of a scheme relate to a pre-existing decision of ORR or to an on-going ORR investigation, applications for approval should be made to ORR. Similarly, where proposed schemes relate to a pre-existing decision or to an on-going investigation of another UK competition authority, applications should be made to that authority.
5.33. If a potential scheme relates to a pre-existing decision of the European Commission:
- where the product or service concerns the supply of services relating to railways, applicants should apply for approval to ORR in the first instance.
- where the product or service does not concern the supply of services relating to railways and does not relate to an industry over which another regulator has concurrent powers only the CMA will have jurisdiction to consider scheme approval and applications should be made to the CMA.
5.34. ORR has discretion whether or not to consider applications for scheme approval. In exercising its discretion ORR will have regard to its prioritisation criteria.
\\textsuperscript{135} Unless the party concerned successfully appeals the decision
\\textsuperscript{136} Competition Act 1998 (Redress Scheme) Regulations 2015, (S.I. 2015, No.1587) 5.35. Applications received by the CMA may be transferred to ORR and applications received by ORR may be transferred to either the CMA or another regulator, where appropriate. Any such transfer shall have regard to the Concurrency Regulations and other relevant rules.
5.36. Where ORR is deemed to be best placed to deal with an application for approval of a voluntary redress scheme (under the Concurrency Regulations and the Concurrency Guidance) it will follow the CMA’s guidance on the approval of such schemes.(^{137})
iv. Directions
5.37. If we have made a decision that one of the competition prohibitions has been infringed, we may impose directions on the infringing parties which we consider are appropriate to bring the infringement to an end. If a party subject to directions fails to comply with them, we may apply to the court for an order requiring the relevant party to make good their default.
v. Competition disqualification orders
5.38. We can make an application to the court for a competition disqualification order to be made against any director of a company which we have found to be in breach of competition law.(^{138}) Such an order will be made by the court if it finds that the conduct of the director in connection with that breach against whom the order is sought makes him unfit to be concerned in the management of a company.
5.39. Before making such an application, we will give notice to the director concerned and give that person an opportunity to make representations.(^{139})
vi. Informing the CMA and the European Commission
5.40. We will share a draft copy of any proposed infringement decision with any other competition authority with concurrent jurisdiction prior to finalising the decision. We will allow concurrent regulators 10 working days to provide comments on the draft infringement decision shared with them. We will take into account any comments provided before reaching any final determination.
5.41. We will also, no less than 30 days before the adoption of a decision requiring that an infringement be brought to an end, inform the European Commission and
______________________________________________________________________
(^{137}) CMA40, Guidance on the approval of voluntary redress schemes for infringements of competition law, (14 August 2015) [https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/approval-of-redress-schemes-for-competition-law-infringements](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/approval-of-redress-schemes-for-competition-law-infringements)
(^{138}) Section 9A(10) of the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 (CDDA 1986), see OFT510, Director disqualification orders in competition cases (June 2010) [https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/competition-disqualification-orders](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/competition-disqualification-orders)
(^{139}) Section 9C of CDDA 1986 provide sufficient information for the European Commission to assess the case\\textsuperscript{140}. We will take into account any comments provided by the European Commission before making any final determination.
\\textsuperscript{140} Article 11(4) of Regulation 1/2003
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/1845-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 52,
"total-input-tokens": 98759,
"total-output-tokens": 28679,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
179,
1
],
[
179,
1379,
2
],
[
1379,
4677,
3
],
[
4677,
7773,
4
],
[
7773,
8069,
5
],
[
8069,
10845,
6
],
[
10845,
13162,
7
],
[
13162,
15931,
8
],
[
15931,
19061,
9
],
[
19061,
21584,
10
],
[
21584,
24671,
11
],
[
24671,
25142,
12
],
[
25142,
27579,
13
],
[
27579,
30440,
14
],
[
30440,
33327,
15
],
[
33327,
35927,
16
],
[
35927,
38337,
17
],
[
38337,
40981,
18
],
[
40981,
43582,
19
],
[
43582,
46118,
20
],
[
46118,
49219,
21
],
[
49219,
51616,
22
],
[
51616,
54257,
23
],
[
54257,
57407,
24
],
[
57407,
59915,
25
],
[
59915,
61478,
26
],
[
61478,
63400,
27
],
[
63400,
66134,
28
],
[
66134,
68558,
29
],
[
68558,
70930,
30
],
[
70930,
72473,
31
],
[
72473,
74653,
32
],
[
74653,
77573,
33
],
[
77573,
80060,
34
],
[
80060,
82409,
35
],
[
82409,
84787,
36
],
[
84787,
87311,
37
],
[
87311,
89907,
38
],
[
89907,
93096,
39
],
[
93096,
95603,
40
],
[
95603,
98281,
41
],
[
98281,
100669,
42
],
[
100669,
102601,
43
],
[
102601,
104686,
44
],
[
104686,
107313,
45
],
[
107313,
109802,
46
],
[
109802,
112083,
47
],
[
112083,
114495,
48
],
[
114495,
116854,
49
],
[
116854,
119694,
50
],
[
119694,
119966,
51
],
[
119966,
119966,
52
]
]
} |
ee130b812239865fb50aa33aa94f44c95b0506f6 | Memorandum of understanding between the Competition and Markets Authority and the Office of Rail and Road – concurrent competition powers
Contents
Foreword .................................................................................................................... 2 Memorandum of understanding between the Competition and Markets Authority and the Office of Rail and Road ........................................................................... 4 Part A – Cooperation in relation to the competition prohibitions (Competition Act 1998 and Articles 101 and 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union) ........................................................................................................ 10 Part B – Cooperation in relation to the market provisions: market studies and market investigations (Enterprise Act 2002) ................................................................. 20 Foreword
The changes to the United Kingdom’s (UK) competition law system, introduced under the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013 and in force since April 2014, are designed to improve the effectiveness of competition law enforcement in this country.
The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) has competition law powers which apply across the whole economy. Sectoral regulators such as the Office of Rail and Road (ORR) may exercise the competition law powers to enforce the prohibitions on anti-competitive agreements and on abuse of a dominant position, and to make market investigation references, concurrently with the CMA in those sectors for which they have responsibility.
The Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013 introduced a number of changes to improve the working of concurrency and to enable closer working between the CMA and sectoral regulators.
The CMA and the sectoral regulators have demonstrated their commitment to making the concurrency framework more effective through the establishment of the UK Competition Network (UKCN). This represents an enhanced forum for cooperation which will enable closer working with the objective of more consistent and effective use of competition powers across all sectors. In their statement of intent in December 2013, the members of the UKCN affirmed: ‘The mission of the UKCN will be to promote competition for the benefit of consumers and to prevent anti-competitive behaviour both through facilitating use of competition powers and development of pro-competitive regulatory frameworks, as appropriate.’
This memorandum of understanding (MoU) represents a further stage in the process of cooperation between the CMA and the regulators, setting out more practical detail on how the CMA and the ORR will work together within the framework of competition law.
The main purpose of this MoU is to establish an understanding between the CMA and the ORR as to how this closer working will work in practice. It draws on the legislation which sets out the formal framework for how concurrency will operate and also, importantly, sets out our bilateral commitment to look for opportunities to work together, including within the framework of the UKCN, to promote competition for the
______________________________________________________________________
1 UKCN (2013), Statement of Intent. 2 This MoU does not relate to ‘regulatory appeals’ – that is, the separate role that the CMA has in considering references relating to proposed direct regulatory action by the ORR under the sectoral statutes. This is a separate role, to be undertaken by the CMA panel, and the CMA is committed to ensuring that its cooperation with the ORR - whether under this MoU (and under comparable MoUs agreed with other sectoral regulators), through the UKCN, or otherwise in connection with their concurrent powers - will not impair the impartiality and fairness of the CMA’s conduct of such regulatory appeals (or indeed of market or merger investigations undertaken by the CMA panel). benefit of consumers. We shall do this by the sharing of expertise, information, ideas and experience and each of us will commit to doing this efficiently and with a mutual regard for each other’s statutory position and strategic objectives.
We believe that this MoU offers a valuable basis for that cooperation, in the interests of the CMA, the ORR, the railways services industry in Great Britain and, most importantly of all, the consumers.
Alex Chisholm CEO, CMA
Joanna Whittington CEO, ORR Memorandum of understanding between the Competition and Markets Authority and the Office of Rail and Road
Purpose of this memorandum of understanding
1. This MoU sets out working arrangements between the CMA and the ORR in relation to:
(a) their concurrent powers to apply the prohibitions on agreements that prevent, restrict or distort competition, and on the abuse of a dominant position, under the Chapter I prohibition and the Chapter II prohibition of the Competition Act 1998 and under Article 101 and Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union – referred to in this MoU as the ‘competition prohibitions’; and
(b) their concurrent powers to undertake market studies, and to make references to the CMA for the constitution of a CMA group to conduct an in-depth market investigation into single or multiple markets for goods or services in the UK under the Enterprise Act 2002 – referred to in this MoU as the ‘market provisions’;
in the rail sector.³
2. This MoU is not intended to have legal effect.
3. This MoU is to be read alongside other material concerning the relations between the CMA and the ORR, including: the Railways Act 1993; the Competition Act 1998; the Enterprise Act 2002; the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013; the Competition Act 1998 and Other Enactments (Amendment) Regulations 2004; the Competition Act 1998 (Concurrency) Regulations 2014, referred to in this MoU as the concurrency regulations; and the CMA’s guidance on concurrent application of competition law to regulated industries, referred to in this MoU as the concurrency guidance.⁴ This MoU supplements and does not supplant that material.
4. The arrangements covered by this MoU are, wherever possible, set out in terms providing sufficient flexibility for the relationship between the ORR and the CMA to develop in the light of experience. The CMA and the ORR commit
______________________________________________________________________
³ For the purpose of this MoU, the term ‘rail sector’ encompasses services relating to railways in Great Britain. These are defined in section 67(3ZA) of the Railways Act 1993 as: (a) railway services (meaning the carriage of passengers and goods by railway and light maintenance, station and network services); (b) the provision and maintenance of rolling stock; (c) the development, maintenance or renewal of a network, station or light maintenance depot; and (d) the development, provision or maintenance of information systems designed wholly or mainly for facilitating the provision of railway services.
⁴ CMA (2014), Regulated industries: Guidance on concurrent application of competition law to regulated industries (CMA10). to review these arrangements from time to time to evaluate their continuing fitness for purpose. Such review can be initiated at the request of the CMA, the ORR or a member of the UKCN. This MoU may only be revised by agreement between the CMA and the ORR.
5. Nothing in this MoU applies in relation to the functions of the CMA in its separate role of considering references related to proposed action by the ORR under the sectoral statutes. The CMA and the ORR acknowledge the importance of maintaining the CMA’s impartiality and fairness in carrying out those functions, and indeed of market or merger investigations undertaken by the CMA panel.
**Context**
6. This MoU operates within the framework of the legislative provisions referred to in paragraph 1 and any applicable sector-specific legislation from time to time.
**Role of the CMA**
07. The CMA is a non-ministerial department, established under the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013.
08. The CMA works to promote competition for the benefit of consumers, both within and outside the UK, to make markets work well for consumers, businesses and the economy.
09. The CMA’s statutory responsibilities, in so far as relevant to the matters that are the subject of this MoU, include:
(a) investigating where there may be breaches of the competition prohibitions; and
(b) conducting market studies and market investigations where there may be competition and consumer problems.
10. In connection with its statutory responsibilities, the CMA will cooperate with sectoral regulators and encourage sectoral regulators to use their powers, including their powers to apply the competition prohibitions, in the interests of competition for the benefit of consumers. Role of the ORR
11. The ORR is a body corporate established under the Railways and Transport Act 2003. It is a non-ministerial government department. The ORR is the safety and economic regulator of railways in Great Britain.
12. The ORR’s principal economic direct regulatory functions are set out in the Railways Act 1993 and in various regulations implementing European rail liberalisation legislation. In summary, they are to:
(a) regulate Network Rail’s stewardship of the national rail network;
(b) license operators of railway assets (the network, stations, light maintenance depots and trains);
(c) approve access by parties to track, stations and light maintenance depots; and
(d) keep under review the provision of railway services.
13. The ORR also has powers concurrently with the CMA to investigate where there may be breaches of the competition prohibitions and to conduct market studies and to refer markets where there may be competition and consumer problems in the rail sector.
14. The ORR has 24 duties (which it balances in the exercise of its sector-specific regulatory and Enterprise Act 2002 market study functions). These duties contain a number of objectives, for example, they require the ORR:
(a) to promote the use of the railway network in Great Britain for the carriage of passenger and goods, and the development of that railway network, to the greatest extent that it considers economically practicable;
(b) to promote competition in the provision of railway services for the benefit of users of railway services;
(c) to protect the interest of users of railway services;
(d) to have regard to the funds available to the Secretary of State for the purposes of his functions in relation to railways or railway services; and
(e) to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development.
15. The ORR will cooperate with the CMA and other sectoral regulators, in the exercise of its concurrent functions, for the purpose of strengthening the competition framework and to ensure consistency of approach. The ORR will also engage with the CMA broadly in the promotion of competition for the benefit of users of services relating to railways.
**Aims**
16. The Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013, as well as establishing the CMA, made provision for the better working of the CMA’s and the sectoral regulators’ concurrent powers in the regulated sectors; specifically, the act: ‘strengthens the role of the CMA and enhances the emphasis on early and proper consideration of the use of anti-trust powers (under Part 1 of the CA 1998 [ie the competition prohibitions]) by the sector regulators.’
17. It is one of the strategic goals of the CMA, announced on its establishment on 1 October 2013, to extend the frontiers of competition into new areas, including by working with sectoral regulators to ensure fuller use of competition law and policy in sectoral markets.
18. The government’s strategic steer to the CMA, issued on 1 December 2015, says that the CMA should build ‘a strong dialogue with sectoral regulators using the UKCN to ensure that the overall competition regime is coordinated and regulatory practices complement each other.’
19. The sectoral regulators and the CMA, working together in the UKCN established in 2013 (with Monitor having observer status), declared that: ‘The mission of the UKCN will be to promote competition for the benefit of consumers and to prevent anti-competitive behaviour both through facilitating use of competition powers and development of pro-competitive regulatory frameworks, as appropriate.’
20. The CMA and the ORR seek to use their powers to achieve more competitive outcomes in the rail sector for the benefit of users and the economy in which those services play an essential part. It is the view of the CMA and the ORR that such competitive outcomes can be achieved by various tools, including: their concurrent competition law powers under the competition prohibitions and market provisions; their concurrent powers under specific consumer protection legislation; and the CMA’s merger control functions. However, the CMA and ORR recognise that some of these outcomes can also be achieved
______________________________________________________________________
5 Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013 Explanatory Notes, paragraph 370. 6 Statement by Alex Chisholm, Chief Executive of the CMA, CMA mission and strategy, 1 Oct 2013. 7 Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, Strategic steer for the Competition and Markets Authority, in Annex A to the Government’s response to the Consultation on the Strategic Steer to the CMA, 1 December 2015, page 11. 8 UKCN (2013), Statement of Intent. through other tools such as those that are available to regulators through national and European Union legislation.
21. This MoU aims to further the attainment of these objectives, and to make the changes introduced by the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013 work effectively, maximising the complementary skills of the CMA and the ORR, including through:
(a) promoting cooperation and coordination between the CMA and the ORR when dealing with cases of suspected anti-competitive behaviour for which they have concurrent powers;
(b) promoting cooperation and coordination between the CMA and the ORR when dealing with market studies and market investigation references for which they have concurrent powers;
(c) facilitating the efficient and effective handling of cases of suspected anti-competitive behaviour within the rail sector;
(d) avoiding duplication of activity, wherever possible; and
(e) ensuring transparency as to the respective roles of the CMA and the ORR for individuals and consumers affected.
General cooperation
22. In addition to the provisions for cooperation between the CMA and the ORR specific to particular powers of the CMA and the ORR, as set out in this MoU and elsewhere, the CMA and the ORR are committed to the following general principles and practices for cooperation between themselves in respect of the sectors for which the ORR has responsibility.
23. Officials of the CMA and the ORR will meet and communicate, at appropriate levels of seniority, to discuss matters of mutual interest, both through the UKCN and bilaterally. A framework for such meetings will, as far as possible, be determined in advance so as to ensure attendance at the appropriate level and expertise.
24. The CMA and the ORR will, in respect of the rail sector, always consult each other:
(a) before the initial exercise of concurrent competition law powers in all cases where it appears that they have concurrent jurisdiction and where there are reasonable grounds for suspecting an infringement of the competition prohibitions; and (b) before launching a market study under the Enterprise Act 2002.
25. Where either the CMA or the ORR exercises its concurrent powers, the CMA and the ORR will, to the extent permitted by law, engage with each other in open dialogue and by sharing relevant information as appropriate. This engagement may include attendance at internal meetings held by the investigating authority (ie the authority to which a case is allocated) by the supporting authority (ie the other authority which would be competent to exercise concurrent powers in relation to the case), in order to discuss the case as envisaged at paragraph 3.31 of the concurrency guidance. The supporting authority will not generally attend the investigating authority’s constitutional decision-making meetings, meetings of governance bodies or meetings with external parties such as those under investigation or complainants. Attendance by the supporting authority at any meeting is at the discretion of the investigating authority, but requests to attend should be considered by the investigating authority in the spirit of cooperation underpinning the new concurrency regime.
26. The CMA and the ORR will consult each other at an early stage on any issues that might have significant implications for the other. For example, where the CMA undertakes a market study which relates to a sector other than the rail sector but which may have a significant impact on that sector, the CMA will inform the ORR and share appropriate information relating to that market study with the ORR to the extent permitted by law.
27. Within the spirit of broader collaboration for the purposes of the promotion of competitive outcomes, the CMA and the ORR will commit to discuss and share other information about a broader range of competition complaints and concerns, where legally permissible to do so, but subject to the need not to impair the impartiality and fairness of the CMA in carrying out the functions referred to in paragraph 5 of this MoU.
______________________________________________________________________
9 Instigation of a market study occurs on the publication of a market study notice, as defined in section 130A of the Enterprise Act 2002. Part A – Cooperation in relation to the competition prohibitions (Competition Act 1998 and Articles 101 and 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union)
Case allocation
Basis of allocation
28. The CMA and the ORR will endeavour to reach agreement on which authority will exercise its concurrent competition powers in respect of any particular case, under regulation 4(2) of the concurrency regulations. They will do so in a spirit of constructiveness and cooperation, while acknowledging the CMA’s ultimate powers under regulations 5 and 8 of the concurrency regulations.
29. Their determination of which authority will exercise its powers will be based on assessing which of them is better placed to exercise those powers, having regard to the factors set out in paragraph 3.22 of the concurrency guidance. The CMA and the ORR envisage that other factors may appear relevant in the light of practical experience and that, if so, such factors may be chosen to supplement or supplant the factors set out in paragraph 3.22 of the concurrency guidance.
Procedure for allocation
30. Where either the CMA or the ORR has decided, on the basis of information in its possession, that there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that one of the competition prohibitions has been infringed (the reasonable suspicion test)(^\\text{10}) in relation to the rail sector, it will disclose to the other (ie the receiving authority) sufficient information:
(a) to enable the receiving authority to understand the basis on which the disclosing authority has decided that the reasonable suspicion test is met; and
(b) for there to be an informed discussion on which authority (if either) is best placed to proceed in respect of the case.
31. In practice, it may be helpful for the CMA and the ORR to have discussed the case prior to such a decision having been reached, subject to paragraph 44 below. The disclosing authority will provide the information described under paragraph 30 within ten working days after it has decided that the reasonable
(^{10}) As provided in section 25 of the Competition Act 1998. suspicion test is met, whether or not it proposes to exercise concurrent powers.\\textsuperscript{11}
32. With seven working days from receipt of this information, the receiving authority will respond in writing, setting out its initial view on the case and how it should be allocated and identifying any further information which it requires.
33. The CMA and the ORR will endeavour to agree which authority will exercise its concurrent competition powers in relation to the case, as provided for in regulation 4(2) of the concurrency regulations, as soon as possible and in any event no later than one month from disclosure of the information described under paragraph 30. Other than in exceptional circumstances (which shall be set out in writing), the CMA will initiate the procedure set out in regulation 5 of the concurrency regulations if agreement is not reached within two months of the disclosing authority first receiving sufficient information in connection with a complaint to enable it to decide that the reasonable suspicion test is met.
34. The procedure for agreeing the transfer of a case that is already in progress from the CMA to the ORR, or from the ORR to the CMA, is as set out in regulation 7 of the concurrency regulations and in paragraph 3.32 of the concurrency guidance.
35. The procedure for the CMA to direct the transfer to itself from the ORR of a case that is already in progress is as set out in regulation 8 of the concurrency regulations.
\\textit{Implications of allocation}
36. Any agreement or determination as to case allocation, under regulations 4, 5, 7 or 8 of the concurrency regulations, shall be notified to the person who has provided the information resulting in the case (for example, the person making a complaint), and so far as appropriate and lawful to any other affected person, by the authority which is exercising its concurrent competition powers in relation to the case, as soon as reasonably practicable.
37. Case allocation determines which of the CMA and the ORR is to exercise concurrent functions and make any decisions under the competition prohibitions. The CMA or ORR will be publicly identified as having such responsibility if and when any such investigation is announced. The CMA and the ORR envisage that, whichever authority has responsibility for a particular case, they and their officials will work cooperatively with each other on the case as appropriate, pooling their expertise including in the ways described in
\\textsuperscript{11} As provided in regulation 9 of the concurrency regulations. paragraphs 52 to 60 of this MoU and in paragraphs 3.33 to 3.35 of the concurrency guidance.
**Sharing information**
**Principles of information sharing**
38. The effective sharing of information between the CMA and the ORR is fundamental to the successful exercise of their concurrent competition powers. It is needed both for the appropriate allocation of cases, as described in paragraphs 30 to 35 of this MoU, and for the successful handling of cases once allocated to make optimal use of the complementary experience and expertise of the two authorities.
39. The CMA and the ORR are committed, in addition to their legal obligations to share information (set out in regulation 9 of the concurrency regulations), to open dialogue and continuing liaison, both bilaterally and through the UKCN, with a view not only to handling specific cases but to promoting competition, for the benefit of users of railway services.
**Information sharing mechanism – general liaison**
40. The CMA and the ORR recognise the importance of meeting regularly to share information on matters relevant to competition in the rail sector in Great Britain, and to keep each other abreast of relevant work which they are considering or currently undertaking.
41. The CMA and the ORR will meet regularly at multiple levels, bilaterally and through the UKCN.
42. The CMA and the ORR will each designate in its organisation a relationship manager at official level to take responsibility for relations between the two authorities. In each authority, the relationship manager’s responsibilities will include (but will not be limited to):
(a) maintaining an overview of joint projects between the two authorities and matters of mutual interest;
(b) maintaining an overview of the authority’s contacts from all areas of joint working and mutual interest; and
(c) holding meetings with the relationship manager in the other authority from time to time (whether bilaterally or in the context of the UKCN) to identify potential new issues, with a view to circulating information to appropriate individuals within each organisation. 43. The existence of relationship managers does not in any way preclude direct communication between other staff at the CMA and the ORR.
44. For the purposes of sharing information pursuant to paragraph 30, ie in circumstances where the reasonable suspicion test is met, such information will be shared by the disclosing authority to the extent permitted by law and whether or not it proposes to exercise its concurrent powers in the case. Where disclosure would be appropriate and permitted by law, the CMA and ORR may also share information regarding potential infringements of the competition prohibitions in advance of having reached a view as to whether the reasonable suspicion test is met. In circumstances where either the CMA or FCA has taken the view that a matter is not an administrative priority, irrespective of whether a view has been reached on whether the reasonable suspicion test is reached, each may share the details of the matter with the other, or with any other authority which would be able to exercise concurrent competition powers in relation to that matter, to the extent permitted by law. Where leniency information is being shared under this paragraph, special considerations apply, as set out in paragraphs 50 and 51.
Information sharing mechanism – handling specific cases
45. The procedures for information sharing for the purpose of case allocation shall be as set out in paragraphs 30 to 32 and 38 to 51 of this MoU.
46. When either the CMA or the ORR is exercising its powers in respect of the competition prohibitions in a particular case in the rail sector, each of them will share with the other any of the following information in its possession (to the extent permitted by law and subject to the confidentiality obligations in paragraphs 49 to 51 of this MoU):
(a) as a minimum, the matters referred to in regulation 9(1)(b) – (j) of the concurrency regulations, and in paragraph 3.49 of the concurrency guidance, complying with the time limits specified in paragraph 3.49;
(b) other information which it reasonably believes to be relevant or helpful to the other in the conduct of the case; and
(c) in the case of the authority which is exercising the powers, reports to the other on the progress of the case, of sufficient frequency and detail to enable the other to be appropriately informed; the means and frequency of such reporting will be decided on a case-by-case basis and in the light
______________________________________________________________________
12 For the avoidance of doubt, this does not entail an obligation to inform the other party if the regulator is carrying out general monitoring activity, where there is no active consideration of exercising its concurrent powers. of experience as this enhanced framework of collaboration and its supporting arrangements develop over time.
**Information sharing mechanism – for know-how purposes**
47. The CMA will maintain on its webpages a central database of decisions taken in cases under the competition prohibitions, with a view to having an accessible body of know-how that will help ensure the effective and consistent application of competition law. The CMA and the ORR will, to the extent permitted by law, contribute information to that in the way best calculated to achieve that objective.
48. In any event, the CMA will report on cases in the regulated sectors under the competition prohibitions in the annual concurrency report which it is required under statute to issue. Further provisions on the annual concurrency report are in paragraphs 61 to 63 of this MoU.
**Information sharing – confidentiality constraints**
49. Any disclosure of information under paragraphs 30 to 32 and 38 to 48 of this MoU, and any use by the recipient of such information, shall only be to the extent permitted by law, including by reference to the provisions of Part 9 of the Enterprise Act 2002, relevant sector-specific legislative provisions and any other provisions relating to the disclosure, handling and use of information (such as the Data Protection Act 1998 and section 118 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, to the extent relevant).
50. Prior to disclosing information to each other, the CMA and the ORR will not generally give the person to whom the information relates prior notice of its intention to make the disclosure. However, if the CMA or the ORR consider it necessary or appropriate to pass leniency information to each other (or to another UK authority with concurrent powers), the transmitting authority will inform the applicant or its legal adviser first. Leniency information for the purposes of this MoU is any information which came into the possession of any of the CMA, its predecessors, the ORR or any other public authority as a direct or indirect result of having been provided in the context of an application for leniency. It includes information obtained by the transferring authority as a result of investigative measures resulting directly or indirectly from an application for leniency.
51. In addition to the general provisions referred to in paragraph 49, where the ORR or the CMA receives leniency information from the other (or from another UK authority with concurrent powers) for the purpose of applying the competition prohibitions or, in the case of the CMA, the cartel offence under section 188 of the Enterprise Act 2002, that information will not be used for any other purpose. This restriction on use also applies to any information obtained by the receiving authority as a result of investigative measures relating to the competition prohibitions or the cartel offence following the receipt of leniency information from the other authority. This does not affect the use that may be made by the CMA or the ORR of information received from other sources, or if the leniency applicant’s consent is obtained. Where the provision of leniency information to either the CMA or the ORR affords or might, under certain conditions, afford the leniency applicant, its subsidiaries or its employees protection from sanctions (including a reduction in penalties) under the leniency programme operated by that authority and that information has been passed to another authority, the receiving authority shall afford the leniency applicant, its subsidiaries or its employees no lesser protection.
**Pooling resources**
52. Paragraph 25, above, and the concurrency guidance provide for support to be provided by the supporting authority to the investigating authority when it is exercising its concurrent powers in a case. The CMA and the ORR will endeavour, so far as is reasonably practicable and permitted by law, and in the light of their respective ongoing priorities and resource availability at the time, to share their resources with each other in the interests of the effective enforcement of competition law in the rail sector in Great Britain, and more generally the promotion of competition for the benefit of consumers in that sector, and to ensure that their resources and expertise are used most efficiently for that purpose. This is subject to the proviso that, as stated in paragraph 5, this does not apply in relation to the functions of the CMA in its role of considering references related to proposed action by the ORR under the sectoral statutes.
53. As a consequence, where it has been agreed or determined that one of the authorities is to exercise its concurrent competition powers in relation to a case, that authority will, to the extent that there are resources available, receive appropriate practical assistance and support from the other in the handling of the case, as agreed on a case-by-case basis.
______________________________________________________________________
13 The use restriction in this paragraph is intended to govern the use of leniency information in the context of the concurrency arrangements. It is not intended to prevent the disclosure of such leniency information by either one of the CMA or the ORR to the other (to the extent permitted by Part 9 of the Enterprise Act 2002 and in accordance with Leniency and no-action applications in cartel cases: OFT1495) for purposes other than the application of the competition prohibitions or the cartel offence. However, any such disclosure of leniency information would only be likely to be justified in exceptional circumstances, given the strong public interest in maintaining the incentives for undertakings and, in the case of the cartel offence, individuals to apply for leniency. Secondments of staff
54. One means of the practical assistance and support that might be given, as referred to in paragraphs 52 and 53 of this MoU, is the secondment of staff, in accordance with regulation 10 of the concurrency regulations and paragraphs 3.33 and 3.34 of the concurrency guidance.
55. The CMA and the ORR are fully committed to the idea of secondments for this purpose, and will endeavour to meet each other's requests for secondments to the extent that they are appropriate and resources permit; this may include making provision for any secondee to be available to work for part of his or her time at his or her existing employer during the course of the secondment, for example on such cases that are in progress.
56. Requests for secondments should be made by the relationship manager of one authority to the relationship manager of the other, setting out the following information:
(a) The number of secondees required.
(b) The period for which each one is required.
(c) The level of seniority of each one.
(d) The nature of the expertise or experience of each one.
(e) The proposed payment arrangements.
(f) A brief explanation of why the requirement or requirements cannot adequately be met by deployment of staff from within the requesting authority.
57. To the extent that the recipient of a request for a secondment made under paragraph 56 of this MoU refuses that request or accedes to it on terms that are materially different from those requested, the recipient shall give reasons.
58. The CMA and the ORR will develop appropriate arrangements for the pooling and secondment of staff. Such arrangements will have regard to the resource constraints of both parties and such calls for staff, therefore, will be made in reasonable time and with sufficient warning to enable appropriate resource planning, management of other work commitments and appropriate sign-off procedures within each authority. Other mutual support
59. In addition to the sharing of information, expertise, experience and the secondment of staff, the CMA and the ORR are fully committed to providing each other with more informal forms of support to enable them to carry out their competition law functions in relation to the rail sector – in each case to the extent that it is appropriate and permitted by law, and that resources permit – including (but not limited to):
(a) answering specific queries from time to time;
(b) providing information or views on a specific sector or market, or an area of competition law or policy; and
(c) providing training on a specific sector or market, or an area of competition law or policy.
60. Such support may be requested and provided in connection with a specific case or with the promotion of competition more generally. In this regard, both the CMA and the ORR will act reasonably, including by providing sufficient time and information for requests for support to be responded to fully and effectively and for the relevant staff to be engaged.
Annual concurrency report
61. The CMA is required by statute to publish a report every year, starting after its first year of operation in 2014/15, containing an assessment of how the concurrency arrangements between the CMA and the sectoral regulators, as regards both the competition prohibitions and the market provisions, have operated during the year. This MoU refers to that report as the annual concurrency report. There is further provision on the annual concurrency report in paragraphs 3.55 to 3.62 of the concurrency guidance.
62. The CMA will consult, and cooperate with, the ORR and with other sectoral regulators in preparing the annual concurrency report. In connection with this, the CMA will:
(a) prepare a draft of the annual concurrency report that it will send to the ORR and other sectoral regulators seeking comments or suggestions on the content or conclusions of the annual concurrency report and giving them adequate time to comment or make suggestions;
14 Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013 Schedule 4 paragraph 16. (b) take account of any comments or suggestions it receives from the ORR and other sectoral regulators, and the CMA may seek further clarification on those comments or suggestions as appropriate;
(c) prepare a final version of the annual concurrency report for publication that takes account of its consultation of the ORR and other sectoral regulators as appropriate; and
(d) make the annual concurrency report available on the CMA webpages.
63. The ORR will cooperate with the CMA in the preparation of the annual concurrency report including (but not limited to) by way of:
(a) providing information and data on general market conditions and on the application of the competition prohibitions and the market provisions in the railways services sector in Great Britain;
(b) responding to reasonable requests for information and data; and
(c) providing to the CMA any comments and suggestions it may have in connection with the process described in paragraph 62 of this MoU;
in each case promptly so as to facilitate the timely production and publication of the annual concurrency report.
Voluntary redress schemes
64. In cases relating to investigations under the competition prohibitions in the rail sector, both the CMA and the ORR have the power to approve voluntary redress schemes. When either authority proposes to exercise these powers, it shall liaise with the other authority as appropriate and will have regard to its own guidance.15
Short form opinions
65. The CMA shall inform the ORR following an initial enquiry for a short form opinion relating to the rail sector. Where the CMA is considering providing such an opinion, it will discuss with the ORR before deciding to do so. If the CMA then decides to produce an opinion, it will engage with the ORR, the nature and degree of that engagement to be considered on a case-by-case basis, having regard, in particular, to the extent to which the opinion has a
______________________________________________________________________
15 The CMA’s guidance on the approval of voluntary redress schemes (CMA40) states at footnote 7: ‘The CMA expects that regulators will take this CMA guidance into account when producing their own guidance on the approval power.’ multi-sector rather than a single-sector dimension. In all cases, the CMA will give the ORR the opportunity to provide comments on such a draft opinion.
**Choice of instrument – competition prohibition or direct regulation by licence enforcement**
66. As a result of legislative changes introduced by Schedule 14 to the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013, the ORR is required by sections 55(5A) and 57A(6) of the Railways Act 1993, to ‘consider whether it would be more appropriate to proceed under the Competition Act 1998’ before exercising its direct regulatory powers of licence enforcement.
67. The Explanatory Notes to the legislation explain that this provision ‘enhances the emphasis on early and proper consideration of the use of anti-trust powers (under Part 1 of the CA98) by the sector regulators’.
68. The government had previously indicated that the policy intention is to: ‘strengthen the primacy of general competition law, so that the Sector Regulators are required to consider whether the use of their CA98 powers is more appropriate before using their sectoral powers to promote competition’.
69. Under this provision, it is for the ORR to determine, in any particular case, whether using its powers under the competition prohibitions would be more appropriate than exercising its licence enforcement powers.
70. Paragraph 4.4 of the concurrency guidance says that this determination will be made by the sectoral regulators ‘on a case-by-case basis.’ It may be that, in the light of experience accumulated over the coming months or years in applying this provision, it will be possible to develop more general principles that could serve as useful guidance in future cases, perhaps through the forum of the UKCN, while respecting the right of the sector regulator to make the determination.
______________________________________________________________________
16 Having effect from April 2014. 17 That is, the competition prohibitions. 18 Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013 Explanatory Notes, paragraph 370. 19 BIS, *Growth, competition and the competition regime – Government response to consultation*, March 2012, paragraph 8.16. Part B – Cooperation in relation to the market provisions: market studies and market investigations (Enterprise Act 2002)
How concurrency works under the market provisions
71. The ORR has the power, concurrently with the CMA, to carry out market studies, to make market investigation references, agree undertakings in lieu of a reference and make recommendations to the government in relation to the rail sector under Part 4 of the Enterprise Act 2002 (as do other sectoral regulators in relation to the sectors for which they are responsible).
72. Under the Enterprise Act 2002, the CMA and the ORR may, in relation to the rail sector, undertake market studies, and may make market investigation references to the Chair of the CMA for the constitution of a CMA group to conduct an in-depth market investigation into single or multiple markets for goods or services in the UK. The purpose of these investigations is to examine the market(s) and (where required) implement appropriate remedies where the CMA determines that the structure of the market(s) or the conduct of the suppliers or customers is harming competition.
73. When making a reference, the CMA or the ORR, as applicable, must have reasonable grounds for suspecting that any feature or combination of features of a market or markets in the UK prevents, restricts or distorts competition in relation to the supply or acquisition of any goods or services in the UK (or in a part of the UK).
74. The cooperation between the CMA and the ORR provided for in this Part B shall not extend to conduct that could reasonably be expected to impair the impartiality or the fairness of the CMA panel in conducting market investigations.
Super-complaints
75. Section 11 of the Enterprise Act 2002 provides for a super-complaint to be made by a designated consumer body that any feature, or combination of features, of a market in the UK for goods or services is or appears to be significantly harming the interests of consumers.
76. The ORR has a duty to respond to super-complaints made to it under the Enterprise Act 2002 if the complaint concerns the rail sector in Great Britain.
77. The coordination of the CMA’s and the sectoral regulators’ super-complaint duties will be based on policies agreed and applied through the UKCN. **Mutual consultation**
78. The ORR and the CMA have a duty to consult each other before exercising concurrent functions under the market provisions.
**Sharing information**
79. The provisions of paragraphs 40 to 44, 46 (excluding 46(a)) and 48 of this MoU apply to information sharing under the market provisions as they do under the competition prohibitions.
**Pooling resources**
80. The provisions of paragraphs 52 to 60 of this MoU apply to pooling resources under the market provisions as they do under the competition prohibitions.
81. Where the CMA and the ORR intend to pool resources in order to exercise powers under the market provisions of the Enterprise Act 2002, they shall, at the outset of any such project, discuss the arrangements for how they will pool resources and work jointly.
**Annual concurrency report**
82. The provisions of paragraphs 61 to 63 of this MoU apply under the market provisions as they do under the competition prohibitions.
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/1846-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 21,
"total-input-tokens": 38323,
"total-output-tokens": 10172,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
928,
1
],
[
928,
3899,
2
],
[
3899,
4397,
3
],
[
4397,
7044,
4
],
[
7044,
8781,
5
],
[
8781,
10841,
6
],
[
10841,
13421,
7
],
[
13421,
15483,
8
],
[
15483,
17633,
9
],
[
17633,
19754,
10
],
[
19754,
22331,
11
],
[
22331,
24451,
12
],
[
24451,
27130,
13
],
[
27130,
29747,
14
],
[
29747,
32877,
15
],
[
32877,
34816,
16
],
[
34816,
36937,
17
],
[
36937,
39106,
18
],
[
39106,
41215,
19
],
[
41215,
43508,
20
],
[
43508,
44481,
21
]
]
} |
60c1e3f2f236f47eed6516dbd56d19470063847f | Transforming adult social care: access to information, advice and advocacy
Report
Information, advice and advocacy are essential for all adults and their relatives and carers who need, or may need, services and support in order to lead their lives. This includes people with the full range of needs and financial means. Steering group: Oliver Mills Association of Directors of Adult Social Services (ADASS) Jenny Owen ADASS Stephen Burke Counsel and Care Luke O’Shea Department of Communities and Local Government (DCLG) Helen Tomkys Department of Health (DH) Steve Strong Department of Health Luke Staniland Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) Mona Sehgal Improvement and Development Agency (IDeA) Robert Templeton, IAA Project Manager Improvement and Development Agency (IDeA) Trish O’Flynn Local Government Association (LGA) Jenny Morris Office for Disability Issues (ODI) Stephen Goulder Social Care Institute for Excellence (SCIE)
Researched and written by: Cathie Williams Freelance Consultant – research team leader [email protected] Jane Harris Freelance Consultant Tim Hind Freelance Consultant Shruti Uppal Researcher with Cordis Bright
For printed copies of the executive summary, the full report and further information please contact: Robert Templeton IDeA Principal Consultant Adult Social Care Services [email protected]
## Contents
| Section | Page | |------------------------------------------------------------------------|------| | Contents | 1 | | Executive summary and background | 3 | | Findings from the secondary research: literature review | 5 | | Findings from primary research: | 9 | | Models and Recommendations for the Development of Information, Advice | 9 | | and Advocacy Services | | | 1 Introduction | 10 | | 1.1 Context | 10 | | 1.2 The brief for this work | 10 | | 1.3 Background | 11 | | 1.4 Definitions | 12 | | 2 Literature Review | 13 | | 2.1 Aims | 13 | | 2.2 Sources | 13 | | 2.3 Issues and problems with current Information, Advice and Advocacy | 13 | | services | | | 2.5 Recommendations | 13 | | 2.6 Conclusions | 16 | | 2.7 Examples of Information, Advice and Advocacy provision across the | 16 | | country | | | 3 Directors of Adults Social Services - survey | 17 | | 3.1 Methodology | 17 | | 3.2 Results | 17 | | 4 Website review | 26 | | 4.1 Methodology | 26 | | 4.2 Findings: local authority websites | 26 | | 4.3 Findings: Websites of National Organisations | 29 | | 4.4 Conclusions from review of national and local organisation websites | 29 | | 5 Findings from more in depth work facilitated through selected local | 30 | | authorities | | | 5.1 Introduction | 30 | | 5.2 Current thinking and practice | 30 | | 5.3 Key Issues | 32 | | 5.4 Good Practice Highlighted During More In-depth Work in Local Authority Areas | 33 | | 5.5 Detailed summaries of work in local authority areas | 35 | | 6 Findings from more in depth discussions with selected national | 36 | | organisations | | | 6.1 Introduction | 36 | | 6.2 National and Local Provision | 36 | | 7 Modelling: Developing the first stages of a taxonomy for Information, | 37 | | Advice and Advocacy | | | 7.1 The range of needs | 37 | | 7.2 Dimensions of Personalisation | 37 | | 7.3 Dimensions of Managing Information and Advice | 39 | | 7.4 Transformation approaches within which Information, Advice and | 41 | | Advocacy sit | | | 7.5 Statutory and Independent Provision | 42 | | 7.4 National and Local Dimensions of Delivery | 42 | | 8 Conclusions and Recommendations for future work | 43 | | About the authors | 44 | Executive summary and background
Information, advice and advocacy are essential for all adults and their relatives and carers who need, or may need, services and support in order to lead their lives. This includes people with the full range of needs and financial means.
The Association of Directors of Adult Social Services (ADASS), the Local Government Association (LGA), the Improvement and Development Agency (IDeA) and Counsel and Care commissioned this piece of work, on behalf of the Transforming Adult Social Care Programme Board, to scope current activity and thinking in relation to information, advice and advocacy (IAA) and the delivery of ‘Putting people first’ (2007).
The work has been funded from a top-slice of the Social Care Reform Grant and led through a steering group including commissioners, funders and representatives from the Department of Health, the Department for Communities and Local Government, the Department for Work and Pensions and the Office for Disability Issues.
The original specification was to undertake a brief four-month piece of work including a literature review, and to map good practice in local authority areas through a survey. During the course of the project this developed into a broader range of activities:
- a literature review
- a survey of directors of adults social services
- a review of a sample of local authority and national websites
- engagement with a range of stakeholders in a selected group of seven local authority areas including visits, focus groups and interviews
- engagement with a small sample of national statutory and voluntary organisations through interviews and visits
- modelling the development of orders and shapes for the findings, in order to develop a structure within which to support the development of policy and practice.
Within the short space of time available the work has engaged with a wide selection of stakeholders at a national and local level and in the statutory and third sectors. Given the timescales, we have inevitably had to be selective in this. We have also engaged with people thinking about or using services. definitions: For the purposes of this report, we use the following definitions of information, advice and advocacy:
information: ‘the open and accessible supply of material deemed to be of interest to a particular population. This can be either passively available or actively distributed.’
advice: ‘offers guidance and direction on a particular course of action which needs to be undertaken in order to realise a need, access a service or realise individual entitlements.’
advocacy: ‘the provision of support and encouragement, or representation of individuals’ views, needs or rights. It is fundamental that advocacy recognises the centrality of the service user.’
(Margiotta et al, 2003: 9)
Key issues from the literature review are:
• It can be difficult to unpick information, advice and advocacy services, since for many users of social care, these three types of service provision overlap and are inter-related (Dunning, 2005). In order to access the right services and/or information, people may require support from each of these types of services.
• Much of the evidence around information, advice and advocacy services is descriptive in nature rather than based on robust assessments or evaluations of services. It is therefore difficult to know on what basis certain initiatives are deemed as ‘best practice’ (for example Godfrey & Denby, 2007, Baxter et al, 2006).
• The literature review identifies and sets out themes in order to inform policy and practice and highlights a range of examples of delivery.
Recommendations from the literature review The literature review identifies issues relating to information, advice and advocacy (IAA) and themes them, resulting in recommendations as follows:
i) ensure the strategic significance of providing good quality information is understood by all stakeholders
ii) provide information related to points in people’s lives when support is needed
iii) ensure information is available in a range of formats and channels and is accessible by all groups
iv) ensure that information needs for all groups are met and, where possible, ensure support is tailored to individual needs and preferences
v) improve co-ordination and signposting between information providers across professional/governmental boundaries, and remove unhelpful barriers to information provision
vi) ensure that advocacy services are modelled on good practice principles
vii) involve people who use information, advice and advocacy in the design, implementation and evaluation of those services
viii) recognise the potential new roles of social workers
ix) define clear responsibility for service provision
x) support organisations to assure the quality of their IAA provision
xi) undertake research into ‘what works’ in relation to IAA Findings from primary research:
survey of directors of adult social services
The survey was designed and tested with the steering group and a virtual group that included contributions from the LGA, ADASS, In Control, Counsel and Care and the Office for Disability Issues. The survey elicited a 55 per cent response rate (82 directors of adult social services) of which there was a fair spread of local authority types and regions.
Findings
• each element of information, advice and advocacy provision had a relatively high priority in relation to transforming adult social care • information provision was seen by more respondents as ‘very important’ compared to the other two services • respondents are on the whole ‘working towards better IAA and a more strategic approach’ but few are there yet • respondents generally felt more confident in their ability to know the information needs of their local populations (more so than advice and advocacy needs, where nearly three fifths of respondents are not confident or are neither confident nor unconfident). This suggests local authorities may need to do more work in this area to better understand the needs of their local populations • most didn’t have documented strategies to address IAA needs and did not believe that IAA services were strategically commissioned at that point in time.
The most significant gaps in IAA strategies identified were (in order of frequency of response):
1. The identification of standards and quality assurance of provision
2. Marketing and making accessible existing provision
3. Meeting the needs of socially excluded people
4. Partnerships, including sharing information and effective referrals
5. Technological solutions
58 per cent of respondents had undertaken research or consultation to help ascertain the IAA needs of the local population. Work included asking questions in regular customer feedback, consultation with or research into the needs of specific groups, reviews of advocacy needs and mystery shopping. In nearly a third of these, research and consultation had resulted in new services or products being developed or commissioned.
Findings from the website review:
50 council and ten national websites were reviewed to ascertain clarity, accessibility and content, based on searching for specific information for a range of needs. There were vast differences experienced by the researchers between sites, with examples of good and poor practice. Very few gave complete information to enable choice and access without further investigation: that is, they often excluded the complete range of factors, including availability (almost exclusively), affordability and quality.
| Good practice included | Examples of poor practice included | |------------------------|-----------------------------------| | information held at a high level | information buried | | clear page design | cluttered pages | | well structured site | unclear navigation | | helpful external links | links directing from site | | information aimed at the public | information written for professionals | | frequently asked questions | too much jargon | | practical information | too many PDFs | | comprehensive information | out of date information | | information to aid choice | information lacking content | | no mention of choice, quality or cost | Findings from more in-depth work facilitated through selected local authorities
A selection of seven local authorities facilitated a range of more in-depth work. In each case this included discussions with the director of adults social services, visits, and focus groups with stakeholders including people using service and staff.
Current delivery
Typically local authorities deliver information and advice at an authority-wide level through a corporate website and either a corporate or social care specific contact centre. There will also be a small number of specialist services such as Independent mental capacity advocates. In districts or localities they have delivery mechanisms through a patchwork of one stop shops, libraries, health centres and other mechanisms. A number of local authorities work with a Centre for Independent Living. At a neighbourhood or village level there is a further patchwork layer of local advice centres and outreach work. It is unusual for provision to be consistent across a local authority, and there is a range of good practice examples at each of the above levels.
Current provision of information, advice and advocacy has developed from a multiplicity of separate initiatives, largely as an adjunct to other initiatives rather than as part of a coherent service strategy. All local authority areas therefore have an array of services, but largely these are not strategically ordered or coherent at present.
Developing strategy
This work indicated that practice and thinking is developing rapidly and is outpacing the findings of the literature review, which was, of necessity, retrospective. Most people in local authority areas indicated that their initial energies in relation to transforming services had focussed on developing the mechanisms and culture for personal budgets. However, they were now proactively engaged on a broader front of transforming services, including strategy and practice in relation to information, advice and advocacy and related work in community capacity building and engaging with current (and building new) markets.
Some local authority areas are in the process of developing such a strategy or strategies and defining the needs and outcomes that need to be addressed. Key issues which emerged during the engagement in local areas and which informed this report were:
Information, advice and advocacy are critical building blocks for good outcomes
- Information is necessary to enable control and to inform choice. Personalised information, explanation, advice and often advocacy are essential if resultant support and services are to be personalised. Information needs to support the key decision factors of availability, affordability, suitability and quality and safety.
- There is a key overlap of roles and experiences in the field of information, advice and advocacy. Most people in professional roles also have personal experience of using or trying to use the services. Some of the people we met who were using services are also engaged in providing information, advice or advocacy.
- People are thinking about how to meet the range of needs of the public, both in terms of those who are articulate and energetic and who want maximum involvement in the management of their services AND those who are isolated, without capacity or exhausted.
- There is far more information generally available than people are aware of. Awareness raising and managing knowledge is therefore key across the whole range of stakeholders including the public, frontline statutory and voluntary organisation staff, communities and other key services such as housing, primary care and libraries.
Information, advice and advocacy as part of a spectrum of interpersonal support
- The development of information, advice and advocacy is inextricable from the development of other interpersonal dimensions of support including support planning, support brokerage, the ongoing management of services and safeguarding.
- There is some concern about the divestment of social work and care management posts as a result of having developed streamlined assessment and a resource allocation system without having made provision for adequate support to facilitate assessment, information, advice, advocacy, support planning and brokerage services and, as part of all of that, safeguarding. Who provides these key functions needs to be planned strategically so as not to unintentionally strip local government of key interpersonal support for people through contract by contract exercises for these functions.
- Issues arose about funding and charging and by and to whom. There an indication of some willingness to pay, at least in some quarters, for comprehensive, personalised advice, brokerage and ongoing management (described by one group as a ‘personal social worker’). Scoping a framework for the further development of services
- New thinking is developing around how to manage the information base, including models (merging databases and links, citizen based postings of information, provider/supplier owned postings, Trip Advisor models) and key issues such as availability.
- Thinking is developing around making the range of delivery mechanisms more coherent including websites, call centres, assessment and care management teams, libraries, local advice centres, Centres for Independent Living, one stop shops, community development and outreach workers.
- There are key issues in relation to signposting. People often experience signposting as being passed from pillar to post and getting lost through lack of follow up.
- Those involved felt that most information, advice and advocacy should be commissioned, managed and delivered locally rather than nationally, drawing from national sources where a) information was applicable nationally (benefits) or b) in specialist areas (for example motor neurone disease). People cited some use of DirectGov (though there was not a wide awareness of its social care dimensions and links to local authority websites) but none said they had used NHS Choices (except for searching for health services such as dentists or opticians).
- There is an awareness that there ought to be a possible regional or sub-regional dimension to information, advice and advocacy, but no examples were given of initiatives of this nature as it was felt to be too complicated. There is also a suggestion that some local functions might be useful across a wider area, for example services for specific ethnic minority communities concentrated in one local authority area but needed elsewhere.
- There have been developments in ‘market engaged’ solutions such as Care Bay, Plan My Care and others. There is a key need for real time availability information, without which people are experiencing frustration about apparent choices that cannot be realised due to a lack of availability.
Findings from more in-depth discussions with selected national organisations
During the course of the project, concerns were raised by some steering group members about what should be provided nationally and what locally. Therefore, discussions and correspondence were undertaken with a small number of representatives from national organisations. These included individuals from the Princess Royal Trust for Carers, Age Concern, Counsel and Care, the Foundation for People with Learning Disabilities, the Departments of Health and Communities and Local Government, ADASS and LGA.
There were mixed views about the national and local dimensions, particularly in the provision of advice services. There was agreement that national sources of information were key where a) information was applicable nationally (for example benefits or the entitlement to assessment) or b) in specialist areas. There was, in addition, a view that there is importance to having a fall back advice service for situations where people had ‘got stuck’ in local services or needed support to challenge them. That would add to what is already a complex array of services and may make the jigsaw even more complicated. A proportion of advice provided nationally responds to referral from local services and, in turn, signposts people to local services. There is a minority additional view that there should be investment in additional national helplines such as FirstStop. It was argued that this could provide extended hours cover and greater consistency of quality. There is unanimity that face-to-face advice, outreach and personal information and advice about local services must be done locally. Models and recommendations for the development of information, advice and advocacy services
In the context of models developed, and in addition to the recommendations from the literature review and the good practice identified from the website review, it is recommended that future work should:
a. Articulate and reiterate the principle that transformation and personalisation are dependent upon good information, advice, advocacy, support planning and brokerage being available. These services need to encompass developments in both consumer and social inclusion and community or citizenship models.
b. Frame the development of information, advice and advocacy in the context of the spectrum of interpersonal support including support planning, support brokerage and the ongoing management of services, and underpin all of these with the dimension of safeguarding.
c. Frame the development of information, advice and advocacy in three dimensions: managing the information, managing awareness and knowledge, and management of the delivery mechanisms.
d. Market the sources of information, advice and advocacy services that are available currently.
e. Build the statutory information base on the DirectGov and local authority website core that currently exists. Raise the access to local authority sites to a higher level of navigation on DirectGov. Ensure that there are clear links between DirectGov and local authority websites and between them and key independent sector sites.
f. In relation to the market for support and services set out in information and advice, frame standards linked to sufficiency: affordability, availability, quality, cultural appropriateness and type.
g. Map and model the ideal type relating to the balance between national and local provision based on the principles of what is applicable across the country and what is best delivered locally. This could include rationalising provision and developing frameworks. 1 Introduction
1.1 Context
This is a critical time for the development of better care and support for people. The move towards the personalisation of care services is part of a wider reform of public services and the current review of the future funding of social care.
In December 2007 the Government published ‘Putting people first’, a social care concordat, which aims to transform the way social care is delivered to give people more control over their care and support.
‘Putting people first’ recognises that transformation through personal budgets, early intervention and prevention requires ‘universal information, advice and advocacy’ and calls on local authorities to develop services such as ‘first stop’ shops to make this possible. It points to the key role of information, advice and advocacy for people needing care and support, including those who self-fund their care and their families, together with a changing role for social workers. Reform of social care won’t succeed unless people and their families can get good information, advice and advocacy wherever they live, whatever their particular needs, and whatever their financial means.
1.2 The brief for this work
The Association of Directors of Adult Social Services, the Local Government Association, the Improvement and Development Agency and Counsel and Care commissioned, on behalf of the Transforming Adult Social Care Programme Board, this four-month piece of work relating to information, advice and advocacy and the delivery of ‘Putting people first’ (2007). The work has been funded from the top-slice of the Social Care Reform Grant and was led by a steering group involving the commissioning and funding partners together with representatives from the Social Care Institute for Excellence, the Departments for Health, Work and Pensions and Communities and Local Government, and the Office for Disability Issues. The membership is set out in Appendix 1.
The original specification was to undertake a literature review and to map good practice in local authority areas through a survey. During the course of the project this developed into a broader range of activities:
- a literature review
- a survey of directors of adult social services
- a review of a sample of local authority and national websites
- engagement in with a range of stakeholders in a selected group of seven local authority areas including visits, focus groups and interviews
- engagement with a small sample of national statutory and voluntary organisations through interviews
- the development of orders and shapes for the findings in order to develop a structure within which to support the development of policy and practice.
Within the short space of time available the work has engaged with a wide range of stakeholders at a national and local level and in the statutory and third sectors. It has also engaged with people thinking about or using services, although this has inevitably had to be selective. The majority of professionals with whom the work engaged also have personal experiences of these services upon which they draw.
This review aimed to rapidly appraise the activity and research evidence in relation to information, advice and advocacy (IAA) services within adult social care and whether or not there exist any models of service provision which are considered good practice. The review draws together evidence from a range of sources including primary and secondary research.
The review aims to be a starting point for further research and development in this area so that, over time there is a robust evidence base from which to design and build on information, advice and advocacy services and to ensure that these services meet the needs of local populations. 1.3
Background
Information is critical to the relationship between government and individuals and is increasingly a key component of policy. Examples of recent key statements include:
Putting People First
A universal information, advice and advocacy service for people needing services and their carers irrespective of their eligibility for public funding. A ‘first shop stop’, which could be accessed by phone, letter, email, internet or at accessible community locations. Key strategic partners to be the Pensions Agency and relevant voluntary organisations. The LinkAge Plus pilots are providing strong evidence of the benefits for older people of this approach. Personal advocates to be available in the absence of a carer or in circumstances where people require support to articulate their needs and/or utilise the personal budget.
Communities in Control: Real People Real Power
Those in need of support in our society can experience particular challenges in finding information about the services they are entitled to. As part of our pilots of innovative approaches to sharing information we will explore ways of strengthening information provision for vulnerable and socially excluded people through charters for independent living.
Hampshire Commission
A universal offer of help with information and advice regardless of where people live, how much money they have and whether they are assessed as being eligible for social care.
Our Health, Our Care, Our Say
We propose that services give all people with long-term health and social care needs and their carers an ‘information prescription’. The information prescription will be given to people using services and their carers by health and social care professionals (for example GPs, social workers and district nurses) to signpost people to further information and advice to help them take care of their own condition.
Families in Britain: an evidence paper, Cabinet Office and DCSF December 2008
Families have to fulfil their responsibilities. But there are three main reasons why the government should have a strong, supportive family policy: first, while all families will make decisions that are entirely private to its members, there are areas in which the decisions or circumstances of a family will impact upon society more generally; second, families may not always have the information they need to do the best for themselves and their members; thirdly, the Government has a role to play in addressing inequalities as families have different levels of need and capability.
information, advice and advocacy report 11
1.4 Definitions
It can be difficult to unpick information, advice and advocacy services, since for many users of social care, these three types of service provision overlap and are inter-related (Dunning, 2005). In order to access the right services and/or information, people may require support from each of these types of services. It is also the case that these services do not always follow a linear progression (such as the person moving from a position of requiring information to advice and then advocacy). Dunning conceives these links between the types of services as forming inter-related ‘circles of support’ (p14).
For the purposes of this report, we use the following definitions of information, advice and advocacy. As is documented in the literature, however, it can be problematic to try and trichotomise them into three distinct services. In reality they are often inter-dependent in the context of having some practical application in the lives of service users.
information: ‘the open and accessible supply of material deemed to be of interest to a particular population. This can be either passively available or actively distributed.’
advice: ‘offers guidance and direction on a particular course of action which needs to be undertaken in order to realise a need, access a service or realise individual entitlements.’
advocacy: ‘the provision of support and encouragement, or representation of individuals’ views, needs or rights. It is fundamental that advocacy recognises the centrality of the service user.’
(Margiotta et al, 2003: 9) 2.1 Aims
The Literature Review was aimed at rapidly synthesising the research evidence on information, advice and advocacy (IAA) services with respect to adult social care. In particular, this was an exercise in assessing whether or not good practice had been established in relation to models of service provision in the IAA sector and whether there were any obvious gaps for further research in this area.
The full literature review is attached as Appendix 1.
2.2 Sources
The literature review generated evidence from a variety of sources. This included academic research, government reports and research carried out by voluntary and community sector (VCS) organisations.
Most studies included in the review tended to either group IAA services together or only concentrate on information provision. They did, however, tend to concentrate on particular groups of people (such as people with disabilities; older people) since this often reflected their organisational or departmental focus. For those people with multiple conditions, therefore, it is difficult to find evidence about what IAA approaches may work best or what their IAA needs are.
For ease of reporting, the findings discussed here are in relation to IAA provision more broadly, except for those cases where the literature allows us to drill deeper to either a particular service type or for a particular group of service users.
2.3 Issues and problems with current information, advice and advocacy services
Many sources documented problems that service users (or more widely members of the public) face when trying to access IAA services. These included:
2.4.1 lack of or mis-information. 2.4.2 fragmentation of information. Information is rarely held in one place, pertains to different groups of people, is about different departments or service types. There is little signposting between services 2.4.3 information sources can be overwhelming and non-personalised, with an over-use of jargon or non-accessible language 2.4.4 inadequate service provision for certain groups 2.4.5 lack of robust evidence-based research around ‘what works’ in relation to IAA 2.4.6 specific gaps in relation to evidence on IAA provision for: a. ethnic minority communities b. those with chaotic lifestyles c. people with fluctuating support needs d. visually impaired e. multiple impairments f. private purchasers of social care services (Baxter et al, 2006).
2.5 Recommendations
Recommendations from the research conducted in this area included:
2.5.1 Ensure the strategic significance of providing good quality information is understood by all stakeholders
It is vital that central and local government, as well as all non-statutory organisations which are involved in providing information in relation to adult social care, understand the strategic and higher-level grounds for doing so.
This strategic approach could also include appreciating a more functional analysis of the costs and benefits involved in minimising misleading or inaccurate information and instead providing good quality information services. There is little research around what are the costs and benefits to service users, to organisations themselves, and on a bigger scale to government and whole health and social care economies. This is an area for further research and requires clearer information around the outcomes and outputs involved in providing good quality information (Watt et al, 2007; ODI, 2005). Learning from current pilots modelling new ways of working (for example LinkAge Plus, Partnerships for Older People’s Projects, information prescriptions) is also an important mechanism of disseminating valuable information about what does (and does not) work in relation to improving access to IAA services. Evaluations of such projects must ensure that they are based on robust evidence and methods of appraisal.
2.5.2 Provide information and services related to points in people’s lives when support is needed
People tend to require information and support to access services at particular points in their lives. However, information sources such as websites are rarely organised in a way which recognises this life-course approach.
2.5.3 Ensure information is available in range of formats and channels and is accessible by all groups
Given that people have a range of opinions on how they like to access information and support, and the spectrum of communication needs of different groups of people, it is critical that information is available in a range of formats which are accessible (HM Government, 2007a; Disability Equality Duty, 2006; HM Government, 2007b; Godfrey & Denby, 2006).
The Social Exclusion Unit (SEU, 2005, taken from ODI, 2005) estimates that one in 20 people requires some form of literacy support, one in seven requires translation support and one in 15 some form of communication support for sensory impairments. In addition, Coulter et al (2006) found that in relation to health information provision, the combination of verbal and written information can be more effective for service users than verbal information alone. This suggests the importance of imparting information in a variety of formats, even for the same group of people or for an individual.
2.5.4 Ensure that information needs for all groups are met, and where possible, ensure that support is tailored to individual needs and preferences
In order that information and IAA needs more broadly are met, agencies and local government need to have a sense of what service users want from such a service, requiring some form of consultation or research (HM Government, 2007; Disability Equality Duty, 2006).
Robson and Ali (2006) suggest that for some agencies delivering this support, there is often a lack of time to carry out this work and that busy services and high turnover of clients are in themselves proxy measure for unmet need. The need for comprehensive research so that services are tailored for the needs of local populations and groups is essential to bring about better IAA provision.
2.5.5 Improve co-ordination and signposting between information providers across professional/governmental boundaries, and remove unhelpful boundaries to information provision
There is no doubt that in the information age, a wealth of information exists, often in a wide variety of formats. However, in order for this to be useful for users and professionals alike, it needs to be harnessed so that it is accessible, relevant and timely. To this end, better signposting and working between providers and government departments would make transitions between services smoother for all stakeholders (Carers UK, 2006; HM Government, 2007a). The ODI (HM Government 2007a) suggests that in particular, better working needs to be occurring between the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) and the Department of Health (DH) in relation to providing information about the needs of disabled people, especially since many disabled people are unaware which is the most relevant government department for their needs (Mori & DWP, 2005 taken from ODI, 2005). This could also reduce duplication of bureaucracy and personal information-giving to agencies, which can prove frustrating for many service users. 2.5.6 Involve service users in the design, implementation and evaluation of IAA services
A number of sources call for the proper and early involvement of users in designing effective IAA provision (HM Government, 2007a; ODI, 2005; HM Government, 2007b; Disability Equality Duty, 2006; Lewington & Clipson, 2004; Robson & Ali, 2006; Margiotta et al, 2003; Dunning, 2005) with this being one of the five principles of producing better information for disabled people. Timely involvement will mean that the process is meaningful to both parties, and not simply seen as tokenistic.
2.5.7 Define clear responsibility for service provision
A lack of responsibility in terms of who provides what information for both service users and providers in relation to social care services is a key area for clarification in order to ensure high quality IAA services. This is one of the five principles of providing information to disabled people as set out in the DED (2006) and by the ODI (HM Government, 2007b) – to define responsibility for information provision (HM Government, 2007a). This is also supported by Grewal et al (2004) (taken from ODI, 2005) and Carers UK (2006). This definition of responsibility, however, should not just be limited to the provision of information, but to IAA services more widely.
2.5.8 Support organisations to improve their IAA provision
Research has called for the adoption of some form of quality assurance/accreditation in relation to information provision to indicate how trustworthy it is, and how well the system as a whole is performing (HM Government, 2007a; Coulter et al, 2006, Dunning, 2005). This could work in the sense of guiding principles as those produced by the ODI (HM Government 2007b). As Dunning (2005) sets out in relation to older people, such standards would have the benefit of:
- providing a benchmark from which to measure performance and evaluation
- enhancing public confidence via clear accountability structures and procedures
- safeguarding the interests of potentially vulnerable client groups
- providing clarity for users and other stakeholders in terms of what to expect from IAA services.
2.5.9 Recognise the potential new roles of social workers
Recent research for Demos (Leadbetter et al, 2008, p.61) suggests that in a context of increasing self-directed support, social work roles will adapt accordingly and social workers could enjoy more creative, person-centred roles as:
- advisers: helping clients to self-assess their needs and plan for their future care
- navigators: helping clients find their way to the service they want
- brokers: helping clients assemble the right ingredients for their care package from a variety of sources
- service providers: deploying therapeutic and counselling skills directly with clients
- risk assessors and auditors: especially in complex cases and with vulnerable people deemed to be a risk to themselves or other people
- designers of social care systems as a whole: to help draw together formal, informal, voluntary and private sector providers.
2.5.10 Ensure that advocacy services are modelled on good practice principles
Principles in relation to high quality advocacy services are well documented across grey literature, but to a lesser extent in academic literature, although this is starting to change (Dunning, 2005). Nevertheless there are some common principles of good practice which organisations can apply to strengthen the service they are offering to users.
Action for Advocacy (2006) sets out 10 key themes which should underpin good practice in relation to advocacy. These are: • clarity of purpose • independence • putting people first • empowerment • equal opportunity • accessibility • accountability • supporting advocates • confidentiality • clear complaints policies.
While there is little research evidence relating to ethnic minority communities’ experiences of advocacy services, Rai-Atkins et al (2002) argues that best practice in mental health services for these groups should include:
• Ensuring the availability of bilingual advocates and recruiting and training interpreters within ethnic minority advocacy services to provide them with a wider socio-political and institutional perspective. Strengthening links between interpreters, mainstream services and ethnic minority services will also facilitate inter-agency working and understanding.
• Address problems in recruiting ethnic minority advocates into services (specialist or mainstream) and ensuring they are well supported in their role.
• Race awareness training for mental health advocates working in mainstream settings.
• A specific role for the Patient Advocacy and Liaison Service (PALS) to ensure that BME patients are heard and listened to and that this is achieved through cultural sensitivity and awareness.
2.5.11 Finding out ‘what works’
Finally, and of paramount importance, is that across all types of IAA provision there is a need for greater research around what works, and what does not work. Currently there is too much literature which is descriptive or non-evaluative in nature, which does not contribute to the evidence base around effectiveness. Dunning (2005) argues that is especially the case around advocacy services.
While there is little evidence around the most appropriate or effective configuration of advocacy services, OPAAL (2006) puts forward two sets of outcomes that advocates bring about for clients – material or tangible benefits (such as improved financial circumstances) and those which were related to feelings and emotions (such as those impacting on self-worth and confidence). It is clear that the second set will be more difficult to evaluate in relation to assessing the impact of any such service.
2.6 Conclusions
As this section has demonstrated, academic and grey literature on information, advice and advocacy tends to focus on deficits in services and recommendations for improvement. It is in this context that we set out in the fieldwork phase of our study to find out what is being done at a local level to strengthen IAA provision. As the following sections illustrate, we found that, in practice, a considerable amount of work is being done to address the issues identified in the literature.
2.7 Examples of information, advice and advocacy provision across the country
Included in the full literature review at Appendix 1 are some examples of work being carried out in England with respect to improving IAA provision. It should be stressed, however, that these are not necessarily being cited as ‘best practice’ since there is a limited evidence base on which to make such an assessment. They are examples of work being carried out which may foster shared practice and ideas across departments, authorities and providers. 3.1 Methodology
The survey element of this project was intended to provide a snapshot of current activity in the provision of information, advice and advocacy services in relation to adult social care in local authorities (LAs) across the country.
The survey was designed by the research team with consultation and input from key stakeholders from a range of organisations. Once finalised, it was hosted on the website SurveyMonkey for ease of completion (and analysis) – the website allows respondents to complete the form online and automatically consolidates data for analysis.
An email was sent to all directors of social services in English local authorities inviting them to complete the survey via the ADASS (Association of Directors of Adult Social Care) office. In total, participants were given three weeks to complete the survey (with an email reminder sent out during this time to all those who had not yet completed).
A total of 82 responses were collected from different local authorities, representing a response rate of approximately 55 per cent. Responses were generally fairly evenly spread among different types of authorities and regions in the UK, although some regions were better represented than others.
3.2 Results
3.2.1 Importance to transformation
When asked to rate the relative importance of IAA (information, advice and advocacy) services in relation to transforming adult social care, all participants felt that this was either an important or very important priority. This is shown in Figure 1 below. Information services were seen by a greater number of respondents as ‘very important’ compared to both advice and advocacy services.
 3.2.2 Confidence about knowledge of the needs of the local population
Figure 2 below illustrates how confident respondents felt about knowing the constituent IAA needs of their local populations. While just over half of those who answered were confident or very confident about knowing local information needs, respondents were less sure about advice and advocacy, with nearly three fifths saying that they were ambivalent or not confident about knowing these local needs. There was greatest uncertainty in relation to knowing advice needs of local populations – approximately 40 per cent of respondents were ‘neither confident nor unconfident’ about knowing these needs. The greatest proportion of respondents who were ‘not confident’ about these needs was in relation to advocacy services.
Participants were asked if they had carried out any of their own research to inform their understanding of local IAA needs. As shown in Figure 3 a greater number of LAs had undertaken some form of research for each type of service provision than had not. A considerable number of LAs, however, had not carried out any research in relation to needs for such services in their local area, suggesting perhaps that further work should be done on this issue for the future development of such services. While the greatest number of LAs had carried out research in relation to information needs (over the other two forms of IAA), there was no significant difference between the different type of service need. The numbers for both authorities that had, and had not completed research were generally comparable. Those LAs that had carried out research in this area described a wealth of initiatives to gather local intelligence, ranging from traditional research methods such as surveys and focus groups to user involvement in the provision of services and analysis of activity data. Methods described included:
- undertaking a detailed review of all IAA services (nine cases)
- mapping voluntary and community sector advice provision (two)
- undertaking a detailed review of advocacy needs (seven)
- undertaking research into IAA provision for specific groups (six)
- consulting people already using services about IAA needs (six)
- mystery shopping (one)
- gathering feedback on IAA through regular engagement with service users and the general public, e.g. through customer surveys (17).
In 17 cases respondents reported that they had commissioned or developed new services or products as a result of the research they had undertaken. New services ranged from new or improved information sheets to the commissioning of an advocacy service. In most cases the research had been used to inform the development of an IAA strategy. 3.2.3 Documented strategies
Only two per cent of respondents had a single strategy for all IAA needs.
If LAs had any strategies they were differentiated on the type of service need they related to. Nearly half of those responding had strategies still in development.
Figure 4 shows those LAs that had any documented strategy in place in relation to information, advice or advocacy needs. The majority of respondents answered no to this question, although an information strategy was the most frequent type of strategy that LAs did have in place. A strategy to address the advice needs of the local population was the least popular type of strategy LAs had in place, with only 15 authorities reporting this.
Although most respondents did not have a strategy in place, open ended comments indicated that the vast majority were either working towards or about to embark upon the development of an IAA strategy.
Figure 4: Do you have in place a documented strategy to address any of the following? 3.2.4 Gaps and areas for development
When asked what were the key gaps or areas to update in these strategies, the most frequent response was having adequate quality assurance mechanisms in place, followed by sufficient marketing and accessibility of information. The following gaps/updates were also seen as significant by LAs in relation to their IAA strategies: meeting the needs of socially excluded groups; forming effective partnerships and information sharing; technological solutions; and developing a robust information base. Some of these gaps or areas for further development also resonate with findings from the literature review around the needs of certain groups (for example ethnic minority communities or people living chaotic lifestyles) and introducing some measure or monitoring of what constitutes an effective service.
3.2.5 Delivery of information
Respondents were invited to indicate all of the forms of delivering information that they used. The most frequent forms of delivery were via assessment and care management teams and through corporate websites (shown in Figure 6). Delivering information through corporate call centres, through small discrete contracts for different services (eg one for learning disabilities, another for older people) and through user-led organisations were also frequent mechanisms for information dissemination. Utilising national-level organisations or committing to large independent sector contracts was much more infrequent in relation to information provision. 3.2.6 Delivery of Advice
Interestingly, these results were almost exactly mirrored when local authorities answered in relation to their advice provision services, with the same types of service delivery appearing at the most-used and least-used ends of the spectrum.
3.2.7 Content of information and advice
Respondents were also asked about the content of the information and advice that is given to people as shown in Figure 8. For both information and advice services, the most popular types of need covered were related to social care and support. Benefit information/advice was the next most frequent category. Employment, transport, health and leisure were the least frequent types of needs quoted as serviced by advice provision, while for information provision, the least frequent categories of need catered for were quality, employment, availability and cost of services. 3.2.8 Delivery mechanisms
Stakeholders were asked how information and personalised advice and services in relation to social care were delivered to the local population. The most frequently cited mechanisms of delivery were leaflets and other written information, with local voluntary organisations featuring slightly higher than local authority provision.
Again this resonates with some findings in the literature review that people tend to have greater trust and likelihood in accessing voluntary sector organisations for IAA than statutory and governmental agencies. National organisations ranked lower in terms of well-used mechanisms of service delivery according to respondents. Open ended responses revealed that, apart from the local authority, local branches of Age Concern and Citizens Advice Bureaux were seen as the main sources of information and advice. Figure 9: How do you think local people get explanation, advice and personalised information about social care services (whether or not they are eligible for financial support from the local authority)?
| Type of Information Source | Number of Respondents | |----------------------------|-----------------------| | Other | 8 | | Other national organisations| 31 | | Professional advisers | 38 | | National voluntary organisations | 45 | | Family or friends | 54 | | Social workers | 57 | | Website | 60 | | Care managers | 63 | | Local authority information services | 63 | | Local voluntary organisations | 66 | | Leaflets and written information | 66 |
3.2.9 Advocacy services
In relation to the delivery of advocacy services, respondents cited separate advocacy contracts for different services as the most frequent mechanism of service delivery. Advocacy delivered by user-led organisations was also popular, while centres for independent living and using a small number of large independent sector contracts were both relatively under-utilised in terms of funding.
Figure 10: Which advocacy service does your LA provide and/or fund? The overwhelming majority of local authorities who responded about the eligibility criteria of their advocacy schemes (46) indicated that services were a combination with some universal elements and others which were dependent on meeting certain criteria. Eleven respondents stated that they only provided a targeted service with eligibility criteria and seven said that they only provide a universal service.
The vast majority of LAs that responded to the question (62) have a range of separate advocacy services (for example for older people, people with learning disabilities and so on). Only three state that they have a single service for all types of people with social care and support needs.
3.2.10 User-led provision
In relation to user-led provision, nearly three quarters of LAs who responded stated that they had some form of IAA provision which was delivered by user-led groups. The remainder did not. However, it is impossible to tell from this the extent to which user-led provision pervaded all spheres of IAA service delivery, or whether it was a relatively uncommon type of service within the IAA spectrum.
3.2.11 Links to other support services
Forty-six LAs that responded to this particular question stated that their IAA systems currently link in with other support services (such as support brokerage or managing direct payments). For a significant minority (20 respondents) this is not taking place.
3.2.12 Quality assurance
In relation to monitoring the quality and effectiveness for IAA provision, over a third of respondents stated that they had no formal mechanism to monitor this (23 out of 66), resonating with earlier findings from the survey suggesting that this was an area of further work for many authorities and something that is also mentioned in the literature.
3.2.13 State of readiness of services
Finally, respondents were asked how prepared they felt their information, advice and advocacy services were in relation to enabling people to find and access personalised social care and support. While a large proportion of LAs felt they were quite well prepared, the largest proportion of respondents said they felt neither prepared nor unprepared, and a significant minority either felt quite unprepared or very unprepared, suggesting that current IAA provision is not yet delivering the level of service that people expect it to in the future.
Figure 12: How prepared local authorities feel their IAA systems are to support people to locate personalised social care services 4 Website review
4.1 Methodology
The research team reviewed the websites of 50 councils with social services responsibilities, selected to ensure a spread of regions, authority types and sizes. In addition, the websites of a selection of 10 national organisations were reviewed, to identify aspects of good practice and to understand the relationship between national and local information sources.
The 50 council websites were appraised to identify:
- whether information was available for the following specific groups:
- older people
- learning disabilities
- mental health
- physical disabilities
- drugs and alcohol
- HIV/AIDS
- carers
- how many clicks it took to get from the home page to the relevant information targeted at each group – a proxy measure for the accessibility of the information
- whether the information on the website included:
- how assessment works
- entitlement to services
- costs
- funding
- choice of services available
- quality of services
- signposting to other sources of information or advice (internal and external)
- information about advocacy services
The team also considered whether the sites were well presented and how easy it was to navigate around the site to find information. To some extent these judgements are subjective, but where websites conform to generally accepted standards of best practice, we report this.
4.2 Findings: local authority websites
There were vast differences between different sites and the findings have been split into two main areas:
- content – what sort of information was available
- navigation and usability – how easy the website was to navigate around and how easy it was to find the information provided.
In some cases it was difficult to assess sites under the above criteria, as information was held under more general headings and the rapid assessment did not allow time to undertake more complex searches and to navigate around all areas of the site where information might have been available.
4.2.1 Content: information for specific groups
Most sites had pages dedicated to specific groups of people: older people, learning disabilities, mental health, physical disabilities, drugs and alcohol, HIV/AIDS and carers. However, some instead grouped information into specific types of service, for example: day care services, residential care, assistive technology. Some sites simply list the services that exist as bullet points; others provide detailed information on the services available, costs, opening times, contact details and eligibility.
The following table sets out those websites that had specific pages for particular groups of people as follows. The right hand columns indicate the number of clicks it took in order to reach those pages. The differences in layout and prominence between the different groups of people and the accessibility of those specific pages are interesting to note. The reasons are not clear.
As already mentioned, most of these pages were located at a secondary level (at least two clicks from the home page) within the site.
The following table sets out the type of information that was available on those specific pages for groups of people:
| Group | Sites with specific pages | Number of clicks | Average clicks | |------------------------------|---------------------------|------------------|----------------| | Older people | 39 | 1-5 | 2 | | People with learning disabilities | 41 | 1-5 | 3 | | Mental health | 43 | 1-4 | 2-3 | | People with physical disabilities | 43 | 1-5 | 2-3 | | Drugs and alcohol | 40 | Most only found via search | 2-3 | | HIV/AIDS | 40 | Most only found via search | 2-3 | | Carers | 47 | 1-4 | 1-4 |
| Group | How it works | Entitlement | Costs | Funding | Choice of services | Quality | Signposting to further information internally | Signposting to further information externally | Information about advocacy | |------------------------------|--------------|-------------|-------|---------|-------------------|---------|-----------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------|---------------------------| | Older people | 24 | 18 | 17 | 21 | 41 | 2 | 34 | 25 | 7 | | People with learning disabilities | 26 | 12 | 6 | 9 | 36 | 4 | 35 | 22 | 14 | | Mental health | 21 | 12 | 5 | 3 | 28 | 1 | 31 | 29 | 5 | | People with physical disabilities | 21 | 17 | 15 | 12 | 30 | 0 | 32 | 27 | 7 | | Drugs and alcohol | 8 | 8 | 6 | 0 | 16 | 0 | 27 | 24 | 0 | | HIV/AIDS | 13 | 12 | 3 | 2 | 19 | 1 | 21 | 24 | 2 | | Carers | 40 | 18 | 4 | 27 | 41 | 1 | 36 | 40 | 15 | There was a significant gap in any setting out of information as to whether specific services were available, which undermines choice. Equally, there were few instances of information about the quality of services.
The differences in information provided for different people were interesting; the rationale for this is not clear.
A more detailed appraisal of the pages provided for specific groups of people is set out in Appendix 4, which also highlights sites that demonstrate good practice.
4.2.2 Content: information about specific services and functions
Assessment Most sites refer to the assessment process and who teams work with. The better sites give information about what is likely to happen after the assessment.
Entitlement to services In most cases this is covered by ‘we need to do an assessment’ or ‘it depends on your financial situation’. Merton Council provides a document ‘Explaining the eligibility criteria for receiving help or care from community services’. Most sites did not obviously talk about this. Those that did gave generic information about the eligibility criteria – critical, substantial, moderate or low.
The Kent County Council self assessment stood out as the best site.
A good way of managing expectations around information about eligibility may be to couch the explanations in terms of: ‘who do we help?’, ‘how do we help?’, ‘what services do we provide?’ and ‘what to do next’.
Choice of services Many just provide a bullet point list of services; others give pages and documents related to each service.
Quality of services Few sites had any information on quality of services. Some talked about how they work together in cross-functional groups and their strategy, but had nothing to quantify how good the service is. A section on ‘quality’ provides an opportunity to refer visitors to CSCI reports, satisfaction survey results, and information about the quality assurance process to which providers might be subjected. A small number of sites gave links to the CSCI website.
Support with funding Often the sites contained general information which was not necessarily specific to a particular group. However, it does make sense to store this in one place and to direct people here – but make it clear when they are being directed from one part of the site to another.
Many talk about direct payments, but not many give any indication of the amount of money one might be entitled to (although it is difficult to do this without information about an individual’s circumstances). Only a few sites gave more detailed information on grants and how to apply for them.
Costs of services Very few sites contained detailed information about costs of services. Exceptions were Sefton, which has a wealth of useful information about how much services are likely to cost, and Waltham Forest, which gives prices and also talks about the financial assessment and benefits check.
Signposting to internal information Many websites provide a range of contact numbers, – which is helpful for people who prefer to speak in person to someone who can advise them – but it is important to make it clear who deals with what to avoid people being directed to the wrong point.
Most provide internal contact details. One or two pointed people to a form or only provided an email address.
Signposting to external information The most helpful websites provided some detail alongside links to external information sources, including, for example, what services the organisation provides, a telephone number, web address, email address and opening hours.
Advocacy Many sites use the word ‘advocacy’ freely without explaining what advocacy is, and this may not be a term that everyone is familiar with.
Blackpool has a specific advocacy website - www.blackpooladvocacy.co.uk. This includes information about advocacy, projects, case studies, awareness and training and contact details.
Croydon has an advocacy page, but this does not link from group of people pages, so might be difficult to find. Others explain what advocacy is, but do not explain how an individual can get an advocate.
Often information about advocacy is provided alongside ‘carer’ information, although not always alongside information for other specific groups of people. 4.2.3 Navigation and usability
Given the amount of information and the number of messages a council needs to manage and get across, the structure of the website and management of information is vital.
Problems in managing information are exacerbated when an organisation is managing information at the secondary or tertiary level within the site.
A visitor to the website wants to be able to find the information they are looking for easily and to know when they have found everything that is available on the site. The visitor does not want to be directed away from the section they are in or sent to another site without knowing that this is happening.
A good practice guide to social care websites from this research is included in Appendix 3.
4.3 Findings: websites of national organisations
An overview of the information that is available on selected national websites is set out in Appendix 4. Our review of both local authority and national websites reveals that this information is sometimes duplicated and sometimes missing. Local authority websites sometimes signpost the user to a national site, but there seems to be little consistency across the 50 local authorities and 10 national sites in our sample as to how or whether this is done. On the whole, the national sites are definitive sources of information, although some of the websites themselves are better examples of good information provision than others.
The most definitive core of information appears to be that of DirectGov and its links to local authority websites, albeit that the links are buried in the hierarchy of information.
The websites of the national organisations reviewed as part of this project on the whole contain definitive information for particular groups. It might be helpful for both national and local authority information providers to ensure greater linkage with and reference to each other’s information. In particular, the DirectGov site, with its links to local authority websites, ought to be better marketed to provide a core national and local information service, complemented by links to key independent sector websites.
4.4 Conclusions from review of national and local organisation websites
There is considerable variation between websites in terms of content, accessibility and quality.
Based on this review, the table below sets out good and poor practice in this area.
Direct internet access to information and services is considerably less well developed in adult social care than in some other service sectors. Explanation, advice, advocacy, support planning and brokerage are critical. For many people, questions about whether they meet eligibility criteria for state funded services and what the level of any financial support might be are also important. There are key gaps relating to information that provides the key basis of decision making: availability, cost and quality; and to the ability to undertake assessment and access services online.
| Good practice included: | Examples of poor practice included: | |-------------------------|-----------------------------------| | Information held at a high level | Information buried | | Clear page design | Cluttered pages | | Well structured site | Unclear navigation | | Helpful external links | Links directing from site | | Information aimed at the public | Information written for professionals | | Frequently asked questions | Too much jargon | | Practical information | Too many PDFs | | Comprehensive information | Out of date information | | Information to aid choice | Information lacking content | | | No mention of choice, quality or cost | 5 Findings from more in depth work facilitated through selected local authorities
5.1 Introduction
A sample of local authorities facilitated a range of more in-depth work. These were: Tower Hamlets, Kent, Gloucestershire, Barnsley, Lancashire, Leeds and Manchester. These were selected through a combination of awareness of their having worked on key projects such as Linkage Plus, Care Direct or Centres for Independent Living and their ability to organise activity at relatively short notice. Work with them included discussions with the director of adults social services, visits and focus groups with a combination of stakeholders including people using services, third sector organisations, and PCT and district council staff.
5.2 Current thinking and practice
This work indicated that practice and thinking is developing rapidly and is generally outpacing the state of thinking set out in the literature review, which is of necessity retrospective. Most people in local authority areas indicated that their initial energies in relation to transforming services had focussed on developing the mechanisms and culture of individual budgets but that they were now proactively engaged on a broader front, including strategy and practice in relation to information, advice and advocacy and related work in community capacity building and engaging with current (and building new) markets.
Current provision of information, advice and advocacy has developed from a multiplicity of separate initiatives, largely as an adjunct to those initiatives rather than as a coherent service strategy in its own right.
All local authority areas have an array of services but to a large extent these are not strategically ordered or coherent. A number local authority areas are in the process of developing such a strategy and defining the needs and outcomes to address gaps and overlaps, and are making investment and divestment decisions. These include decisions about separation from the resource allocation, decision making and the role of facilitating assessment, information, advice, advocacy, brokerage and the ongoing management of services. This includes some strategic consideration of the role of local government and the independent sector in delivery. More typically, however, local authorities are looking to replicate the current pattern of provision and gradually add more small discrete contracts to fill gaps.
There is a need to take a strategic approach to all of the interpersonal services of transformation, including information, advice, advocacy, support planning and brokerage, in order not to potentially divest by default those interpersonal services, including social work functions, from local government. This has the potential to increase the number of people it is necessary for older and disabled people to relate to and thus de-personalise their experience. Authority wide
Corporate website
Call centre (corporate or social care)
Some specialist LA-wide services such as IMCA, CIL, Age Concern Advice Services
| District/locality 1 | District/locality 2 | District/locality 3 | District/locality 4 | |--------------------|--------------------|--------------------|--------------------| | Voluntary organisations A and B | Voluntary organisations B, C and D | Voluntary organisation A | Voluntary organisations B and E | | Assessment and care management teams | Assessment and care management teams | Assessment and care management teams | Assessment and care management teams | | CIL | OP centre | LD resource centre | | One stop shop | Health centre Information shop | PCT advice centre | One stop shop | | Libraries | Libraries | Libraries |
| Neighbourhood/village | Neighbourhood/village | Neighbourhood/village | Neighbourhood/village | Neighbourhood/village | Neighbourhood/village | Neighbourhood/village | |-----------------------|-----------------------|-----------------------|-----------------------|-----------------------|-----------------------|-----------------------| | Local advisers | Outreach | Local advice centre | Local advice centre | | | | 5.3 Key issues
Key issues which emerged during the engagement in local areas and which informed this report were:
Information, advice and advocacy are critical building blocks for good outcomes:
- Information is necessary to enable control and to inform choice. Personalised information, explanation, advice and often advocacy are essential if resultant support and services are to be personalised. Information needs to support the key decision factors of availability, affordability, suitability and quality and safety.
- There is a key overlap of roles and experiences in the field of information, advice and advocacy. Most people in professional roles also have personal experience of using or trying to use the services. Some of the people we met who were using services are also engaged in providing information, advice or advocacy.
- People are thinking about how to meet the range of needs of the public, both in terms of those who are articulate and energetic and who want maximum involvement in the management of their services AND those who are isolated, without capacity or exhausted.
- There is far more information generally available than people are aware of, and awareness raising and managing knowledge is therefore key across the whole range of stakeholders including the public, frontline statutory and voluntary organisation staff, communities and other key services such as housing, primary care and libraries.
Information, advice and advocacy as part of a spectrum of interpersonal support:
- The development of information, advice and advocacy is inextricable from the development of other interpersonal dimensions of support including support planning, support brokerage, the ongoing management of services and safeguarding.
- There is some concern about the divestment of social work and care management posts as a result of having developed streamlined assessment and a resource allocation system without having made provision for adequate support to facilitate assessment, information, advice, advocacy, support planning and brokerage services and, as part of all of that, safeguarding. Who provides these key functions needs to be planned strategically so as not to unintentionally strip local government of key interpersonal support for people through contract by contract exercises for these functions.
- Issues arose about funding and charging and by and to whom. There an indication of some willingness to pay, at least in some quarters, for comprehensive, personalised advice, brokerage and ongoing management (described by one group as a ‘personal social worker’).
Scoping a framework for the further development of services:
- Thinking is developing about how to manage the information base, including models (merging databases and links, citizen based postings of information, provider/supplier owned postings and Trip Advisor models) and key issues such as availability.
- Thinking is developing about making the range of delivery mechanisms more coherent including websites, call centres, assessment and care management teams, libraries, local advice centres, centres for independent living, one stop shops, community development and outreach workers.
- There are key issues in relation to signposting. People often experience signposting as being passed from pillar to post and getting lost through lack of follow up.
- Those involved felt that most information, advice and advocacy should be commissioned, managed and delivered locally rather than nationally, drawing from national sources where a) information was applicable nationally (eg benefits) or b) in specialist areas (eg motor neurone disease). People cited some use of DirectGov (though there was not a wide awareness of its social care dimensions and links to local authority websites) but none said they used NHS Choices except for searching for health services such as dentists or opticians.
- There is an awareness that there ought to be a possible regional or sub-regional dimension to information, advice and advocacy, but no examples were given of initiatives of this nature as it was felt to be too complicated. There is also a suggestion that some local functions might be drawn on across the country, for example services for specific ethnic minority communities concentrated in one local authority area but needed elsewhere.
- There have been developments in ‘market engaged’ solutions such as Care Bay, Plan My Care and others. There is a key need for real time availability information, without which people are experiencing frustration about apparent choices that cannot be realised due to a lack of availability. 5.4
Good practice highlighted during more in-depth work in local authority areas
The following sets out some examples of good practice identified during the more in-depth work in the selected local authority areas.
Authority
Good practice examples
Tower Hamlets
People using services providing information, advice and advocacy A focus group in Tower Hamlets involved people with disabilities and their supporters who were providing a range of information, advice and advocacy, including writing specific leaflets, providing information about and support into employment, information and support in relation to benefits and peer information and support for people with learning disabilities. LinkAge Plus The outreach has been evaluated as successful (10 workers cover the borough) and a group of local third sector organisations deliver it. Those providing it perceive the benefits as being that it is strongly locally based, they are autonomous in how they deliver and can be flexible. They feel that small local advice services that are culturally sensitive are essential. Written information has a limit to what it can do (for example they now no longer translate into Somali as it is not locally a written language). Interpreters have been known to misinterpret and to add in direction. Services need age, gender and cultural diversity in order to ‘get it to people directly’. The workers function to reach in to and know the communities. They function to link people to resources and do some capacity building. They will put people in touch, book appointments and sometimes escort. They target people who are isolated because of not being able to get out of their front door or because of language or culture. They work through established advice outlets (30) and centres and have access to pro bono legal advice from a law firm. A key success has been a day centre for the Bangladeshi community which has now become mixed through adding in DWP pensions and legal advice services.
Gloucestershire
Information and advice is linked to community development/ building social capital and reaching isolated people. Screening for additional need and fast-tracking for callers to the contact centre (corporate) which originated in care direct as the adults’ and children’s helpdesk (customer services is in the same directorate as adult social care). This is linked to the 30 village agents: a scheme developed through LinkAge Plus. These are complemented by community agents who deliver services in key community languages. The agents work through community networks and do basic home safety and benefits checks as well as link to social activities, support and care. Agents actively signpost by referring people into the services they need. They are building significant very local knowledge and information at the level of ‘the butcher delivers on Thursdays in x village’.
information, advice and advocacy report 33
| Authority | Good practice examples | |-----------|------------------------| | Kent | Engagement of older and disabled people in the development of information, advice and advocacy in relation to a strategy for information, advice and guidance. A council website that includes:
- The facility for self assessment (which in practice is reported as being mainly completed with support)
- Access to the care services directory which is formed of entries from providers and includes price, required links to CSCI reports and links to maps and can be searched by location. It is hoped to add availability to this. This started as a residential care database and domiciliary care is being added. | | Leeds | Neighbourhood networks have been developed and are well established throughout the city. They are voluntary sector organisations, locally ‘owned’, governed and managed, and deliver a range of services, support and activities including information, advice and advocacy and other initiatives that support independence and wellbeing. The focus is primarily around the prevention agenda. Additionally, the network visited supports people with self assessment processes for social care as well as supporting statutory services with delivery of specific initiatives.\
Although significant funding is through service agreements with the council and PCT, the network visited also maintains an independence from statutory services through fundraising – for example through partnerships with local business.\
Through this model information and advice is one component of a range of activities that support communities and people living in them – a product of making and sustaining relationships key to development of trust and mutual support.\
Although the primary focus is on older people, there is an emphasis on intergenerational work. For example, at the site visited there was a partnership with a school and an exercise programme. | | Barnsley | The Barnsley Participation Process (BPP) is a well established process for the development and delivery of community partnerships. It comprises the following elements:-
- Barnsley Arena – an independent user – and carer – led organisation.
- non-statutory provider participation facilitated by Voluntary Action Barnsley (VAB)
- governance through a steering group comprising the council, the PCT, Barnsley Arena and VAB.\
The Barnsley Arena, as an expert by experience group, is a focus for information and support for local people and for consultation and engagement with statutory services. The model has given longstanding commitment to user – and carer – led challenge and contributions to the strategic development of support and services. It positions the partnership well for the delivery of social care transformation.\
Both Barnsley Arena and VAB are ‘host’ organisations for the Barnsley LiNK. | | Authority | Good practice examples | |-----------|------------------------| | Manchester | An adult social care web based information site – MyManchesterServices – (www.manchester.gov.uk/mymanchesterservices) was launched in June 2008 and was developed following learning that had been gained from the Manchester Gateway (POPPs) project. The site provides information about services and community groups across the city and enables identification of support and service at the local level through a postcode or ward search. Details are also available about where to seek advice, for example in relation to support planning, and so enables an overview of the services, support and information that people are accessing to inform local needs future planning. Manchester Advice (www.advicekit.info), in partnership with the Manchester Digital Development Agency, have developed a means of delivering online advice services for people in Manchester either as a self-help tool, email service and/or enabling private advice sessions. | | Lancashire | Help Direct is a new service open to all adults in Lancashire to help secure the ‘bit of extra support they need to stay independent’. Help Direct has been developed from learning from LINKAge Plus and POPPS initiatives to provide a network of support through a lead third sector agency in each district. A ‘bakers dozen’ of practical help themes has been developed enabling access to information, advice and to a very wide range of practical supports aimed at supporting people to remain healthy and active, to keep home and garden in good order, to be in touch with friends and family and to be involved with their local community. As well as delivering practical supports, lead organisations will be developing greater collaboration between organisations delivering wellbeing services in the area. It is intended that the model is further developed and trialled over a three-year period with a view to evaluating initiatives that have achieved most success. Infrastructures include:
- First Contact: developing awareness among key groups of staff (libraries, fire service, community support officers) to identify and refer on low-level needs
- Dedicated and common IT systems providing comprehensive local information and links to other web based systems and developing potential for self assessment processes\
Wider developments planned include third sector capacity building and the development of safe trader schemes. |
5.5 Detailed summaries of work in local authority areas
Tables setting out a detailed summary of who we had discussions with, what we saw, documents we were given and developing thinking and dialogue is set out in Appendix 5. 6 Findings from more in-depth discussions with selected national organisations
6.1 Introduction During the course of the project, concerns were raised by some steering group members about what should be provided nationally and what locally. Therefore, discussions and correspondence was undertaken with a small number of representatives from national organisations. These included individuals from the Princess Royal Trust for Carers, Age Concern, Counsel and Care, the Foundation for People with Learning Disabilities, the Departments of Health and Communities and Local Government, ADASS, IDeA and LGA.
6.2 National and local provision There were mixed views about the national and local dimensions, particularly in the provision of advice services. There was agreement that national sources of information were key where a) information was applicable nationally (eg benefits or the entitlement to assessment) or b) in specialist areas. There was, in addition, a view that there is importance to having a fall back advice service for where people had ‘got stuck’ in local services.
A proportion of advice provided nationally responds to referral from local services and signposts people to local services. There is an additional view from one government department representative and one voluntary organisation that there should be investment in additional national helplines. This is seen as providing extended hours cover and greater consistency of quality. There is unanimity that face-to-face advice, outreach and personal information and advice about local services must be done locally.
There are currently key issues being raised about the wisdom of developing IT information systems that link individual assessments to market solutions multiple times across the country, and work is needed to develop frameworks and support quality options.
Detailed information on developments in, and the views of, the selected national organisations are set out in Appendix 6. Modelling: Developing the first stages of a taxonomy for information, advice and advocacy
The following ways of framing the development of strategy for information, advice and advocacy were developed during discussions and cross tested during the dialogue that emerged through the project. This involved older and disabled people and their families and carers who were thinking about or using services, local voluntary and community organisations, frontline and senior staff in local authorities and the NHS and national statutory and voluntary organisations. They suggest a basis for the future development of strategy and delivery.
7.1 The range of needs
Information, advice and advocacy need to meet the full spectrum of:
- the most articulate and energetic people who want to take maximum control of their lives
- people who are completely exhausted or without capacity.
7.2 Dimensions of personalisation
7.2.1 Context
Information, advice and advocacy are a key dimension of personalisation and sit with a range of other developing functions. These can be represented diagrammatically as follows: 7.2.2 Administrative and interpersonal dimensions of information, advice and advocacy
Developments in personalisation and the transformation of adult social care fall into two main groupings: firstly the administrative arrangements or architecture for delivery, such as personal budgets, resource allocation systems and fair access to care; and within which would sit information banks and the interpersonal support systems to enable people to personalise and take control over their support and services. Within the latter sit services such as getting to know someone and their needs and preferences, searching for and sorting information about suitable services for individuals’ needs, explanation and advice, advocacy, support planning and brokerage.
- information banks
- RAS
- FACS 2
- personal budgets
- getting to know someone
- searching and sorting
- explanation and advice
- advocacy
- support planning and brokerage
7.2.3 Interpersonal dimensions
Information, advice and advocacy might be described as part of a spectrum of services within the interpersonal dimension, and indeed a number of authorities are considering delivery within the framework of information, advice, advocacy and brokerage. Underlying considerations about strategy and delivery is concern about safeguarding. 7.3 Dimensions of managing information and advice
There are three dimensions emerging that help to frame the delivery of information advice and advocacy. These are:
- Managing / organising the information
- Managing awareness and knowledge
- Delivery mechanisms 7.3.1 Managing and organising information
Information is necessary to support a range of stakeholders. These include:
- Disabled and older people
- Their families and carers
- Staff providing information, advice and advocacy services at a national and local level
- Staff providing services and support for people who have additional needs (for example, a GP providing medical care for an older person who never goes out of the house)
- Care managers and people engaged in support planning and brokerage
- Community and voluntary groups.
There are a number of key questions and potential solutions that are emerging in relation to this. These are:
- How is information collated?
- How is it kept up to date?
- How are links made between national, local and community information sources?
- How is it distributed or accessed?
- Who owns it?
- How do you find what you want from it?
- Does it allow you to work out whether it is suitable for you based on whether it tells you about availability, affordability, accessibility and quality?
- Is there a sufficiency of services for you?
There are a number of models for the information base emerging. These include:
- The conventional website and links model familiar in statutory and voluntary sectors
- Models familiar through the travel industry, for example the Trip Advisor model where you can search by geography, star rating, price or the ratings of customers
- Affiliation models (largely commercial) whereby providers advertise their services under an umbrella brand and there is some degree of mutual regulation in order to remain part of the brand (for example small luxury hotels)
- Models familiar from comparison sites such as moneysupermarket.com which includes a short explanation and then compares price
- CareBay and Plan My Care models
- Social networking models where both providers/suppliers and customers/citizens are all free to post their wares and views
- Commercial information and advice sites.
Current views of all of these models are underpinned by questions relating to safety, regulation and/or accreditation. Put crudely, you might buy a television from a stranger online, but would you tell them the key code for your house so that they could come in and help you get washed and dressed? 7.3.2 Managing the awareness and knowledge
This dimension encompasses consideration of how people know what information there is, how they access it, organise the search and make it personal to individual circumstances. It includes questions about how people inform and are informed by the information base. It is applicable to older and disabled people and their families and carers, to staff providing information, advice, advocacy and brokerage services, to people providing other services for older and disabled people who need further support and to community and voluntary organisations.
There is an overwhelming amount of information available. Most people are familiar with small dimensions of it only and there is a lack of awareness of key sources. Key issues arising are:
- there is a need for better marketing of current information
- there are key issues about inclusion of very isolated people who may never go out of their house and who are less likely to have internet access
- there are some ideas about creating a ‘common system’ within local authority areas which includes access to a common information base and training and briefing for a range of staff providing information, advice and advocacy services in the full range of settings (see below).
7.3.3 Delivery mechanisms
These are multiple and cover the range of settings from which people source information, advice and advocacy, including but not limited to:
- websites
- call centres
- one stop shops
- centres for Independent Living
- health centres and primary care professionals
- libraries
- advice organisations
- advocacy organisations
- assessment and care management teams
- community and neighbourhood organisations and workers
- outreach services
7.4 Transformation approaches within which information, advice and advocacy sit
There are two overall approaches that are apparent while visiting local authority areas: that of social justice, inclusion and community or citizenship models and the consumerist model. Differences of approach between authorities appear to be quite starkly anchored in one or the other approach and do not appear to be linked to the political complexion of the local authority concerned. They might be characterised as follows:
| Social justice and inclusion | Consumerist | |-----------------------------|-------------| | Family/friend/partner/relationships | Cash for care | | Neighbourliness | Shop for care | | Looking out for each other | Marketplace principles | | Social capacity and capital | Trading standards | | Co-production | Buyer beware | | Inclusivity of community activities and services | Citizen/social networking/user posted information | | Outreach | | | Regulation or accreditation | |
There is an argument that in order to improve outcomes for people and to deliver the transformation agenda, both should be developed simultaneously. 7.5 Statutory and independent provision
Local government is charged with the function of place shaping, key to which in the social care context are questions such as what it is like to be an older person, or a disabled person, or a person with mental health needs, in a particular area, and can people find the services they need to be independent?
There is currently a broad range of provision of information, advice and advocacy across the public, private and third sectors, albeit that it is not necessarily strategically or coherently organised.
Some of the unintended by-products of the development of services since the implementation of the NHS and Community Care Act have arguably been:
- while the market in the community has expanded by way of choice of provider, it is not necessarily any more likely that people are able to control such factors as when they go to bed
- local government and social workers have found that some of their key roles in relationship to the people they work with that are linked to the principles of self determination and individualisation have been subsumed into roles as assessors, gatekeepers and rationers.
The development of independent information, advice, advocacy and service brokerage has grown through the letting of multiple contracts both to support people to manage personal budgets and to balance some of this.
There is now a question as to how best these services might be incorporated into an overall strategy and deploy scarce social work most effectively.
Options might include:
- the further development of the spectrum of independently provided services
- the creation of a separation of function within local government between the resource allocation and rationing functions and the provision of facilitated assessment, information, advice, advocacy, brokerage and safeguarding
- both of the above
- resource allocation being linked to a national entitlement (whether or not it is means tested) and a national resource allocation system with the provision of facilitated assessment, information, advice, advocacy and brokerage being local functions.
It is important that these decisions are considered strategically in order to avoid the divestment of services and skills, and particularly social work related functions, from local government by default through a series of disparate contract lettings.
7.4 National and local dimensions of delivery
Further work is required to map current and intended strategy and delivery of the national and local dimensions of information, advice and advocacy. Providing information and advice on a national level has been a key issue raised by the representatives of two national organisations on the steering group, and thus picked up as specific questions during engagement in more depth – both in local authority areas and with national organisations.
There is currently confusion as to where to find information and advice. A first step to support people needing services would be to market the sources of information, advice and advocacy services that are available.
The emerging main view is that local sources should deliver local information, advice and advocacy. Each local area has its own resources, so accurate signposting to services on the ground (for instance, minor repairs and gardening) would be very difficult from a national level, and might limit the ‘one stop’ aspiration.
The information that is sourced from national sources by local areas is twofold: information that is nationally applicable and which relates to entitlement (benefits, an assessment, financial products) and information that is specialist (that relating to motor neurone disease or Huntingdon’s disease for example).
There are two further arguments for national provision:
1. there is an argument put by national organisations that there is also a necessary function for people who ‘get stuck’ in local services
2. there is an argument that has been put by two national organisations for national advice lines in order to improve quality and availability.
Indications of recommendations from the work undertaken are to:
- build the statutory information base on the DirectGov/local authority website core that currently exists. Raise the access to local authority sites to a higher level of navigation on DirectGov. Ensure that there are clear links between DirectGov and local authority websites and NHS Choices and key independent sector sites
- in relation to the market for support and services set out in information and advice, frame standards linked to sufficiency: affordability, availability, quality, cultural appropriateness and type
- map and model the ideal type relating to the balance between national and local provision based on the principles of what is applicable across the country and what is best delivered locally. This could include rationalising provision and developing frameworks. Conclusions and recommendations for future work
This research has covered a wide range of issues and presented a breadth of information reflected in a literature review, the results of a survey of directors of adults social services, a review of website information and more in-depth work in selected local authority areas (with statutory, third sector and user-led organisations) and with a small selection of national organisations.
Key recommendations that emerge from the work undertaken are:
That the recommendations from the literature review frame the development of information, advice and advocacy services as follows:
1. Ensure the strategic significance of providing good quality information, advice and advocacy is understood by all stakeholders through the development of national and local strategies that set out how organisations will:
- provide information and advice related to points in people’s lives when support is needed
- ensure information and advice is available in a range of formats and channels and is accessible by all groups
- ensure that information needs for all groups are met and where possible, ensure that support is tailored to individual needs and preferences
- improve co-ordination and signposting between information providers across professional/governmental boundaries, and remove unhelpful boundaries to information provision
- ensure that advocacy services are modelled on good practice principles
- involve people who use information, advice and advocacy in the design, implementation and evaluation of those services
- define clear responsibility for service provision
- support organisations to assure the quality of their IAA provision
- recognise the potential new roles of social workers
2. Undertake research into ‘what works’ in relation to IAA.
3. Frame the development of information, advice and advocacy in the context of the spectrum of interpersonal support related to personalisation, including support planning, support brokerage and the ongoing management of services; and underpin all of these with the dimension of safeguarding. Ensure that there is consideration of who is best placed to provide those services and some continuity of the person who is providing support in order to ensure that these services are personal.
4. Articulate and reiterate the principle that transformation and personalisation are dependent upon good information, advice, advocacy, support planning and brokerage being available. These services need to encompass developments in both consumer and social inclusion and community models.
5. Frame the development of information advice and advocacy in three dimensions: managing the information, managing awareness and knowledge and management of the delivery mechanisms.
6. Market the sources of information, advice and advocacy services that are available.
7. Build the statutory information base on the DirectGov/local authority website core that currently exists. Raise the access to local authority sites to a higher level of navigation on DirectGov. Ensure that there are clear links between DirectGov and local authority websites and key independent sector sites.
8. In relation to the market for support and services set out in information and advice, frame standards linked to sufficiency: affordability, availability, quality, cultural appropriateness and type.
9. Map and model the ideal type relating to the balance between national and local provision based on the principles of what is applicable across the country and what is best delivered locally. This could include rationalising provision and developing frameworks. About the authors
Cathie Williams is a freelance consultant with a background of over 20 years in local government social services departments, including as a director. She now works with national and local organisations supporting the development of policy and practice in adults’ and children’s services.
Tim Hind is a freelance consultant with a background of over 20 years in local government social services departments, including in senior management roles. He now works with national and local organisations and is also policy adviser to the local government association in relation to adult social care.
Jane Harris is a freelance consultant with extensive experience in research and consultancy with the statutory and third sectors. She is also the deputy director of the Institute for Voluntary Action Research.
Shruti Uppal is an Oxford graduate and a researcher with Cordis Bright.
Contacts: [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Appendix 1
Literature review
1 Methodology
The literature review was aimed at rapidly synthesising the research evidence on information, advice and advocacy services with respect to adult social care. In particular, this was an exercise in assessing whether or not good practice had been established in relation to models of service provision in the IAA sector and whether there were any obvious gaps for further research in this area.
Specific searches were carried out for certain organisations/government departments which were likely to have carried out research in this area. These were:
- Counsel and Care
- Local Government Analysis and Research (LGAR)
- Social Care Institute for Excellence (SCIE)
- Department for Work & Pensions (and in particular work on the LinkAge Plus pilots)
- Commission for Social Care Inspection (CSCI)
- Research in Practice for Adults (RiPfA)
- Office for Disability Issues (ODI)
- Joseph Rowntree Foundation (JRF)
To augment the organisational searches, the Social Care Online database was also searched. This is an online tool hosted by SCIE which holds a variety of resources on social care. The pre-defined research terms used were ‘access to information’, ‘advocacy’ and ‘advice services’ and all resources which were available from 2000 onwards relating to adults were included in the search.
These searches were then complemented with snowball searching, using the bibliographies of key articles or reports.
2 Sources
The literature review generated evidence from a variety of sources. This included academic research, government reports, and research carried out by VCS organisations.
Most studies included in the review tended to either group IAA services together, or only concentrate on information provision. They did however tend to concentrate on particular groups of people (eg people with disabilities, older people) since this often reflected their organisational or departmental focus. For those people with multiple conditions therefore, it is difficult to find evidence about what IAA approaches may work best or what their IAA needs are.
For ease of reporting, the findings discussed here are in relation to IAA provision more broadly, except for those cases where the literature allows us to drill deeper to either a particular service type or for a particular group of service users.
3 Standards for information
Central government expects social services to provide information about services, and has set a number of standards related to information provision:
- information should be accurate and useful
- information requirements should be assessed for the wider public, for people making initial contact with services, and for agencies making referrals
- the local population should be consulted to identify information needs
- social services should work with others in developing and providing information to the public
- information should be accessible
- the information policy and strategy should be managed and resourced to meet its statutory responsibilities.
The government states that information about services is crucial because ‘it helps service users understand what is available and where it can be obtained. This helps people to retain control over their own lives and maintain independence.’ (Signposts to Services, SSI, 1998).
1 Available at: http://www.scie-socialcareonline.org.uk/ Many sources documented problems that service users, or more widely members of the public, face when trying to access IAA services. These included:
4.1 Lack of or misinformation.
A number of sources (e.g., HM Government, 2007a; CSCI, 2007) cite the inability of users from different groups to easily access services due to a lack of information or awareness of what is out there, or more worrying still, that the information they receive is inaccurate or inconsistent. Given that information is one of the key drivers for satisfaction and that conversely inconsistent information from people within the same organisation can be a major cause of dissatisfaction (Social Exclusion Unit, 2005, taken from ODI, 2005), it is vital that services which are designed to provide information are not inadvertently misinforming their local populations. This may be more of an issue for certain groups of service users and Dunning (1998) suggests that ethnic minority older people find that information and advice is often characterised by ‘inaccuracy, inappropriateness and absence of information that was needed or requested’ (taken from Margiotta et al., 2003: 33).
An important study by the Office of Fair Trading (OFT, 2005) found that many older people were poorly served by the care home market, and concluded that lack of information was one of the key reasons why older people were unable to exercise their rights as consumers. The Commission for Social Care Inspection conducted a follow-up study in 2007 (CSCI, 2007) which emphasised the importance of information given face to face, and found that written information about choosing a care home was still generally poor.
Research such as mystery shopping (CSCI, 2007; Swain et al., 2007) is one of the few ways of systematically exploring the extent to which a) information provided by professionals is accurate and b) whether it is consistent. Whilst such exercises depend on collective expertise and appraisal skills in determining levels of accuracy and consistency, the service user often does not have these skills or expert knowledge at their disposal, meaning that inaccurate information for them can have serious negative consequences on their health and/or wellbeing. With this in mind, the studies cited here found discrepancies in terms of providing consistent information, and at times inaccurate information.
4.2 Fragmentation of information. Information is rarely held in one place, pertains to different groups of people, about different departments or service types. Little signposting between services
Traditional services in the social care sector are organised around professional boundaries which, while logical on an organisational or departmental basis, are often not easy to navigate for users or those members of the public who are not already familiar with such structures and their respective remits.
In its annual review of the state of social care in England in 2006-07, the Commission for Social Care Inspection concluded that councils and care services were not performing well against national standards relating to information (CSCI, 2008). The report noted the growth of ‘signposting’ as a strategy to deal with people who are not eligible for council-funded services, but noted that the quality of signposting was variable. Typically, councils relied on the third sector to provide information, but there was little follow up for people who had been signposted elsewhere.
In relation to disabled people, the Office for Disability Issues (ODI) found that services are usually designed and organised by central government departments, but delivered by a number of agencies, resulting in information that becomes fragmented across both providers and central government departments (HM Government, 2007a). Whilst local authorities end up providing information about a range of services, this is in the absence of any required level of service or basic level of responsibility to do so, resulting in information provision which can be inconsistent and poorly regulated.
Given that voluntary sector organisations tend to be structured around particular groups of people or conditions, it can be difficult to foster cross-organisational/departmental links to tie into other relevant information sources. However, voluntary or non-statutory organisations also tend to be more trusted by service users than are government departments, partly fuelled by the perception that they have ‘less of an agenda’ (Mori & DWP, 2005 taken from ODI, 2005; Robson & Ali, 2006). This therefore presents the issue about how best to harness the trust of service users and ensure that independent organisations have all the information at their disposal to offer members of the public at the point of enquiry. 4.3 Information sources can be overwhelming and non-personalised, with an over-use of jargon or non-accessible language.
Qualitative feedback on the DirectGov website from disabled users (Corr Willbourn Research & Development, 2004, taken from ODI, 2005) showed that users want active delivery of personally relevant information over information which is passive and often hypothetical (i.e. ‘in X circumstances you may be entitled to Y’). Overall these views sum up their preference for an interface rather than a simple website, which ideally would put them in a stronger position when having to deal with local bureaucracy. This is supported by Hayden and Boaz (2000, taken from Margiotta et al, 2003) who found that older people wanted co-ordinated person-based information delivered by either telephone or face to face. This has implications for ensuring information is available in a variety of formats, but also that it extends beyond a passive catch-all model as described above.
A CSCI mystery shopping exercise (CSCI, 2007) also found that when users requested written information from local authorities, these were at times inaccessible, contained too much jargon and were poorly designed. Others have also documented poor design, layout or visibility in relation to written information or materials (for example Margiotta et al, 2003).
Sykes et al (2008) also found that the model of developing ‘banks’ of information by local authorities and other agencies which are accessible to members of the public are rarely used in such a manner, at least with respect to older people. Older people access information when faced with a particular problem or question, and then usually only from formal sources of information when they have exhausted all informal mechanisms of doing so (which are considered more trustworthy and more understandable). There is a common perception of the over 50s that while ‘there is a lot of information out there’, this does not necessarily mean that they are better served because of it. A critical challenge in such information systems is being able to deliver relevant and timely information to older people which has some practical use for them. Formal information can often been seen as overwhelming, full of jargon and too general.
4.4 Inadequate service provision for certain groups
Research has documented that for certain groups in society, elements of IAA provision can be sparse or inappropriate.
Ninety-four per cent of respondents in a survey sent to advocacy schemes (Lewington and Clipson, 2004) felt that there was insufficient advocacy to meet local needs and 92 per cent believed that the production of a local advocacy strategy would be beneficial.
Lewington and Clipson (2004) also report that there is inadequate independent advocacy provision for people with physical, sensory, communication and profound and multiple impairments. This often linked to a lack of funding and/or skills in working with these client groups and that the support provided may not always meet their needs. Funding issues not only included a direct lack of funding, but complexities within the funding relationship with local authorities and health trusts, where rigid service level agreements, fixed short-term funding and monitoring arrangements were seen to be discouraging work with these client groups, which can be very time-consuming and not always conducive to measurable outcomes.
The research was based on surveys sent to a range of advocacy service providers and local authorities. As shown in the table below, these findings also echo other studies which suggest that the multiply impaired and ethnic minority clients are also not seen as main client groups in relation to advocacy (and more broadly IAA) provision. Groups that advocacy schemes see as being their main clients
| Client group | Percentage of respondents | |-------------------------------------------|---------------------------| | Learning disability | 52 per cent | | Mental health | 41 per cent | | Elderly | 28 per cent | | Physical disability | 27 per cent | | Sensory impairments | 18 per cent | | Ethnic minority | 17 per cent | | Profound and multiple impairments | 11 per cent | | Communication impairments | 10 per cent |
In relation to accessibility, IAA services need to ensure that they are accessible to all members of the local community, which may entail providing extra support mechanisms in place to facilitate this access. The RNID carried out research into deaf people's experiences of accessing services (RNID, 2004) and found that nearly a fifth of those consulted received the wrong form of communication support when accessing public services; a further quarter reported no support provided to enable them to access services, highlighting the importance to consider accessibility in IAA provision. Nearly half of those researched (46 per cent) reported that they were unable to interact with public services ‘all of the time’ or ‘often’ due to a lack of communication support. The most robust IAA services can therefore be rendered useless if accessibility issues are not fully considered form the onset. This research also raises issues about the extent to which current IAA provision adheres to the Disability Discrimination Act.
For carers, the value of information (and the consequences of not receiving it in a timely fashion) often resulted in the difference between being able to access the full range of benefits that they (and the person they cared for) were entitled to (Carers UK, 2006). Information providers should distinguish between different types and stages of caring (such as along the life course – entering/leaving caring or those that do not recognise themselves formally as carers, thereby unaware of the support they are entitled to) as the information needs of these carers will vary accordingly. These considerations should be fed into local information strategies that local authorities and/or health trusts may have. Carers UK (2006) also calls for a government-funded national information helpline for carers to help them navigate the support that is out there.
2Taken from Lewington & Clipson, 2004:15 3The term ‘deaf’ here is used to include all those people who are deaf, hard of hearing, deafblind, or deafened. A CSCI study (2005) comparing the views of adults with physical and learning difficulties living in care homes and attending day centres found that in relation to the ease of obtaining information, there was a marked contrast between the satisfaction of the two groups. While those in residential care had satisfaction ratings of 44 per cent, only 16 per cent of those who received care at home were satisfied with the ease with which they could obtain information. Across the groups, this was linked to difficulties in getting through to the right person and working out who was the right person to talk to in the first instance.
In relation to advocacy, brokerage and support services specifically, barriers for disabled people as found in the literature review undertaken as part of the Independent Living Review (2007) included:
- geographical patchiness in provision
- difficulty in accessing information about available services (including about direct payments)
- particular problems in accessing services for older people, people with physical disabilities, those with sensory, communication and multiple impairments, parents with learning disabilities and mental health sufferers
- inadequate provision for ethnic minority groups
- insufficient capacity for services to cope with demand
- difficulties in recruiting and finding personal assistants
- ineffective multi-agency working
- delicate financial position of many advocacy, brokerage and support services.
4.6 Lack of robust evidence-based research around ‘what works’ in relation to IAA
Much of the literature discussed here, and that which is more widely available in relation to models of IAA provision, is rarely empirically grounded and therefore seldom offers robust evidence about whether or not these models actually ‘work’. Many studies instead use a ‘case study’ or showcase approach whereby new initiatives are described, rather than appraised, making it difficult for the reader to distinguish between them (for example Baxter et al, 2006; Godfrey & Denby, 2006, May 1998, taken from Margiotta et al, 2003).
4.7 Specific gaps in relation to evidence on IAA provision for:
a. ethnic minority communities b. those with chaotic lifestyles c. people with fluctuating support needs d. visually impaired e. multiple impairments f. private purchasers of social care services (Baxter et al, 2006)
The Disability Equality Duty (2006) is a code of practice and principles to ensure that public bodies pay ‘due regard’ to the promotion of quality of disabled people. It includes principles about providing information to disabled people such as providing information through a range of channels and formats and clearly signposting to other services. 5 Recommendations
Recommendations from the research conducted in this area included:
5.1 Ensure the strategic significance of providing good quality information is understood by all stakeholders
It is vital that central and local government, as well as all non-statutory organisations which are involved in providing information in relation to adult social care, understand the strategic and higher-level grounds for doing so. For example, in relation to services for disabled people, this aim directly falls under public bodies’ responsibilities for meeting the Disability Equality Duty (HM Government, 2007a).
This strategic direction has also been stressed for older people’s IAA services (Dunning, 2005:51) with the argument that high-level priorities need to be:
- development of shared values
- clarity of approach
- understanding the diversity of aims and organisations
- comprehensive mapping of current provision, what works and where the gaps are
- development of joint policy procedures and practice
- building capacity of grass roots organisations
- engagement of older people at all levels
- training and awareness of frontline staff
- commitment from a senior level.
This strategic approach could also include appreciating a more functional analysis of the costs and benefits involved in minimising misleading or inaccurate information, and instead providing good quality information services. There is little research around what are the costs and benefits to service users, to organisations themselves, and on a bigger scale to government and whole health and social care economies. This is an area for further research and requires clearer information around the outcomes and outputs involved in providing good quality information (Watt et al, 2007; ODI, 2005).
Learning from current pilots modelling new ways of working (eg LinkAge Plus, Partnerships for Older People’s Projects, information prescriptions) is also an important mechanism of disseminating valuable information about what does (and does not) work in relation to improving access to IAA services. Evaluations of such projects must ensure that they are based on robust evidence and methods of appraisal.
5.2 Provide information and services related to points in people’s lives when support is needed
People tend to require information and support to access services at particular points in their lives. While this may be a self-evident statement, it is pertinent to note that people do not go looking for information in a vacuum and there is almost a specific question they are trying to answer. This in turn can often relate to their personal circumstances at the time. However, information sources (such as websites) are rarely organised in a way which recognises this life-course approach.
The Audit Commission’s report Don’t stop me now (Audit Commission, 2008) contains a series of recommendations to help public services to address the challenges presented by an ageing population. Recognising the importance of information, the report recommends better marketing and promotion of services for older people and the establishment of local resource centres as ‘one stop shops’ for information and other services. Similarly, a cross-departmental report on older people and housing (CLG, 2008) contains recommendations for establishing a single, simple and accessible route to obtaining independent, impartial information and advice on housing and related issues. The report recommends an approach to information and advice provision that includes a national service, complemented by local services, which will draw on learning from the Link-Age Plus pilots.
For disabled people or those with a health condition, key points at which they may require support can include the onset of disability or condition (HM Government, 2007a; Coulter et al, 2006; Mori & DWP, 2005 taken from ODI, 2005). For older people these can include transition points (eg at retirement), key life events or points of vulnerability (eg a bereavement) or to simply assist them with ‘daily hassles’ of life (Godfrey & Denby, 2006). These events can also include a decline in physical and mental health, or instead ageism, which may precipitate a need for services or support (Dunning, 2005). In addition, Dunning (1998) stresses that for older people, such information should be situated where they ‘live their lives day to day’ (taken from Margiotta et al, 2003:34), rather than in locations which are instead professionally determined. For particular groups of populations, this is also about ensuring that information is based on detailed knowledge of the local population ‘in terms of the diversity of cultures and statistical surveys’ (Margiotta et al, 2003: 34). 5.3 Ensure information is available in range of formats and channels and is accessible by all groups
Given both that people have a range of opinions on how they best like to access information and support, and the spectrum of communication needs of different groups of people, it is critical that information is available in a range of formats which are accessible (HM Government, 2007a; Disability Equality Duty, 2006; HM Government, 2007b; Godfrey & Denby, 2006).
The Social Exclusion Unit (SEU, 2005, taken from ODI, 2005) estimates that one in 20 people requires some form of literacy support, one in seven requires translation support and one in 15 some form of communication support for sensory impairments. In addition, Coulter et al. (2006) found that in relation to health information provision, the combination of verbal and written information can be more effective for service users than verbal information alone. This suggests the importance of imparting information in a variety of formats, even for the same group of people or an individual. This mirrors earlier findings from Tester and Meredith (1987, taken from Margiotta et al, 2003) who found that written information about health and social care was less effective in encouraging older people in the use of services than a combination of verbal (including some advocacy) and written information.
Godfrey and Denby (2007) carried out research into the ICT needs and preferences of older people and found that, unsurprisingly, this group have less access to computers as well as a higher proportion of voluntary non-usage. Whilst both computer usage and attitudes towards it are improving among the younger old (see also Cawthra, 1999, taken from Margiotta et al, 2003), web-based provision for older people still may be inappropriate or inaccessible for some. Powell and Clarke (2006) also suggest that in relation to users with mental health problems, while the internet is a main source of access to information, it is not a trusted form of information, again suggesting that some caution should be exercised when considering the extent of investment in technologically based interfaces for users. Finally, Dunning (2005) exercises caution in over-relying on one particular format or type of information dissemination for older people.
5.4 Ensure that information needs for all groups are met and, where possible, ensure that support is tailored to individual needs and preferences
In order that information and IAA needs more broadly are met, agencies and local government need to have a sense of what service users want from such a service, requiring some form of consultation or research (HM Government, 2007; Disability Equality Duty, 2006).
Robson and Ali (2006) suggest that for some agencies delivering this support, there is often a lack of time to carry out this work and that busy services and high turnover of clients are in themselves proxy measure for unmet need. The need for comprehensive research so that services are tailored for the needs of local populations and groups is essential to bring about better IAA provision.
Swain et al (2007) found an inability from health and social care professionals to anticipate information needs – users were expected to ‘extract’ information rather than be offered it, which has serious implications for many users who do not know exactly what information they are looking for when they seek out IAA support. This lack of anticipation of information needs from professionals has also been documented elsewhere (e.g. ODI, 2005). This can be summed up by an interview participant in a JRF (Joseph Rowntree Foundation) study who commented:
‘You don’t know what you don’t know until you need to know it! We are awash with information and good advice, but most of the time it is like water off a duck’s back… until you need that piece of information or advice. That’s when you should be able to find it but can’t!’ (Dunning, 2005: 20).
There is also an issue about providing IAA which transcends the traditional professional boundaries of health and social care economies and includes wider issues of relevance in users’ lives such as leisure, citizenship, employment or lifelong learning (Dunning, 2005). 5.5 Improve co-ordination and signposting between information providers across professional/governmental boundaries, and remove unhelpful boundaries to information provision
There is no doubt that in the information age, a wealth of information exists, often in a wide variety of formats. However, in order for this to be useful for users and professionals alike, it needs to be harnessed so that it is accessible, relevant and timely. To this end, better signposting and working between providers and government departments would make transitions between services smoother, for all stakeholders (e.g. Carers UK, 2006; HM Government, 2007a). The ODI (HM Government 2007a) suggests that in particular, better working needs to be occurring between DWP (Department for Work and Pensions) and DH (Department of Health) in relation to providing information about the needs of disabled people, especially since many disabled people are unaware which is the most relevant government department for their needs (Mori & DWP, 2005 taken from ODI, 2005). This could also reduce duplication of bureaucracy and personal information-giving to agencies which can prove frustrating for many service users.
As mentioned earlier, it is also of critical importance to strengthen links between central government departments and voluntary organisations as the VCS (voluntary and community sector) may be more heavily relied on by service users to provide trusted IAA while these organisations may not have the same levels of information/infrastructure as does central government. Often, service users are unaware of what central government departments may be able to offer them in relation to information (ODI, 2005).
Newer models of signposting and central/local government working have resulted in central bodies signposting to local services (e.g. Supporting People, DirectGov) although the way in which this happens is still inconsistent (HM Government, 2007a).
Services should also ensure that classification systems around IAA services are logical from the point of view of the service user (and not necessarily the organisation/government department) (ODI, 2005).
5.6 Involve service users in the design, implementation and evaluation of IAA services
A number of sources call for the proper and early involvement of users in designing effective IAA provision (HM Government, 2007a; ODI, 2005; HM Government, 2007b; Disability Equality Duty, 2006; Lewington & Clipson, 2004; Robson & Ali, 2006; Margiotta et al, 2003; Dunning, 2005) with this being one of the five principles of producing better information for disabled people. Timely involvement will mean that the process is meaningful to both parties, and not simply seen as tokenistic.
Lewington & Clipson (2004) call for greater involvement of both disabled groups and individuals in the drawing up of local advocacy plans. For older people, Robson & Ali (2006) call for the systematic monitoring of information and advice services by building in mechanisms for sustainable client feedback.
5.7 Define clear responsibility for service provision
A lack of responsibility in terms of who provides what information for both service users and providers in relation to social care services is a key area for clarification in order to ensure high quality IAA services. This is one of the five principles of providing information to disabled people as set out in the DED (2006) and by the ODI (HM Government, 2007b) – to define responsibility for information provision (HM Government, 2007a). This is also supported by Grewal et al. (2004) (taken from ODI, 2005) and Carers UK (2006).
This definition of responsibility, however, should not just be limited to the provision of information, but to IAA services more widely. Lewington and Clipson (2004) argue that there should be a statutory duty on local authorities to produce a single local advocacy plan which clearly sets out provision with respect to different groups. Further, they call for an organisation, similar in function to the Advocacy Safeguards Agency (ASA) or Scottish Independent Advocacy Alliance (SIAA), to act as a lead body which can oversee the development and research of advocacy services in England. In this respect, quality standards with respect to advocacy services such as those published by Action for Advocacy (2006) are already being adopted by a number of advocacy services across England and Wales. 5.8 Support organisations to improve their IAA provision
Research has called for the adoption of some form of quality assurance/accreditation in relation to information provision to indicate how trustworthy it is, and how well the system as a whole is performing (HM Government, 2007a; Coulter et al, 2006, Dunning, 2005). This could work in the sense of guiding principles as those produced by the ODI (HM Government 2007b). As Dunning (2005) sets out (in relation to older people), such standards would have the benefit of:
- providing a benchmark from which to measure performance and evaluation
- enhancing public confidence via clear accountability structures and procedures
- safeguarding the interests of potentially vulnerable client groups
- providing clarity for users and other stakeholders in terms of what to expect from IAA services.
However, Sykes et al (2008) concluded that developing information indicators in relation to older people’s information services (essentially survey questions that could be used to monitor experiences of information about public services) would be too problematic to be feasible. Conceptualising older people’s experiences of access, awareness and satisfaction with public services into a set of questions was considered too difficult and also did not align with the realities of older people seeking out information to solve their problems. In addition, there is some contestation of whether rigid standards goes against the grass roots of the advocacy movement and may stifle flexibility and innovation (Dunning, 2005).
Sykes et al (2008) also suggested that people are more likely to look for information if they:
- believe it will be available and accessible
- are confident about getting it and being able to make use of it
- can access it without too much effort/hassle
- trust the source
- believe they will be able to understand it
- feel it is relevant to their particular needs/circumstances
- assume it will help them in some way.
The challenge is to provide services which evoke these perceptions from service users. However, there should be an expectation that even with such services, people will always appreciate personal, face-to-face contact with someone who knows about the system and can explain it in a friendly and simple way and is open to questions and personal interactions.
5.9 Recognise the potential new roles of social workers
Recent research for Demos (Leadbetter et al, 2008, p.61) suggests that in a context of increasing self-directed support, social work roles will adapt accordingly and social workers could enjoy more creative, person-centred roles as:
- advisers: helping clients to self-assess their needs and plan for their future care
- navigators: helping clients find their way to the service they want
- brokers: helping clients assemble the right ingredients for their care package from a variety of sources
- service providers: deploying therapeutic and counselling skills directly with clients
- risk assessors and auditors: especially in complex cases and with vulnerable people deemed to be a risk to themselves or other people
- designers of social care systems as a whole: to help draw together formal, informal, voluntary and private sector providers.
As the last point suggests, social workers can also draw on their skills in counselling and community development to take forward personalisation. Here it is important to remember that personalisation is not only about individual budgets and self-directed support. ‘There … is a danger that assisting people with self-directed support could become the only and overriding definition of the social work role. Social work also has a contribution to make through its counselling competencies … and has a tradition and track-record of community development, stimulating and supporting local community resources for disabled and older people’ (Jones, 2008, p 46). 5.10 Ensure that advocacy services are modelled on good practice principles
Principles in relation to high quality advocacy services are well documented across grey literature, but to a lesser extent in academic literature, although this is starting to change (Dunning, 2005). Nevertheless there are some common principles of good practice which organisations can apply to strengthen the service they are offering to users.
Action for Advocacy (2006) sets out 10 key themes which should underpin good practice in relation to advocacy. These are:
- Clarity of purpose – having a service which has a clear rationale and remit. This does not however mean that services have to be inflexible or not allow diversity of practice.
- Independence – ideally the advocacy scheme should be structurally independent from service providers and statutory organisations to avoid conflict of interest between parties. Dunning (2005) also argues that this is critical if users are to be effectively supported through the health and social care system which is made up of multiple (statutory, voluntary and private) providers, each with diverse eligibility criteria, costs and referral paths.
- Putting people first – the needs and interests of the person being advocated for should always be at the heart of advocates’ work. This can also include involving the user at all stages and to as full an extent as possible in directing their own support (see also Dunning, 2005).
- Empowerment – the ultimate goal of advocacy should be to bring about empowerment and control for the user.
- Equal opportunity – all advocates/schemes should have practices and policies which promote equal opportunity and are anti-discriminatory – this is especially pertinent given that advocates are often working with the most marginalised and socially excluded groups in society.
- Accessibility – services should be: free of charge to those who are eligible, have a referral system which is clear and well-promoted and an outreach approach to target potential users.
- Accountability – schemes need to have effective monitoring and evaluation systems in place which can accurately capture the ‘softer’ outcomes of advocacy.
- Supporting advocates – advocates need access to high quality training support, supervision and development.
| Type of advocacy | Advantages | Disadvantages | |------------------|------------|---------------| | Generic | • Can provide rights and representation support for a range of groups, settings and situations\
• May avoid replication of service categories\
• Greater opportunities to disseminate good practice, knowledge and expertise | • Particular groups (eg older people) may be subsumed under work with all groups\
• Some clients may overlook the service as they don’t think it is tailored for them\
• Resources may be spread too thin to allow specialism with any particular group | | Specialist | • Can develop an expertise in working with a particular client group, setting or situation\
• Can concentrate resources on hard-to-reach groups\
• Can raise awareness of the issues faced by particular groups | • Fewer opportunities to share knowledge and expertise across professionals\
• Competition of resources with other services\
• Danger of fragmentation at a local level |
5Summarised from Dunning, 2005: 26-8 • Confidentiality – while certain acceptable breaches of confidentiality must be allowed (ie in the case of risk of harm), confidentiality should underpin the work of advocates and policies should be clearly articulated.
• Complaints – services should have a clear complaints policy which enables users to provide feedback about the scheme or individual advocates – this may include using independent avenues of support.
Dunning (2005) also argues that while accessibility of information and advice provision is well established for older people, this is at a less developed stage in relation to advocacy services. Their susceptibility in relation to funding cuts is also highlighted as these services can often wrongly be seen as luxuries rather than necessities with respect to other core functions of health and social care agencies.
Dunning argues for a dual system of advocacy services which focus on both generic and specialist support. The following table summarises some of the benefits and limitations of both of these types of advocacy support. Link Age Plus (Watt et al, 2007)
LinkAge Plus builds on the LinkAge programme and consists of eight pilots across the country. The aim is to provide holistic services for older people including better information, accessibility and signposting.
Specific pilots include:
- Gateshead: has developed information packs for use by people using services and professionals which mirror information held on the council website. They have been used to inform officers, service users and their carers about the availability of low-level non-assessed services.
- Gloucestershire: has established 30 ‘village agents’ working in rural parishes that have otherwise limited access to local services. Acting as sign-posters, the agents make and accompany older people to appointments. Since it has already been a Care Direct pilot they have previously spent time developing an information base about local services for use by agents and professionals.
- Lancaster: has a care navigator service to help older people through different services and highlight opportunities (eg securing referrals to relevant statutory services, locating the right person to help with an enquiry).
- Leeds: neighbourhood network scheme is made up of over 40 organisations, working to a SureStart model of improving the capacity to provide information and improve access to services.
- Nottinghamshire: has developed a web portal – a source of information on all services available to older people in the area, and First Contact, where older people access a range of services through a single point of contact. The web portal has been well received by service professionals and older people groups and adheres to recommendations from the Department of Health, Audit Commission and OfCom for joined-up and easily accessible information.
- Salford: has a referral network set up by the corporate customer service. It uses a citizens’ database which checks eligibility for service offerings (eg free fire assessment) for service users. When a service user calls, their details are screened for eligibility and they are offered a set of services (already agreed by priority). They have also improved a web-based directory of services and in tandem provided computer training for older people.
- Tower Hamlets: provision of a single access gateway to services for over 50s via five network centres. Each centre also operates an outreach service to identify isolated older people to assist them to access services, benefits and activities. The service has been rated as good by service users and they feel better informed about local provision.
The final evaluations of the pilots are not yet available and so an overall appraisal of the LinkAge Plus programme (both as a whole and in terms of its constituent pilots) is not possible. Interim reporting, however, suggests positive feedback from the pilots and what they have achieved thus far.
Readers’ panels, Blackpool & Cumbria (Hopkins, 2007)
Blackpool first set up readers’ panels four years ago to review existing information for carers, and now panels exist to review social care information in relation to older people, people with learning difficulties and people with physical disabilities. The panels involve ordinary users who bring their own experiences of social care and having to navigate services.
In Cumbria, the panel is operated by post to overcome transport and other rurality issues, allowing a service which is cost effective and practical and allows all those who want to take part to do so from the comfort of their own homes. However, some of the costs involved in operating such a system is that panel members cannot benefit from discussion and it can be time consuming having to review all sets of comments. Devolved information teams in Lancashire (Lynn, 2007)
Lancashire has restructured its communication teams to align with its three main directorates – adult and community services, environment and children’s services. The benefits of such an approach are that it allows greater expertise and knowledge of services and issues within each team; closer working with senior managers, policy and operational staff; and focused and strategic communication which can tie in to directorate business plans and priorities.
The teams also work together to share good practice where appropriate. This approach has saved the authority money by avoiding duplication and has improved integrated and effective communication practices.
Disabled Parents’ Network Support Service (Bartlett, 2006)
The Disabled Parents’ Network Support Service won the Community Care Maureen Oswin memorial award in 2005. It is a peer-led helpline service for disabled parents who are seeking advice and support.
Run by volunteers who work from their homes, the service draws on the expertise of those people who may be housebound but have experience and knowledge which can be vital for others in a similar position. A success of the project is seen to be the peer-led nature of the support on offer, increasing service users’ perceptions of trust and quality of the information and advice they are being offered. Information prescriptions (OPM, 2008)
Information prescriptions are a Department of Health led initiative aimed at signposting people with long-term conditions to appropriate further services or support to enable them to manage better their own conditions more effectively.
An information prescription (IP) has five main components:
- **Information content** – the identification of reliable and relevant sources of information.
- **Directories** – repositories of information that link to individual information prescriptions.
- **Personalised process** – information is provided that is specific to the condition, place and point on the care pathway.
- **Issuing or prescribing** – creating and offering an information prescription to a user or carer.
- **Access** – information prescriptions are made available to users through a range of accessible channels, such as face-to-face engagement, the Internet, email, telephone and outreach.
Twenty pilot sites were established in January 2007 with the aim of developing and testing the introduction of information prescriptions (IPs) within their local health and social care settings by January 2008.
A final evaluation report published in August 2008 concluded the following:
- There was beneficial impact on users of IPs, although some of these were less pronounced from users who came from more disadvantaged backgrounds, received ‘lighter touch’ IPs and/or were under 65s.
- A significant minority of carers were not aware of IPs, suggesting a need for better information sharing between users and carers, and greater involvement of carers in the process of prescription.
- The majority of professionals were satisfied with the IP process and over half thought that it was an improvement of previous systems of information provision. Over a third, however, felt that it was the same as previous ways of giving out information.
Their recommendations were:
- Ensure full involvement of range of local stakeholders from the outset to ensure the IP system is sensitive to local needs and preferences.
- Directories should ensure they cover information about the management of conditions, information on social care services, links to a range of statutory and non-statutory care services, guidance regarding benefits and finance, and information for carers.
- Tailor the IP process so that it is personalised and timely in relation to the needs of the user with a long-term condition. Ensure that the process is accessible in a range of formats and mechanisms of communication (ie by post, face-to-face, at home, at a drop-in sessions).
- Ensure a range of delivery models of IPs so that all needs are catered for. This is especially true for disadvantaged populations who may be benefiting less strongly from the current wave of pilots.
- Embed and support ways for staff to develop skills and competencies in relation to administering systems of IP, for example through training, occupational standards or continuing professional development. Bibliography
Action for Advocacy (2006) Quality standards for advocacy schemes. Action for Advocacy: London.
Audit Commission (2008) Don’t stop me now. London: Audit Commission.
Bartlett (2006) Help is just a phone call away. Community Care, 23rd March 2006.
Baxter, K. et al. (2006) Scoping Review on Access to Information about Social Care Services. York: Social Policy Research Unit, York University
Cabinet Office and DCSF (December 2008) Families in Britain: An Evidence Paper.
Carers UK (2006) In the know: the importance of information for carers. London: Carers UK.
Commission for Social Care Inspection (2007) Hello, how can I help? An analysis of mystery shoppers’ experiences of local council social care information services. CSCI: Newcastle
Commission for Social Care Inspection (2007) A Fair Contract with Older People? CSCI: Newcastle
Commission for Social Care Inspection (2008) The state of social care in England 2006-07. CSCI: Newcastle.
Coulter, A. et al. (2006) Assessing the quality of information to support people in making decisions about their health and healthcare. Oxford: Picker Institute
Davis, H. & Ritters, K. (2007) LinkAge Plus National Evaluation Team Interim Findings – September 2007. [Presentation]
Department for Communities and Local Government (2008) Lifetime homes, lifetime neighbourhoods: a national strategy for housing in an ageing society. London: CLG.
Department for Communities and Local Government (2008) Communities in Control: Real People Real Power
Department of Health (2006) Our health, our care, our say
Dunning, A. (2005) Information, advice and advocacy for older people: Defining and developing services. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.
Godfrey, M. & Denby, T. (2007) Literature Review: Older People Accessing Information and ICTs. LinkAge Plus & Leeds POPPs. Leeds: University of Leeds
Hampshire County Council (2008): Getting Personal: A fair deal for better care and support.
HM Government (2007a) Improving Information for Disabled People. Office for Disability Issues.
HM Government (2007b) Five principles for producing better information for disabled people: Supporting public sector communicators and practitioners. Office for Disability Issues.
Hopkins, G. (2007) Jargon Busters. Community Care, 25th January 2007
Leadbetter, C, Bartlett, J and Gallagher, N (2008) Making it Personal. London: Demos.
Lewington, W. & Clipson, C. (2004) Advocating for Equality. London: Independent Advocacy Campaign.
Lyons, Sir M (2007): The Lyons Inquiry into Local Government. DCLG
Lynn, A. (2007) Lancashire Council devolves information teams. Community Care, 18th October 2007.
Margiotta, P. et al. (2003) Are you listening? Current practice in information, advice and advocacy services for older people. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.
Office for Disability Issues (2005) Literature Review: Disabled People’s Information Needs (Unpublished).
Office for Disability Issues (2007) Literature Review of IAA provision, as part of the Independent Living Review.
Office of Fair Trading (2005) Care homes for older people in the UK. A market study. London: Office of Fair Trading.
OPM (2008) Evaluation of Information Prescriptions: Final Report to the Department of Health. London: Office for Public Management.
Pinfold, R. & Corry, P. (2003) Who cares? The experiences of mental health carers accessing services and information. Surrey: Rethink Powell, J. & Clarke, A. (2006) *Internet information-seeking in mental health.* British Journal of Psychiatry, 189: 273-277
Rai-Atkins, A. et al. (2002) *Best practice in mental health. Advocacy for African, Caribbean and South Asian communities.* York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation
RNID (2004) *Access to communication in English: No service.* London: RNID
Ritters, K. & Davis, H. (2008) *Access to information and services for older people – the joined-up approach. DWP Working Paper No. 53.* London: Stationery Office.
Robson, P. & Ali, S. (2006) *Bridging the Gaps: The outcomes of information and advice services for older people and assessment of unmet need.* London: Age Concern London.
SCIE (2008) *Personalisation: A rough guide.* Adults’ Services Report 20
Swain, D. et al. (2007) *Accessing information about health and social care.* Oxford: Picker Institute Europe.
Sykes, W et al. (2008) *Opportunity Age Information Indicators Feasibility Study.* Department for Work and Pensions Working Paper No. 47. London: Stationery Office.
Watt, P. et al. (2007) *Towards a business case for LinkAge Plus.* Department for Work & Pensions Working Paper No. 42. London: Stationery Office.
Wright, M. (2006) *A voice that wasn’t speaking: Older People Using Advocacy and Shaping its Development.* Stoke-on-Trent: Older People’s Advocacy Alliance (OPAAL) UK. Appendix 2 Acknowledgements and contacts
Project manager on behalf of the commissioners: Robert Templeton, IDeA
Steering Group: Mona Sehgal, IDeA Helen Tomkys, DH Steve Strong, DH/CSIP Luke Staniland, DWP Jeff Jerome, ADASS/DH Trish O’Flynn, LGA Stephen Burke, Counsel and Care John Dixon, ADASS Stephen Goulder, SCIE Jenny Morris, DWP Luke O’Shea, DCLG Jenny Owen, ADASS
Contributors in local authority areas
Tower Hamlets: John Goldup, DASS, LBTH Helen Taylor, Head of Commissioning and Strategy LBTH Sarah Ford, Personalisation Lead LBTH Shaw Rahman, Chrisp Street Ideas Store Manager LBTH Debbie Walker, Age Concern Rupert Williams, St Hildas Sister Christine Frost, Neighbours in Poplar
A number of people with disabilities who, with their supporters and advocates, contributed the work they were doing on aspects of delivery of information, advice and advocacy.
Gloucestershire: Margaret Sheather, DASS, GCC Paul Baker, Rosie Callinan, Kay Patel, Contact Centre staff and Village Agents Caroline Smith, Mary Dignan, PCT Sue McClung, Gill Glover, Pamela Dewick, third sector and advocacy organisations B Wragge, Cotswold District Council
GCC group: Jo Hand, (Libraries and Information), Paul Baker, Kay Patel, Carey Wallin (PPF), Carole Chenery (OT), Fiona Jones (Strategy and Planning)
Kent Oliver Mills, DASS, Kent County Council Michael Thomas-San, Head of Policy and Service Development Melanie, Project Worker
A group of older and disabled people who were developing strategy.
Leeds Sandie Keene, John Lennon, Joy Marshall, Jemima Sparks, Janet Somers, Mike Sells: Leeds Adult Social Care Kathryn Ingold, Leeds PCT Seamus Doherty, City Centre One Stop Shop Dawn Newsome, Morgan Pugh, Armley Helping Hands
Manchester Fionnuala Stringer, Assistant Director Diane Eaton, Programme Director Barbara Guest, Head of Manchester Advice Neela Mody, Customer Access Project Manager Jonathan Mason, Project Manager, IBs Deborah Russell, Head of Safeguarding Nigel Hunt, Safeguarding Co-ordinator
Barnsley Senior managers: Martin Farran, Avril Watson, Alison Rumbol, Joanne Price, Wendy Lowder, Ruth Jefferson, Helen Jagger (Barneslai Homes)
Voluntary sector providers: Janet Hall (Making Space), Jill Morton (DIAL), Eleanor Richardson (Speak Up), Kim Fairhurst (Together), Annie Ferguson (Speakup), Kath Wright (Age Concern)
User-led organisations: (additional to representatives of provider group) George Ore, John Gothard
Commissioners: Alan McGreen, Helen Norton, David Harper, Val Cole, Sally Brown, Sally Woffenden
Lancashire Richard Jones (Executive Director) Ian Forsythe (Communications) Don Rowbottom and Andrea Dixon (Well Being and Prevention) Angela Esslinger (Advocacy Strategy) List Lloyd (First Response in Customer Service Centre) George Kennedy (Social Care Information Manager) Ann March (Library Service) Steve Sinnot (Self Directed Support) Geraldine Moore (Age Concern & Help Direct) Melanie Close (Preston DISC) Dave Burnham (Head of Information Services) Local authority contributors to specific issues and queries: Bruce Morris, Head of Service, Barking and Dagenham Nick Georgiou, DASS, Hampshire County Council
Contributors from national organisations: Anna Passingham, Counsel and Care Gill Coombs, Counsel and Care Michael Stuart, Counsel and Care John Edwards, Age Concern England Alison Giraud Saunders, Foundation for People with Learning Disabilities Alex Fox, Princess Royal Trust for Carers Janet Walden, Department of Health Simon Duffy, In Control Andrew Cozens, IDeA Appendix 3 Survey to directors of adult social services
Transforming Adult Social Care: Information, Advice and Advocacy
1. ADASS/ LGA Survey of Directors of Adults Social Services
ADASS, with LGA, IDEaS and Counsel and Care, have commissioned a short piece of research into access to Information, Advice and Advocacy (IAA). This is funded by the Department of Health, having been through the Transformation Board.
One of the aims of the research is to map what is already available in terms of:
- general information about adult social care and related areas;
- specific advice about how people might access social care, make choices about care and support options and organise those services and supports;
- support or advocacy to help people negotiate with commissioners, providers or others about those choices, help them make their own case or make the case for them.
We would like to hear how what your Local Authority is doing with respect to providing information, advice and advocacy to members of the public in relation to adult social care.
Please complete the following short survey to help us with our research; the survey has 26 questions and should take approximately 20 minutes to complete. Your views are greatly appreciated and will help us to build a picture of IAA provision across the country, inform the partners’ policy position and share good practice. All your answers will be anonymised and collated into our findings.
The deadline for completion is the end of Friday 17th October.
If you have any queries, please contact: [email protected] or [email protected]
Transforming Adult Social Care: Information, Advice and Advocacy
2. General
3. Name of person completing this survey
4. Job title
5. Authority name
6. Authority type
- County
- Metropolitan
- Unitary
- London Borough Transforming Adult Social Care: Information, Advice and Advocacy
7. The information, advice and advocacy needs of your population
8. In relation to Transforming Adult Social Care, how important do you think the following are (with respect to your other current service priorities)?
| | Not at all important | Not important | Neither important nor unimportant | Important | Very important | |----------------------|----------------------|---------------|----------------------------------|-----------|---------------| | Information | | | | | | | Advice | | | | | | | Advocacy | | | | | |
6. How confident are you that you know
| | Not at all confident | Not confident | Neither confident nor unconfident | Confident | Very confident | Don't know | |--------------------------------------|----------------------|---------------|----------------------------------|-----------|----------------|------------| | The information needs of your population? | | | | | | | | The advice needs of your population? | | | | | | | | The advocacy needs of your population? | | | | | | |
7. Have you carried out any research and/or analysis to inform your answers to Question 6?
| | Yes | No | |--------------------------------------|-----|----| | In relation to information needs? | | | | In relation to advice needs? | | | | In relation to advocacy needs? | | |
If you have answered 'yes' to any of the above, please tell us what you have done
08. If you did carry out any research or analysis, please explain how this changed your provision. Transforming Adult Social Care: Information, Advice and Advocacy
09. Your strategy for providing or supporting information, advice and advocacy
10. Do you have in place a documented strategy to address any of the following?
| Information needs? | Yes | No | |--------------------|-----|----| | Advice needs? | | | | Advocacy needs? | | |
10. If you have answered ‘Yes’ to more than one part of question 9, do you have a single strategy incorporating more than one type of IAA need, or do you have separate strategies for each? Please tick one of the following options:
- No strategy
- Strategy in development
- A single strategy for all IAA needs
- Different strategies for different IAA needs
11. What are the key gaps or most important areas to update (if any) in your current IAA service/strategy? Please tick all that apply.
- No gaps
- Developing / collating an information base
- Partnerships, including sharing information and effective referrals
- Marketing / making accessible existing information
- Developing and improving standards and quality assurance of IAA provision
- Technological solutions
- Needs of socially excluded
- Engagement of the public in service provision
- Recruitment, training and retention of people to provide services
- Identifying potential providers for additional IAA
- Other (please specify) Transforming Adult Social Care: Information, Advice and Advocacy
5. Information and advice services
6. Which of the following forms and locations of INFORMATION services for adult social care does your authority provide or fund? (Tick all that apply)
- Corporate website
- Corporate call centre
- One Stop Shop
- Social Services-specific website or kiosk
- Social Services-specific contact centre
- Through assessment and care management teams
- Centre for Independent Living
- Through other user-led organisation/s
- Through small number of large contracts with independent sector
- Through many small discrete contracts for separate services (i.e. separate for people with Learning Disabilities, older people, people with mental health problems, carers, etc.)
- Contract with national organisations
- Other (please specify)
13. Which of the following forms and locations of ADVICE services for adult social care does your authority provide or fund? (Tick all that apply)
- Corporate website
- Corporate call centre
- One Stop Shop
- Social Services-specific website or kiosk
- Social Services-specific contact centre
- Through assessment and care management teams
- Centre for Independent Living
- Through other user-led organisation/s
- Through small number of large contracts with independent sector
- Through many small discrete contracts for separate services (i.e. separate for people with Learning Disabilities, older people, people with mental health problems, carers, etc)
- Contract with national organisations
- Other (please specify)
14. What types of needs do information and advice services cover? [Tick all that apply]
| Needs | Information | Advice | |--------------------------------------------|-------------|--------| | Social care and support | | | | Current availability | | | | Cost | | | | Quality | | | | Health | | | | Housing | | | | Transport | | | | Benefits | | | | Leisure | | | | Financial advice | | | | Community activities | | | | Employment | | | | Other (please specify) | | | 15. How do you think local people get explanation, advice and personalised information about social care services (whether or not they are eligible for financial support from the local authority)? (Tick all that apply)
- Care managers
- Social workers
- Local authority information services
- Local voluntary organisations
- National voluntary organisations
- Other national organisations
- Family or friends
- Professional advisers (e.g. financial advisers, solicitors)
- Leaflets and written information
- Website
- Other (please specify)
16. Please name the organisations, apart from the Local Authority, that you think are the main sources of information and advice for your population.
17. Advocacy services
18. Which of the following ADVOCACY services does your authority provide or fund? (Tick all that apply)
- Advocacy from assessment and care management teams
- Centre for Independent Living
- Advocacy from other user-led organisation/s
- Advocacy through a small number of large contracts with independent sector
- Advocacy through many small discrete contracts for separate services (i.e. separate for Learning Disabilities, Older People, Mental Health, carers, etc)
- Other (please specify)
18. In relation to eligibility, what kind of advocacy services does your authority provide? Please select one answer only.
- A universal service only
- A service with eligibility criteria only
- A combination of universal services and services with eligibility criteria
19. Does your authority provide
- A single service for all groups who use adult social care?
- A range of separate services, e.g. for Mental Health, Learning Disabilities etc?
8. Thank you
Thank you for taking the time to complete this survey.
Please click 'done' to submit your responses and exit the survey. Appendix 4 Social Care Websites
1 Local authority sites: findings
Sites with pages for specific groups of people
Carers
Most sites reviewed provided a considerable amount of information for carers. This usually covered:
- definition of what a carer is
- information about direct payments
- a ‘guide for carers’ to download.
While a good number of sites provided information about financial support, none of the sites explained what amount of money someone could expect to get.
Kent County Council and Bristol City Council have online self-assessment tools for carers and specific groups of people, to help them identify what sort of support they might be eligible to receive. The websites also have a guide to how to complete the self-assessment and a downloadable PDF form for people who may not wish to complete the form online.
Rather than reproducing information, Croydon points the visitor to the ‘carers’ page on the DirectGov website for information on the carers allowance and grants. This is a helpful approach, ensuring that the information is consistent and authoritative and avoiding duplication.
Most sites refer to a carer’s assessment and what is involved, although some make the assumption that a visitor will already know what a carer’s assessment is. Some sites provide a range of different numbers for carers to contact, including signposting to welfare benefits advice and disablement information and advice.
Examples of good practice include Doncaster Council’s website, which lists the following and provides links on where to find more information:
- Attendance allowance
- Carer’s allowance
- Constant attendance allowance
- Council tax discount & benefit and housing benefit
- Direct payments
- Disabled facility grants
- Disability living allowance
- Fare exchange
- Health benefits and help with prescription charges
- Incapacity benefits
- Income support and pension credit
- National insurance credits / home responsibilities
- Protection
- The social fund
- Working tax credit and child tax credit.
Kirklees has helpful sections (all containing several pages/documents) on:
- taking a caring role
- support for you (having a break)
- day care
- practical help for you and the person you are caring for
- travel
- holidays
- dementia support
- drugs and alcohol support
- legal issues
- benefits and finance.
Merton has the following useful documents:
- how to get help if you are looking after someone else.
- carer eligibility criteria (although this was quite complex)
- A-Z of carer services:
- includes who / what the service is; who to contact; who it helps (physical, sensory, older people, children, mental health, people with learning disabilities, drugs and alcohol, HIV / Aids)
- also says information can be provided in 12 languages – from Arabic to Polish.
Older people
While most sites did not cover all of the areas listed below, the following issues were covered by at least some of the information available on council websites:
- Home care, day care, respite care, emergency alarms, advocacy, befriending, support groups and services
- Home services – meals, shopping, cleaning, gardening, repairs, removals
- Equipment and adaptations – advice and information, suppliers, wheelchair hire
- Health – services, support groups
- Housing – council housing, housing associations, private rented housing, housing advice, residential & nursing homes
- Finance and money
- Leisure activities
- Social groups – coffee mornings, lunch clubs, social groups, places to meet • transport • safety and security • national and regional organisations • incontinence laundry service • leaving hospital • occupational therapy
People with learning disabilities
About half of the websites reviewed grouped people with learning disabilities under a general heading ‘disabilities’. Two sites had no information at all for people with learning disabilities.
Kirklees is a particularly good example of a site that provides clear and comprehensive information for people with learning disabilities and their families. It includes:
• Making change happen – discrimination guide, valuing people • Being in control – person-centred planning, advocacy • Housing – different types (care homes, short breaks, service to help live in own home) • Work – getting work, different training projects • Getting support • Transition from child to adult – housing, grants, guides for young people leaving care services • Keeping safe – top tips, reporting abuse • Social, leisure and getting around – education, day opportunities, resource centre • Carers – guide, assessment • Money – guide for disabled people, direct payments • Health – guide for disabled people
There is also audio information for those with sight problems.
People with physical disabilities
All of the sites reviewed contained information for people with physical and sensory disabilities. Information for this group was hidden under ‘adults and older people’ on some sites, which made it difficult to find.
Mental health
Most of the sites reviewed provided little information on mental health services, simply saying that they could support people and giving contact details.
Sefton Council’s website is an exception: it provides a mental health directory with information on a number of organisations, including contact details, descriptions of what they do, how to access the services and opening times.
Drugs and alcohol
The visitor often needed to use the ‘search’ functionality to find relevant information, but most sites had some sort of information for this group. Several simply provided a link to a drug and alcohol action team (DAAT) website, as many DAATs have a separate website.
Most talk in general about their strategy, but not necessarily about what enquirers might do if they had a drug problem or were concerned about someone. However, many sites had fact sheets and links to external organisations including the government website ‘Frank’. Some of the more helpful information included details of local ‘drop-in’ and advice sessions.
East Riding provides a 62-page document on drug treatment services including the referral process, treatment process, range of services, young people’s services, and contact details. Waltham Forest provides details on what the services are, who can have them, will I have to pay, how to access the services (adults and young people), rehab service, how to get the service, external providers, and national links.
HIV/AIDS
Again the visitor will often need to use the ‘search’ function to find relevant information, but most sites had some information for this group of people, even if it was just contact details for the council. Around one third of the sites only had pages dedicated to children with HIV/AIDS.
Waltham Forest’s site contains examples of good information with a range of external links and clear information about what the council offers, who to contact, information for children with HIV, and other services (for example an HIV dietician). 2. National sites: findings
Age Concern
The national Age Concern website provides a wide range of documents, publications and checklists covering age discrimination, care and support, consumer issues, end of life, health, housing, income and pensions, leisure and travel, living abroad and working and learning.
With so many categories of information available, personally relevant information can be found for most areas such as ‘going into hospital’, ‘finding a care home’, ‘guide to direct payments’ and ‘dealing with life after your partner dies’. There is really no need for local authorities to duplicate this information. Specific information about care and support and housing would need to come from the local authority, but general guidance on rights, what to ask and what could be available is covered here.
Accessibility/information provided in different formats
Visitors can choose text size as small, medium or large.
The site promotes:
- ‘text help’ – a service for the visually impaired that reads words out to people as they are on the site.
- a freephone information line.
The site does not appear to promote large print, audio, video or information in other languages, although the freephone information line may be able to help with these.
Advice and advocacy
The site includes useful links related to ethnic minorities, carers, consumers, disability support, general information and advice, health, housing, income and finance.
Visitors can also search for their nearest Age Concern and other local services.
In Control
Many of the pages on this site took considerable time to download, and when they eventually did there was not much detailed information available. Areas such as ‘fact sheets’ and ‘advice line’ were ‘coming soon’ and a downloadable PDF about self-direct support would not download due to an error.
The site is working towards providing information in a variety of formats:
- a DVD – how to be in control of my own support, which covers money, making a plan, getting the plan agreed and, organising my money and support
- fact sheets – the site lists a number of fact sheets but these are not yet available for download
- advice line – not yet available – coming soon in 2009.
Direct Gov
Overview
The Direct Gov front page invites the visitor to browse either by subject (including ‘health and wellbeing’ and ‘home and community’) or by people (including ‘caring for someone’, ‘disabled people’ and ‘over 50s’).
Over 50s
Within the ‘over 50s’ section options include:
- home, care and community
- working
- retirement and pensions
- benefits
- over 50s health and wellbeing
- travel and leisure
- end of life.
Within ‘Home, care and community’ are options including:
- staying in your own home
- supported housing and care homes
- carers
- your community and environment.
Within ‘staying in your own home’ are options including:
- help with heating
- nominating a helper
- adaptations and equipment
- support to stay at home – which includes information on assessments, care, adaptations, employing a carer or personal assistant, shopping and home deliveries and links to local authority websites.
The links to local authority websites might be more helpful if higher up the hierarchy of information. Disabled people
This site provides excellent information for disabled people and their carers including: information about employment; education and learning; motoring and transport; home and housing options; travel, holidays and breaks; financial support; rights and obligations; everyday life and leisure; health and support; and disabled parents.
Personally relevant information includes information about work schemes and placements, support at school, blue badges, adapting your home, and disability living allowance. The section on carers allowance points people to information, advice and advocacy services, provides online and downloadable assessment forms, provides various claim packs in PDF, provides information on who is/is not eligible, how much it is, how it is paid, and how it affects other benefits.
Accessibility/information provided in different formats
Information is available on-screen and as downloadable PDFs and many assessments can be completed online.
Information is available in large print, Braille, CD or tape. The site includes videos using sign language, offers interpreters for telephone calls and face-to-face visits and also offers text phone / type talk for the hard of hearing.
Advice and advocacy
The site lists a variety of phone numbers for different departments and issues which implies that the person answering the call will be able to deal with the query – such as different numbers for attendance allowance, carers allowance and disability living allowance.
The site also lists external organisations and charities with a summary of what they do and who they support, their full contact details and opening hours.
Carers UK
Information for carers includes information that is specific to particular situations:
- New to caring – the first 20 steps to getting support, what help is available, the sort of things that are/aren’t charged for, what sorts of breaks are available and how to organise them. It even provides a sample letter that can be used to request care
- Financial help – what is available, work and caring
- Coming out of hospital – what the process is, what to think about beforehand, what happens on the day
- When caring ends – making the decision to go into a care home, dealing with bereavement.
The site has a well used online forum where members can discuss their particular situation and get advice from other carers/Carers UK staff.
Carers can sign up to email newsletters and find out about emergency schemes in their local area.
Accessibility / information provided in different formats
Some documents are provided in six different languages and there is a Welsh language website. Visitors are pointed to the Department for Work and Pensions website where other documents have been translated into other languages (unfortunately the links did not work).
There does not appear to be any mention of information being available in large print or audio formats. National Centre for Independent Living
The site includes a directory of local support services which provides name, job title, department and full contact details for relevant organisations. Unfortunately lots of searches resulted in no results or errors.
The site includes information about some useful documents and books that can be purchased such as ‘direct payments for mental health users’, ‘rough guide to managing PAs (direct payments to employ a personal assistant), and ‘everything you need to know about direct payments’. It also includes downloadable kits for employers and a discussion forum (a user name and password was required, so its usefulness could not be ascertained).
The site also provides some useful links to external organisations. It would have been more useful to provide a summary of what the organisation does (not just the name) and unfortunately many of the web links did not work.
Members can subscribe to a monthly newsletter.
Accessibility
For the visually impaired the site clearly offers visitors the ability to select the text size as small, medium or large and to select a colour scheme.
Mental Health Foundation
The site includes information on how to get help (and provides links to the Samaritans), general information about mental health and news articles, organisations and events as well as bulletin boards and forums where mental health issues and personal stories are discussed.
The best thing about this website is the A-Z list covering specific problems, issues and treatment options. Each fact sheet covers matters such as ‘what is it’, ‘what causes it’, ‘is there a treatment/cure’ and ‘information for carers’.
Information is provided in a number of different formats.
There are a number of wellbeing podcasts, online fact sheets and downloadable publications and visitors can sign up to a newsletter.
Mencap
For people with learning disabilities the site includes videos and simple, easily accessible paragraphs on money, working and benefits. It has several downloadable booklets and an online calculator to help people manage their money.
For families, the site provides limited information on carers’ rights and money matters, but does include some really useful information targeted to different age groups. For instance ‘pregnancy and diagnosis’ contains information on dealing with the diagnosis, tests during pregnancy and understanding disabilities, whilst the ‘5-13’ section contains information on choosing a school, statutory assessments and making friends.
There are also blogs and videos of other parents telling their story (with transcripts for the hard of hearing) and a family and carers forum.
The site includes a search facility for people to find local groups covering specific areas such as advocacy, housing and employment. Unfortunately many of the searches revealed no results. 3. Good practice
Finding information
A user needs to be able to quickly find what they are looking for. This may be done using browse or search functionality.
- **Browse** is where users pick a category and drill-down until the find the information they are looking for.
- **Search** is where the user types words or phrases into the website’s search functionality.
The ‘search’ function can result in a raft of irrelevant information, so most people prefer to use the browse function unless they can’t find what they are looking for, when they then revert to using ‘search’. The vast majority of sites had a search function. Given the amount of information on these websites and the fact that some are quite difficult to navigate this is vital.
Most have it at the top, but a couple have it in an unusual place which is difficult to find (for example at the bottom of the page).
**Best practice**
Some general rules on ensuring navigability are:
- ensure the user knows what page they are in
- highlight the page in the left hand column
- use complete thumbnails
- use anchor links to help navigate around pages with lots of information
- never list links at the top of the page that send people to other parts of the site
- provide PDFs and other useful documents that people can download, but ensure they are promoted within the body copy (not just as a link)
- use contextual links to point people to other useful information in other parts of the site (funding information), but ensure you explain in enough detail what they will find
- ensure external links open up a new window.
Where to store social care information?
Most sites put information on the services concerned with a category called ‘health and social care’ whilst a smaller minority call it simply ‘social care’.
Because there is a vast amount of information within a council’s site, information on specific types of health and social care tends to be located at the secondary level i.e. two clicks from the home page, for example:
- home/health and social care/older people.
A few hold the information at the tertiary level (three clicks from the home page):
- home/living/health and social care/older people or
- home/services/health and social care/older people
Best practice would appear to be to hold it at the higher secondary level.
The further into a website the user is, the more difficult it becomes to navigate around. The visitor should be able to identify:
- where in the site he / she is
- how to go back up a level
- how to delve deeper into the subject area (ie down a level)
- how to easily get to any other part of the site.
Many sites suffer from directing visitors to other parts of the site or external websites without telling them. This confuses visitors and makes it difficult for them.
Different councils tackle this in different ways. Some sites use the word ‘(external)’ as part of the link – this is an example of good practice.
**Ways of managing different levels**
One approach is to show all the levels on the left hand side of the page, as in the example below: Thumbnail (the trail used by most sites at the top of the page to show visitors where they are) and left hand navigation clearly indicate where the visitor is within the site.
But, when going down one further level to ‘Day care for older people’, the thumbnail remains the same.
Thumbnail and left hand navigation remain the same.
Ideally the thumbnail for the above page should read:
Home > Social care and health > Older people > Day care > Day care for older people A second approach is to show fewer levels in the left hand (LH) navigation.
Leicester City Council tackle this by using the LH navigation to show the level the visitor is at and information one level higher and one level lower. The site was simple to navigate and the only site reviewed that did not have any information in a right hand (RH) column.
While the pages are often quite long to read, users are directed through the information in a sensible manner, are not confused where to look and hence are unlikely to miss any important information.
A third approach is to highlight the page in the LH navigation, for example: Merton Council’s website is an example of a site that has a clear structure and is easy to navigate (although not every page follows this structure). The use of different fonts for different types of information helps considerably, as follows:
- Introduction
- In this section (duplication of LH panel is good as it is not missed)
- See also (good as implies that person will be sent to a different part of the site)
- Support groups
- Related websites Managing additional documents and information
Visitors who are interested in the content tend to read to the bottom of the page. Particularly in cluttered pages, they may not always spot links on the right hand or left hand side of the page. It is often better to include links at the bottom of the page rather than in a place where it could be missed.
Many of the sites reviewed obviously wanted to point people to additional documents or external links, but instead of using ‘contextual links’ (hyperlinks within the text) they directed people to click on the link in the right hand panel. It would be much better to use contextual links and provide a brief line/paragraph of what the visitor can expect to find when they click on it.
Contextual links are particularly useful for information that is consistent across a number of services. For example it is a good idea to put ‘financing’ and ‘contacts’ in one place rather than duplicating the information several times.
Many sites use frequently asked questions and visitors like these. More sites could make use of these.
External links
Usually it is better to point people to external websites rather than to try to duplicate all the information. Links to external websites should always open in a new window. Many sites make the mistake of not doing this. Visitors end up visiting an external site and, short of pressing the ‘back’ button several times, they then find it difficult to get back to where they were.
Examples of good practice
Blackpool Council’s site is an example of many aspects of good practice; it is well structured, easy to navigate around and makes good use of new windows to ensure that the visitor does not get lost. Structure
The Blackpool site features A-Z listings across the top of the page.
It allows the user to get to where they want to go in one click by having a ‘hover over’ that shows the secondary level. The site provides information like a portal, rather than giving an introduction with contextual links. This is easy to navigate around. Contextual links should open up in a new window:
Good practice checklist
Content Information aimed at the public, rather than professionals Frequently asked questions Practical information Comprehensive information Information to aid choice Navigability Information held at a high level Clear page design Well structured site Helpful external links
## Appendix 5
### Summary of work in selected local authority areas
| Authority | Tower Hamlets | |-----------|---------------| | **Who was involved** | John Goldup, DASS, LBTH\
Helen Taylor, Head of Commissioning and Strategy LBTH\
Sarah Ford, Personalisation Lead LBTH\
Shaw Rahman, Chrisp Street Ideas Store Manager LBTH\
Debbie Walker, Age Concern\
Rupert Williams, St Hildas\
Sister Christine Frost, Neighbours in Poplar\
A number of people with disabilities who, with their supporters and advocates, contributed the work they were doing on aspects of delivery of information, advice and advocacy. | | **What we saw** | Chrisp Street Idea Store\
This is one of five flagship library, information, reading, learning and PC access environments with RIBA awards for good access. There are 1,200 visits a day.\
Has spaces for reading papers and books and PC access – including specialist keyboards and readers etc. Other Idea Stores have coffee shops. There are defined spaces for the very young and for teenagers\
Lifelong learning is delivered and there are rooms for activities/classrooms. There are sessions/surgeries including job advice, CAB, legal advice, early years, golden years. The plan is to build in social care advice sessions.\
They are also thinking of developing with smaller hubs like Tesco Metro. | | **What they gave us** | Idea Store activities and learning programmes\
Good practice\
People using services providing information, advice and advocacy.\
A focus group in Tower Hamlets involved people with disabilities and their supporters who were providing a range of information, advice and advocacy, including writing specific leaflets, providing information about and support into employment, information and support in relation to benefits, and peer information and support for people with learning disabilities.\
**LinkAge Plus**\
The outreach has been evaluated as successful (10 workers cover the borough) and a group of local third sector organisations deliver it. Those providing it perceive the benefits as being that it is strongly locally based, they are autonomous in how they deliver and can be flexible. They feel that small local advice services that are culturally sensitive are essential. Written information has a limit to what it can do (eg they now no longer translate into Somali as it is not locally a written language). Interpreters have been known to misinterpret and to add in direction. Services need age, gender and cultural diversity in order to ‘get it to people directly’.\
The workers function to reach in and know the communities. They link people to resources and do some capacity building. They will put people in touch, book appointments and sometimes escort. They target people who are isolated because of not being able to get out of their front door or because of language or culture.\
They work through established advice outlets (30) and centres and have access to pro bono legal advice from a law firm.\
A key success has been a day centre for the Bangladeshi community which has now become mixed through adding in DWP pensions and legal advice services. | Key thinking
They are integrating commissioning (and some nursing and care management) with the PCT and have created a personalisation lead post. They are now starting to think about the ‘operating system’. They say that their initial overall concentration was on individual budgets (IBs) and that it has relatively recently become apparent that they are not much use without IAA (and support planning, brokerage, support with managing services etc.) The ‘administrative arrangements’ of the IB, resource allocation system, self assessment have to be linked to the ‘interpersonal arrangements’ of IAA.
They have been working on a resource allocation system and self assessment process.
They plan to work on information, advice, advocacy and brokerage and on developing labour market/community capacity.
They are building on:
- a number of advocacy initiatives
- LinkAge Plus
- Idea stores
- the health and wellbeing strategy that proposes centres for health and social care staff that they are now thinking about in relation to IAA outlets
- health networks and polyclinics
- corporate contact centre
- one stop shops (though these function largely around housing issues).
They haven’t yet thought about any inter-relationship with family information services.
Key issues:
- Is this the end of social work or a re-birth?
- What’s the role of the council and third sector? Politically locally the very positive view about small third sector bodies might be key.
- How to manage the information and knowledge base – key that it is web based but how to engage people with it. Corporately the council is developing a channel strategy that may help with this.
- How to link the information/knowledge base to the delivery mechanisms (LinkAge Plus, Idea stores, centres). Possibly see common operational practice by way of internet links to the the council information base that can be used across the settings.
- Key issues about isolated individuals and communities and how to reach people who do not get out of the house and are least likely to have internet access. There is some track record of addressing this through LinkAge plus, working through mosques and community leaders etc, but acknowledgement that some needs are taboo in many communities.
- Key issue about community capacity building – both to provide IAA, to deliver IAA and to deliver social support and care. Support into employment and community development are key components of this.
- The PCT is working on social marketing and the council are thinking about tailoring information in this context – for instance telecare was difficult to get off the ground.
- The national/local dimensions: IAA is perceived as building from the bottom up (though a lot of organisations are both national and local). Some specialist information and financial information is best drawn from national sources.
- Also identified that they may need to think sub-regionally (not often done) or as being a national specialist source for some communities (for example Bangladeshi). | Authority | Gloucestershire | |-----------|----------------| | **Who was involved** | Margaret Sheather DASS\
Paul Baker, Rosie Callinan, Kay Patel – Contact Centre staff and Village Agents\
Caroline Smith, Mary Dignan – NHS, Sue McClung, Katie, Nadine, Gill Glover, Pamela Dewick – third sector and advocacy organisations, B Wragge – Cotswold District Council\
GCC group: Jo Hand, (Libraries and Information), Paul Baker, Kay Patel, Carey Wallin (PPF), Carole Chenery (OT), Fiona Jones (Strategy and Planning), Rosie Callinan; Brenda Yearwood | | **What we saw** | The contact centre | | **What they gave us** | Advocacy strategy, village agents documentation, call centre prompt sheets for seeking initial contact plus information, statistic on usage | | **Good Practice** | Information and advice is linked to community development/building social capital and reaching isolated people. Screening for additional need and fast-tracking for callers to the contact centre (corporate) which originated in care direct as the adults’ and children’s helpdesk (customer services is in the same directorate as adult social care). This is linked to the 30 village agents: a scheme developed through LinkAge Plus. These are complemented by community agents who deliver services in key community languages. The agents work through community networks and do basic home safety and benefits checks as well as link to social activities, support and care. Agents actively signpost by referring people into the services the need. They are building significant very local knowledge and information at the level of ‘the butcher delivers on Thursdays in x village’. | Thinking is at an early stage strategically. A ‘Putting people first’ programme manager has just started. Gloucestershire are building on:
- the call centre
- the village agents
- strong relationships with the Third Sector
- the advocacy strategy
They find it helpful to think about the operational administrative systems of transformation and the interpersonal dimensions of information, advice and advocacy.
Reaching isolated people in rural areas or whose first language is not English has been a key focus, including extending awareness of what there is, starting from the individual and their networks.
The approach is also informed by the tensions between the work economy and the family and community economy. They are considering developing different forms of volunteering including opportunities for one offs or occasional activity.
Managing the information: work is developing with libraries and linked to the contact centre to rationalise the information base. This needs to support the contact centre, front line staff, agents and voluntary organisations and public enquiries. Currently ‘Guide’ is key to this. Different forms are under consideration, including merged databases and links as well as consideration of provider and citizen owned forms.
Managing awareness and knowledge: ideas included regular adverts/articles in the local media. GPs may be critical links into older people but years of effort to encourage them to make links has not been hugely successful, therefore may consider how agents can ‘piggy back’. Small social enterprise might flourish if this can be made to work.
The national/local dimensions were perceived as a national source for common statutory entitlement like pensions and benefits, key specialist information such as that provided by national voluntary organisations, a framework to lessen the impact of ‘doing it 150 times’ ‘and all the rest should be local’.
When groups were asked what they wanted for themselves, the responses were: knowledgeable people who also understood that asking for help has an emotional impact and that care and support is not a commodity, accreditation of services and support so that it is safe, and some privately paid for information, advice, advocacy and brokerage services.
- libraries and information services have a key role in information management, handling and retrieval.
- libraries are included in the mechanisms for delivery, and staff there are used to supporting people to access the information they need. | Authority | Kent | |-----------|------| | **Who was involved** | Oliver Mills | DASS Kent | | | Michael Thomas-San | Head of Policy and Service Development | | | Melanie | Project worker | | | A group of older and disabled people who were developing strategy on information, advice and guidance together with council officers | | **What they gave us** | Draft strategy | | | Leads to the council website | | **Good Practice** | Engagement of older and disabled people in the development of information, advice and advocacy in relation to a strategy for information, advice and guidance | | | A council website that includes: | | | • The facility for self assessment (which in practice is reported as being mainly completed with support) | | | • Access to the care services directory which is formed of entries from providers and includes price, required links to CSCI reports and links to maps and can be searched by location. It is hoped to add availability to this. This started as a residential care database and domiciliary care is being added. | Kent are building strategy based on:
- corporate investment in information on the website
- the care services directory
- a social care call centre that is part of the corporate call centre. There is a process of building in information and advice capacity to this and it includes duty
- developing information standards (based on the ADASS Information Advisory Group policy)
- a review of formats for information, advice and guidance
- a Partnerships for Older People project that involves care navigators (support brokerage)
- work with the South East Regional Improvement and Efficiency Team, the Innovation Laboratory and the Young Foundation on the development of the Plan My Care system
Discussions included developing thinking about how interfaces between the administrative base for transformation (the information base, assessment system, Resource Allocation system and Fair Access to Care Services (FACS) and the interpersonal service requirements (explanation, advice, advocacy and brokerage) might best work.
A key challenge in relation to self directed support is that there are issues for people where self assessments, resource allocation systems and direct payments are developed without consideration to information, advice, advocacy and brokerage and where this means that they lose the support of a named care manager, the response to which is that ‘that’s not personal!’
Therefore the process and platforms might be represented as:
- universal access to information and assessment
- some targeted services with specific communities through voluntary and community services and advice
- a contact and assessment team that also provides information, advice and guidance and a fast track to equipment and enablement
- a full formal assessment that will be undertaken with enablement teams for people with more complex needs
- the application of a resource allocation system and FACS and its successor leading to the allocation of a personal budget
- access to brokerage/co-ordination services that could be provided independently (with accreditation), through user led organisations or through the local authority or all of these. There is likely to be some willingness to pay privately, it is believed, for comprehensive information, advice, guidance, advocacy and brokerage.
Key for all of this is a comprehensive information base that is kept up to date and which the public, the call centre, voluntary and community groups and brokers can access.
Kent have additionally made links with Saga and with Community Service Volunteers that will be pursued.
National and local dimensions are perceived as being that benefits and financial advice (including products such as equity release) should be managed nationally but that all other functions should be locally managed. | Authority | Leeds | |-----------|-------| | Who was involved | Leeds Adult Social Care: Sandie Keene, John Lennon, Joy Marshall, Jemima Sparks, Janet Somers, Mike Sells\
Leeds PCT: Kathryn Ingold\
City Centre One Stop Shop: Seamus Doherty\
Armley Helping Hands: Dawn Newsome, Morgan Pugh | | What we saw | City Centre One Stop Shop – One of 15 one stop centres across the city\
Armley Helping Hands – One of 40 neighbourhood networks across the city delivering and developing a range of service, support, activity and community infrastructure to the city. | | What they gave us | Older Better strategy document and work plan; Leeds Linkage Plus review; a range of hard copy information including The A to Z Health and Social Care Information in Leeds (information book) and Leeds Mental Health Directory – Quick Guide; Documentation about neighbourhood network schemes; annual report, business plan and other documentation relating to Armley Helping Hands. | | Good Practice | Neighbourhood networks have been developed and are well established throughout the city. They are voluntary sector organisations, locally ‘owned’, governed and managed and deliver a range of services, support and activities including information, advice and advocacy and other initiatives that support independence and wellbeing. The focus is primarily around the prevention agenda. Additionally, the network visited supports people with self assessment processes for social care as well as supporting statutory services with delivery of specific initiatives.\
Although significant funding is through service agreements with the council and PCT, the network visited also maintains an independence from statutory services through fundraising – for example through partnerships with local business.\
Through this model, information and advice is one component of a range of activities that support communities and people living in them – a product of making and sustaining relationships key to the development of trust and mutual support.\
Although the primary focus is on older people, there is an emphasis on intergenerational work. | Key thinking
Key learning is available through the neighbourhood networks and through ‘Older Better’ – a strategy to promote a healthy and active life for older people. There has also been learning from evaluation of the Linkage Plus and Partnerships Older People project. The model has had considerable success and provides a good range of building blocks which are seen as a basis for future development and to support delivery of the personalisation agenda. A strategic approach to the infrastructure and roll out of the networks is being developed to ensure consistency.
Joint strategic approaches are also being developed, both through a joint commissioning board and through joint visioning on delivery of personalisation.
The development of Wellbeing Centres – together with leisure services – is being actively considered in order to further develop the ‘civic offer’.
Within services, information and advice is seen as crucial to delivery of the transformation agenda and, despite the various things that are in place, has been identified as a ‘gap’. Significant initiatives have been taken (through the development of ‘Infostore’ (www.olderpeopleleeds.info) and a specific mental health information website) with a view to roll out across all adult services. Other action includes:
- Customer First projects, aimed at shifting availability of information and advice to first point of contact/pre-prevention’ with more proactive approaches offering a broader range of information and advice through Infostore and other processes.
- Action to ensure consistent quality across the range of contacts people might have with the authority (electronic/hard copy as well as through e.g. corporate/departmental contacts)
- Better alignment of customer facing services across the council – in particular with the network of 15 One Stop Shops throughout the city – with a view to the development and deployment of multi skilled teams. The emphasis on ‘right first time’ extends to out of office hours with 24-hour / weekend contact services being piloted.
- An ‘end to end’ project to assess impacts of self directed support, including testing of self assessment processes and the development of RAS which is being tested with voluntary organisations and user groups. There is a self directed support reference group to provide peer support to people considering personalised budgets and a user led online support process is being developed.
Key issues:-
- Cultural changes needed within the services and more broadly to deliver transformation.
- Information management – in particular in the context of a broader information base.
- Developing clarity about the ‘universal offer’ and of core business for the council/department.
- Assessing the impact of changing customer expectations and being in a position to respond to these.
- The impact on care management and workforce planning. | Authority | Barnsley | |-----------|----------| | **Who was involved** | Senior Managers: Martin Farran, Avril Watson, Alison Rumbol, Joanne Price, Wendy Lowder, Ruth Jefferson, Helen Jagger (Berneslai Homes)\
Voluntary Sector Providers: Janet Hall (Making Space), Jill Morton (DIAL), Eleanor Richardson (Speak Up), Kim Fairhurst (Together), Annie Ferguson (Speakup), Kath Wright (Age Concern)\
User Led Organisations: (additional to representatives of provider group) George Ore, John Gothard\
Commissioners: Alan McGreen, Helen Norton, David Harper, Val Cole, Sally Brown, Sally Woffenden | | **What they gave us** | • *A Strategy for Improving Access to Services* – Barnsley MBC\
• *Every Adult Matters – Barnsley’s Vision for Adult Health, Independence and Well-Being*\
• CSCI report of safeguarding adults and delivering prevention services Inspection and associated papers\
• cabinet report and appendices regarding social care transformation\
• cabinet report and appendices re: Zero Based Review of Adult Social Care\
• range of Information provided by local voluntary organisations – hard copy/cd/ multimedia. | | **Good Practice** | The Barnsley Participation Process (BPP) is a well established process for the development and delivery of community partnerships. It comprises the following elements:\
• Barnsley Arena – an independent user and carer led organisation\
• Non-statutory provider participation facilitated by Voluntary Action Barnsley (VAB)\
• Governance through a steering group comprising the council, the PCT, Barnsley Arena and VAB\
The Barnsley Arena, as an expert by experience group, is a focus for information and support for local people and for consultation and engagement with statutory services. The model has given longstanding commitment to user and carer led challenge and contributions to the strategic development of support and services, and positions the partnership well for the delivery of social care transformation\
Both Barnsley Arena and VAB are ‘Host’ organisations for the Barnsley LiNK. | Key thinking
Components in the Barnsley strategy include:-
- A council-wide strategy for improving access to and transformation of services. The availability and delivery of information and advice is identified as a component of this.
- ‘Every adult matters’ had been developed (in advance of PPF) as a shared vision for the delivery of social care transformation. The need for robust partnerships and the involvement of neighbourhoods and communities of interest to deliver the required outcomes is emphasised. Though partnerships are good, the scale changes required and alignment with priorities in other sectors is recognised as a challenge. Local cross sector performance management models will need to be further developed.
- Key learning is available from being one of the individual budget pilot sites and the work that has been developed in relation to self directed support gives a strong base.
- A number of work streams to ensure delivery are being put in place, including a ‘Customer First’ work stream with a focus on remodelling service access and response, the development of universal (whole population) information, advice and advocacy services, and further development of approaches to self assessment. Other work streams identify issues and approaches in relation to commissioning, systems and business process and workforce development.
- An adult social care public information strategy is being developed (target date March 2009).
- A commissioning strategy for advocacy services is being developed (April 2009).
- ‘Universalisation’ of services will be developed at the neighbourhood level.
Key Issues:-
- The need for cross sector workforce change, development and deployment. This includes ‘frontline’ roles, but also skill sets for commissioners.
- Development of commissioning strategies (and timescales) for ‘progressive universalism’ - maintaining an appropriate balance between the continuing need for need for targeted/specialist services alongside the development of more cross cutting and generic themes.
- Provider side capacity and timescales for transition to new service models, including development of neighbourhood/micro services.
- Implications of new models of delivery for safeguarding.
- Understanding what represents ‘good value’ in future delivery models – assessing the impact of customer expectations and responding to these.
- The management of information. | Authority | Manchester | |-----------|------------| | Who was involved | Fionnuala Stringer (Assistant Director), Diane Eaton (Programme Director) Barbara Guest (Head of Manchester Advice) Neela Mody (Customer Access Project Manager), Jonathan Mason (Project Manager, IBs), Deborah Russell (Head of Safeguarding), Nigel Hunt (Safeguarding Co-ordinator) | | What they gave us | • ‘Give me a life not a service’ – adult social care redesign project • Individual budget progress update report | | Good Practice | An adult social care web based information site – MyManchesterServices – (www.manchester.gov.uk/mymanchesterservices) was launched in June 2008 and was developed following learning that had been gained from the Manchester Gateway (POPPs) project. The site provides information about services and community groups across the city and enables identification of support and service at the local level through a postcode or ward search. Details are also available about where to seek advice, for example in relation to support planning, and so it enables an overview of the services, support and information that people are accessing to inform local needs future planning. Manchester Advice (www.advicekit.info), in partnership with the Manchester Digital Development Agency, have developed a means of delivering online advice services for people in Manchester either as a self help tool, email service and/or enabling private advice sessions. | The strategic approach to service change in Manchester is set out in the adult social care blueprint ‘Give me a life not a service’, a redesign project setting out what changes – together with their challenges and impacts on the organisation, staff and customers – will take place over a five-year transition. A key element of the strategy is access, with a focus on prevention a priority in order to prevent a ‘long term journey’. Good information, advice and assessment available either through web based systems or face to face are essential to enabling access to the right support or service at the right time, while partnerships across organisations and with neighbourhoods will be key to enabling the correct menu of provider services. Potential for generic ‘one stop’ neighbourhood services is being explored.
- Learning is available from the Manchester Gateway (POPPS) - a single point of access or ‘virtual one stop shop’ for information and support to navigate services across the city. Befriending and visiting schemes and neighbourhood groups were also established through the project.
- A ‘short term project team’ involved in providing short-term interventions to people who are not eligible under FACS- criteria but who have need for support. Rather than simply signposting, very short term work is offered and evaluation indicates that more than 80 per cent of people supported through the service achieve good outcomes.
- Advocacy is identified as a key means of supporting people receiving self directed support, not least to ensure that appropriate safeguards are in place. There are a number of advice and advocacy arrangements across the city and a review of these services is in progress. A key outcome of the review will be the development of advocacy to people in receipt of cash IBs, for example in relation to further developing what is available on safe recruitment, financial decision making and so on.
- Reablement services developed through tendering for homecare services.
Key issues:
- Key challenges are identified in relation to workforce development and change.
- Clarity regarding current and future roles to ensure most effective use of skills, in particular across social work and care management, advice and advocacy – and across current/future access points.
- There are commissioning challenges to ensuring the right sorts of provision are available at the right time. Additional to the commissioning challenge, considerable work is needed with providers to ensure availability of appropriate services.
- Anticipating service/provider changes that will need to be available in the future and as customer choices change.
- Further development of quality standards and embedding these in commissioning processes.
- Getting greater clarity about the interface of ‘universal’ and ‘targeted’ services. | Authority | Lancashire | |-----------|------------| | **Who was involved** | Richard Jones (Executive Director); Ian Forsythe (Communications); Don Rowbottom & Andrea Dixon (Well Being and Prevention); Angela Esslinger (Advocacy Strategy); List Lloyd (First Response in Customer Service Centre); George Kennedy (Social Care Information Manager); Ann March (Library Service); Steve Sinnott (Self Directed Support); Geraldine Moore (Age Concern & Help Direct); Melanie Close (Preston DISC); Dave Burnham (Head of Information Services) | | **What they gave us** | Help Direct – update report; self directed support and personalisation communication strategy and communication action plan; Self Directed Support Information Guide; Lancashire County Library and Information Service enquiries survey; the library service information provision offer (part of a wider information strategy); ‘Promoting Choice – Promoting Independence’ advocacy strategy; public information process overview. Advocacy Services for adults in Lancashire – CD; sample information leaflets | | **Good Practice** | Help Direct is a new service open to all adults in Lancashire to help secure the ‘bit of extra support they need to stay independent’. Help Direct has been developed from learning from LINKAge Plus and POPPS initiatives to provide a network of support through a lead third sector agency in each district. A ‘bakers dozen’ of practical help themes has been developed enabling access to information, advice and to a very wide range of practical supports aimed at supporting people to remain healthy and active, to keep home and garden in good order, to be in touch with friends and family and involved with their local community. In addition to delivering practical supports, lead organisations will be developing greater collaboration between organisations delivering wellbeing services in the area. It is intended that the model is further developed and trialled over a three-year period with a view to evaluating initiatives that have achieved most success. Infrastructures include:\
• First Contact: developing awareness among key groups of staff (libraries, fire service, community support officers) to identify and refer on low level needs.\
• Dedicated and common IT systems providing comprehensive local information and links to other web based system, along with developing potential for self assessment processes\
Wider developments planned include third sector capacity building and the development of safe trader schemes. | Components of the approach taken include:
- the development of a customer access strategy. This has key linkages to other corporate strategies and has four components – putting the customer first, a corporate approach to customer service; self service, enabling access electronically; phone contact with all access through a centrally managed customer service centre and face to face, enabling access through local delivery points. The first three components have been put in place and approaches to the face to face component are being piloted.
- a number of other strategic developments in place in relation to advocacy, self directed support, and information.
- the information strategy is managing a shift from service to customer driven information. Processes to ensure information is accessible and locally relevant include reader groups, and plain English vetting. Nationally available information is made locally applicable. A range of formats are available including CD/DVD. Web based information enables individually tailored fact sheets.
- the library service is developing its information offer, in particular in relation to the face to face component of the access strategy.
- a ‘wellbeing directory’ is being developed, currently referencing around 2,000 services.
Issues:
- information management – in particular in ‘natural’ access points (eg GPs are not social care information managers)
- workforce change and development – getting the right skills in the right place
- safeguarding and risk – broadening the agenda raises potential new liabilities, for example in relation to trader or gardening schemes
- capacity for change – in particular the scale of organisational changes required through PPF. Appendix 6 Summary of discussions with selected national organisations
Counsel and care: Stephen Burke, Gill Coombs, Anna Passingham and Michael Stuart
Counsel and Care contributed significantly to this work through:
- involvement in designing and commissioning the work
- provision of material for the literature review
- engagement in discussions about their experience of the needs of older people and their families and carers for information, advice and advocacy
- discussions about their advice service and examples of case work
- discussions about national and local dimensions of services.
Counsel and Care helps older people, their families and carers to get the best care and support. It provides in-depth information and advice for older people and their carers through a telephone advice service and website supported by 49 guides. The charity supports enquirers by discussing complex issues in plain English, helping people to clarify their options and make informed choices. They continue working with people until they have resolved their situation.
The advice service reaches over 250,000 people a year. Common issues include hospital discharge, care homes, benefits, capital deprivation, community support at home and adaptations.
Many calls are signposted from advice agencies such as local Age Concerns in recognition of Counsel and Care’s ability to answer complex enquiries.
The charity sees that it fills a niche in terms of specialist advice about care and support for older people and their carers, and in terms of providing a service where people haven’t been able to resolve their problems locally. They describe characteristics of the service as:
- callers typically get a phone appointment the same or next day for 30 minutes with an experienced adviser
- callers usually get a long letter detailing the advice and information given
- enquirers don’t have to repeat their story when ringing back as they keep case notes and they can speak with the same adviser
- the team of advice workers has combined career experience as social worker, occupational therapist, advocate and in a home improvement agency
- they hold the Community Legal Service General Help with Casework quality mark
- a personal service for people who may have looked through lots of information but cannot make sense of it in their circumstances or where emotions are clouding what their choices might be.
Counsel and Care is also a key partner in FirstStop, which is a national, independent, free service providing access to information and advice about care, housing and finance in later life through one phone number and one website.
Counsel and Care were keen to ‘ensure that the national and voluntary sector dimensions are fully reflected’. They wished to stress the strength of national approaches in terms of providing in-depth expertise, data sources, economies of scale, independence, trust and avoiding ‘reinventing the wheel’. We also need to be careful not to dislocate discussion on care advice from housing, finance and benefits, which are of course interdependent for individuals.’ Foundation for People with Learning Disabilities Alison Giraud-Saunders
The foundation works with people with learning disabilities, their families and the people who support them. They:
- do research and projects that help people be included
- support local people and services to include people with learning disabilities
- improve services for people with learning disabilities
- spread knowledge and information
- provide on-line forums for people with learning disabilities and their families and carers
- provide training and consultancy.
A number of issues were raised in discussion:
- access to mainstream information and advice can sometimes be restricted by screening and people, if they recognise that a person with learning disabilities is involved, signposting them to specialist learning disabilities teams. For instance, some council call centres or one stop shops, CABs, or Job Centre Plus may screen and signpost to learning disability teams rather than providing a direct service
- there have been, however, some positive recognitions of the need for inclusivity: for example, a Care and Repair have approached the Foundation for Training to work with people with complex needs
- there are issues about advocacy and whether people have enough support to work their way through the financial, housing, employment and care systems of information and advice
- the information and advice services that are available nationally and locally could be better marketed: people in general are not aware of the huge array of services. The foundation doesn’t provide direct individual information and advice services but gets a lot of enquiries, often because of a gap in services, or people aren’t aware of local information and advice services
- people with ADHD/autistic spectrum/Aspergers can be poorly served and passed from pillar to post between mental health and learning disability services
- people expect information, advice or advocacy to be free: but there is little funding and largely people aren’t willing to subscribe to it. People may, however, be willing to pay for a package that includes support planning and brokerage as well
- all the experience of direct payments and self directed Support shows that people get the most from them when there is interpersonal contact. They hear a lot from families that self directed support can frequently mean funding without support. There are key issues for people with learning disabilities and their families in relation to centres for independent living that haven’t always been good at including them and indeed families can feel that they are hostile to them
- information should be sourced nationally where it is applicable across the nation. Locally information should be added that is particular to that locality. Explanation, advice and advocacy should be provided locally. There should be a national fall back by way of advice to challenge local organisations
- the concept of administrative/systems and interpersonal/interactive processes is helpful as part of Transformation and within which information, advice and advocacy sit
- confirming the developing taxonomy of i) managing the information base ii) managing knowledge and iii) organising the delivery mechanisms is helpful. There should be a range of delivery mechanisms locally. Age Concern England
John Edwards
Current delivery
• there are about 350 local Age Concerns that all provide information. About 200 of these also provide advice • about 45 per cent of advice is money related; 15 per cent is on social care and health. However, people needing advice on social care tend to be more vulnerable and more time is spent with them. fifteen per cent of advice episodes are undertaken via home visits.
Transforming adult social care
• in terms of TASC, Age Concern see support brokerage as an Age Concern role and are funding four Age Concerns to develop models. This will cover state funded people and others • the model will include information, advice and practical help with setting up and managing support and services • there is an issue about payment by individuals for their support brokerage – while some people probably would pay, many people may be discouraged from seeking independent advice if there was a cost to them • the service should be accredited/licensed. Age Concern is involved (with other advice networks) in the development of a new quality mark for advice services • support brokerage should deliver an independent view of availability and services. Therefore there needs to be a clear separation from service delivery and clear policies about conflicts of interest.
Capacity
• this is a big issue as lottery funding for Information and Advice has more or less dried up with its new criteria and Age Concerns rely mainly on LA funding • if Individual Budgets are to work then people will need personal help with managing them and often it will need to be face to face.
Advocacy
• older people tend to think interchangeably about information, advice and advocacy services and providers also sometimes use the terms interchangeably. Age Concern’s view is that advocacy gives or supports a voice rather than giving advice, but in many instances both elements are present during a conversation or relationship. IMCA has a strong fit and there is a lot to learn from advocacy services to help people to get to the point of organising their care based on having thought about their own needs and situation.
Local/National dimensions
• ACE (Age Concern England) provides a range of information/factsheets and some direct advice. They also provide some quality assurance and technical specialist advice to local Age Concerns and they facilitate regional meetings to share good practice and training. They are engaged with Counsel and Care and Help the Aged in relation to First Stop services • local Age Concerns develop their own information banks and knowledge base. They are developing some good practice models in relation to reaching people who never go out of their house – eg Age Concern Liverpool have worked with GPs who may be the only visitors to some people. In addition, LinkAge Plus has a number of examples of good outreach and practical problem solving. John Edwards of ACE was on the national initiation group for this • ACE are arguing through Opportunity Age for a national strategy for IAA. Princess Royal Trust for Carers
Alex Fox
There are 140+ Carers Centres across the UK which identify carers, provide information, advice and advocacy, and support carers. They also provide services co-located in a range of other settings, including Job Centres, primary care, libraries and schools. The Princess Royal Trust has a national website for carers and an online support service for young carers. The trust’s report on personalisation and carers was due to be launched in February 2009.
Key issues arising in discussion were:
- Information, advice and advocacy is a key component of personalisation and it isn’t always and consistently getting attention yet as part of the implementation of ‘Putting people first’. The sense of what personal budgets and direct payments are is becoming more widespread, but this is not yet the case for information, advice, advocacy and brokerage.
- There is a key issue to put before information, advice and advocacy and that is one that encompasses awareness raising, marketing and finding carers and signposting that information, advice and advocacy and services exist. Too many people struggle along until there is a crisis and many do not get out to access these services. The trust is starting work to identify the cost/benefits of identifying people earlier.
- However, information, advice and advocacy are not just preventative services: they are needed in an ongoing way together with support planning, support brokerage and the ongoing management of services and support. It is important that services can accompany people during the caring journey.
- There is a tendency to think about information in the context of a data warehouse as opposed to the basis of a personal service that involves explanation and advice. Single gateways and helplines only go so far. It is helpful to have a framework that includes all of these dimensions.
- There is a need to develop a common and inclusive language about information, advice and advocacy and it would be helpful to have a consensus on desired outcomes and standards. National/local
- There is a role for national functions where information and advice are applicable across the nation and for where people get stuck locally.
Discussions with representatives from the Department of Health, ADASS, IDeA and LGA:
Helen Tomkys, Janet Walden, Jeff Jerome, Trish O’Flynn and Andrew Cozens.
Discussions at key points and on specific issues related to:
- making the research practical rather than academic
- clarifying that the research aspects of the work are about establishing what is provided by way of information, advice and advocacy as well as people’s thinking for development to inform the next steps taken by the Transformation Board
- ensuring that there is a brief summary and recommendations
- confirming that the developing concepts of administrative/systems and interpersonal/interactive processes are helpful as part of transformation and within which information, advice and advocacy sit
- confirming that the developing taxonomy of i) managing the information base ii) managing knowledge and iii) organising the delivery mechanisms is helpful
- identifying key questions about what should be organised on a national basis and what on a local basis
- discussions about different models of information ownership – government, citizen, consumer, seller – and the different benefits and risks
- discussions about the social inclusion and community and consumerist models emerging.
There is an additional piece of work emerging in relation to the technological infrastructure which a number of software suppliers and consultancies are seeking to engage in the transformation context, and many of them are working in parallel with individual local authorities on personalisation. An event is being planned.
Key issues relate to:
- Access to the market (for example Care Bay, Plan my Care)
- The IT platforms and links
- Local authority boundaries
Preferences for the management of information, advice and advocacy appeared to be that it should be done locally except where the information is nationally applicable, for instance in relation to entitlement, or where there are very significant economies involved, such as in relation to the development of IT platforms. The exception to this was in correspondence with the Department of Communities and Local Government (DCLG) representative, who argued for the provision of national advice lines on the basis of quality and increased availability out of office hours.
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/0885-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 103,
"total-input-tokens": 209452,
"total-output-tokens": 51328,
"total-fallback-pages": 2
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
322,
1
],
[
322,
1365,
2
],
[
1365,
5692,
3
],
[
5692,
5692,
4
],
[
5692,
7818,
5
],
[
7818,
10599,
6
],
[
10599,
13937,
7
],
[
13937,
16190,
8
],
[
16190,
18771,
9
],
[
18771,
22492,
10
],
[
22492,
24446,
11
],
[
24446,
28199,
12
],
[
28199,
30802,
13
],
[
30802,
32368,
14
],
[
32368,
35839,
15
],
[
35839,
39637,
16
],
[
39637,
43253,
17
],
[
43253,
46442,
18
],
[
46442,
48255,
19
],
[
48255,
49944,
20
],
[
49944,
51064,
21
],
[
51064,
52063,
22
],
[
52063,
53588,
23
],
[
53588,
54471,
24
],
[
54471,
55341,
25
],
[
55341,
56743,
26
],
[
56743,
59269,
27
],
[
59269,
62049,
28
],
[
62049,
65468,
29
],
[
65468,
69746,
30
],
[
69746,
73382,
31
],
[
73382,
76265,
32
],
[
76265,
77476,
33
],
[
77476,
82121,
34
],
[
82121,
85050,
35
],
[
85050,
87926,
36
],
[
87926,
90632,
37
],
[
90632,
92610,
38
],
[
92610,
93718,
39
],
[
93718,
95017,
40
],
[
95017,
95281,
41
],
[
95281,
97554,
42
],
[
97554,
100436,
43
],
[
100436,
105356,
44
],
[
105356,
109021,
45
],
[
109021,
110036,
46
],
[
110036,
113417,
47
],
[
113417,
118193,
48
],
[
118193,
121965,
49
],
[
121965,
124806,
50
],
[
124806,
127530,
51
],
[
127530,
132266,
52
],
[
132266,
136504,
53
],
[
136504,
140932,
54
],
[
140932,
144851,
55
],
[
144851,
148194,
56
],
[
148194,
149252,
57
],
[
149252,
153001,
58
],
[
153001,
154383,
59
],
[
154383,
157386,
60
],
[
157386,
160814,
61
],
[
160814,
162179,
62
],
[
162179,
165172,
63
],
[
165172,
165699,
64
],
[
165699,
167557,
65
],
[
167557,
169849,
66
],
[
169849,
171208,
67
],
[
171208,
172038,
68
],
[
172038,
173900,
69
],
[
173900,
174593,
70
],
[
174593,
175695,
71
],
[
175695,
179227,
72
],
[
179227,
182726,
73
],
[
182726,
185992,
74
],
[
185992,
188938,
75
],
[
188938,
191809,
76
],
[
191809,
194894,
77
],
[
194894,
195367,
78
],
[
195367,
195997,
79
],
[
195997,
196451,
80
],
[
196451,
198156,
81
],
[
198156,
198358,
82
],
[
198358,
198845,
83
],
[
198845,
201987,
84
],
[
201987,
205021,
85
],
[
205021,
206676,
86
],
[
206676,
209188,
87
],
[
209188,
210241,
88
],
[
210241,
213038,
89
],
[
213038,
215159,
90
],
[
215159,
218053,
91
],
[
218053,
220109,
92
],
[
220109,
222521,
93
],
[
222521,
223975,
94
],
[
223975,
226816,
95
],
[
226816,
229343,
96
],
[
229343,
231065,
97
],
[
231065,
234171,
98
],
[
234171,
237491,
99
],
[
237491,
240554,
100
],
[
240554,
242629,
101
],
[
242629,
245092,
102
],
[
245092,
245092,
103
]
]
} |
f5d0eaf822ed42cfc83e71c491b2f74e3efd5804 | SPEKTRIX WORKSHOPS 2019
ACCESS TICKETING
Slides 1 & 2 This presentation looks at how to implement existing Spektrix tools to help make ticketing more accessible for everyone and create positive customer experiences online.
Being an access customer and having to pick up the phone or send an email in order to book tickets while everyone else gets the luxury of booking online simply isn’t fair. Just making it possible for your access customers to buy tickets online is the very tip of the iceberg – we’re also going to look at how you can make your access performances easier to find online, using dynamic content in dotdigital to give specific information to people based on their access requirements, and how you can improve people’s experience in your venue.
That might sound like a whole heap of work, but never fear! There’s plenty that can be done easily in Spektrix to make your venue much more accessible to everyone.
Slides 3 to 7 Let’s kick off with a pop quiz:
Q. How many people in the UK identify as disabled? A. 11 million. That represents about 1 in 6 people, which is an awful lot of people not to be catering for.
Q. What percentage of disabled people have experienced difficulty booking tickets online? A. 82%. That’s a potential 9,020,000 people to be having trouble getting at your lovely tickets.
The Purple Pound is the potential spending power of D/deaf and disabled people in the UK. Q. But how much is the Purple Pound worth to the economy? A. £249 BILLION!
Even if you look at this from a purely financial point of view, that’s a LOT of money that venues are missing out on by not catering to a more diverse audience.
These figures came from Attitude is Everything, a fantastic, disability-led charity who support organisations in making what they do more accessible and inclusive for D/deaf and disabled people. Every two years, they publish a State of Access Report, examining the barriers faced by D/deaf and disabled people when trying to book tickets.
Slide 8 A good place to start is identifying your access customers and, handily, one of the easiest ways do this is to let them identify themselves. When a customer creates an account with your organisation, why not make adding their access requirements part of the process?
Slide 9 The Nuffield Theatre in Southampton has an Other Preferences section in their account creation process, where customers can make their access requirements known. These are just some examples of possible options, but they can include more venue-specific options. If needs be. Far from anything fancy, this Other Preferences section is actually nothing more than a humble Tag Group in disguise!
**Slide 10** When you create a Tag Group in your Admin Interface in Spektrix, you can set it so that the Tags within it are available online by simply ticking the On web box when creating and/or editing it. These will then show up as an additional section of the Customer Record online, under Other Preferences.
**Slide 11** When someone ticks one of these boxes, a Tag is created against their Customer Record.
**Slides 12 & 13** Alternatively, you could add access requirements as Customer Attributes in your Settings Interface – Attributes are additional bits of custom information that are held against various concepts in Spektrix and Customer Attributes appear as part of the personal details section when customers create their account. These and Tags can be used to do all manner of wonderful things, including:
- Identifying access customers for your Front of House team
- Powering Dynamic Content in dotdigital campaigns
- Offering Priority Booking
- Unlocking specific seats
- Creating Criteria Sets for reports
- Giving access to particular Offers.
**Slide 14** If you don’t want to hold a customer’s access requirements against their record, you’ve also got the option of using Order Attributes, also set up in the Settings Interface. An Order Attribute is collected when a customer processes their order and, handily, can be set on an Event level – so, if you only need to know someone’s access requirements for a particular Event, you could use these.
**Slide 15** If you have concerns about accessible seating being mis-sold when it comes to big names performing at your venue, you might decide that you want customers to identify themselves in person before these Tags can be applied to their record.
What we would generally recommend here is that you still allow people to self-identify any access requirements that won’t give them access to, for example, locked accessible seating with online eligibility (which we’ll be covering later), but will still allow them to have an all-round easier booking journey otherwise. If you’re really not sure of the best way to go about that, have a chat with the Spektrix Support Team and/or our friends at Attitude is Everything.
**Slide 16** Now that you know at least some of your audience base’s access requirements, let’s have a look at how you can make your access performances easy to find. Firstly, it’s important to clearly signpost online when your access performances are happening. You’ve got a couple of options here, depending on what kind of Spektrix integration you’re using. Slide 17 The two different options you have are iFrames and API. Think of an iFrame as a window within your website, through which you see your Spektrix site. The API, on the other hand is a live feed of information from your Spektrix which allows you to create a custom booking pathway on your website.
Slide 18 Bolton Octagon use Event Instance Attributes to highlight online which performances are captioned, relaxed, etc. Then, through a clever bit of web design wizardry using the Spektrix API, they’re able to give customers the ability to see either all performances, or just accessible performances for every Event they have on sale.
Slide 19 If you’re using iFrame integration, that’s no problem! We’d strongly recommend everyone have an Access Information page on their website for a number of reasons – to offer important info for access customers visiting your venue, for example – but you can also list all your access performances here, too.
The Royal Court have an awesome Access Information page. Firstly, it’s easy to find – your Access Info should never take more than one click to get to from the homepage. It’s simple to navigate, breaks things down by access requirement, gives full access details about the venue itself and includes a list of all upcoming assisted performances. Clear and easy to find information like this is a net benefit – after all, everybody wants to feel comfortable coming to the theatre.
Slide 20 As an aside: it’s worth noting whilst we’re talking about the Royal Court that all the videos they post online have captions; something often forgotten when making video content. We’d be happy to put you in touch with the marvellous folks at StageText if you’d like more information about learning to do this yourself, or to help you find the right person to do it for you.
Slide 21 Once a customer has found the access performance they want to book for, they then come to choosing their seats. You can easily use Info Overlays on a reserved seating plan for a particular performance that’ll give customers additional information when they hover over a seat. You might already be using these to highlight seats with a restricted view or legroom – why not also use them to show which seats you’d recommend for caption users at a particular captioned performance, for example?
Slide 22 Similarly, if you’re putting on a captioned event, you can also create a new Layout Overlay for a seating plan, using a different background image. This can highlight where the caption screens are in the space, allowing people to choose for themselves which seats are right for them.
Slide 23 You might already be using seating Locks to hold seats for ushers and such, or them to lock off your wheelchair accessible seats. But did you realise you can make locked seats available online to certain customers? Using Lock Type Eligibility, you can make these seats selectable by anyone who meets certain criteria - setting the eligibility for your locked wheelchair accessible seats to people with a specific Wheelchair User Tag or Attribute will allow them to unlock these seats online by simply logging into their account. Slide 24 When a general user (i.e. a customer without that Tag or Attribute) logs in and goes to the seating plan, these locked seats will show up on the seating plan as greyed out and unavailable.
When someone who fits the eligibility criteria logs in online, the locked seats magically become available, showing up as stars – or, if you’ve named one of the locks Wheelchair and chosen W as its symbol, a wheelchair symbol – meaning these customers can have exactly the same experience booking online as all your other customers. No need to pick up the phone and speak to anyone.
Slide 25 If you don’t use reserved seating plans, you might want to consider the magic of multi-area unreserved seating plans. This can be especially useful for festivals, who might have a raised viewing platform for access patrons, but they’ll work for any unreserved plan and allow you to still lock off an allocation of tickets to those who’ll need them. Get in touch with the Spektrix Support team for more information about multi-area unreserved seating plans.
You could even create a Customer List Schedule that sends out an automated email to anyone who books these tickets, offering additional access information.
Slide 26 Much like with locked seats, you can also limit Offers to only be available to eligible customers – which means your Tags and/or Attributes can once again come into play and unlock a free Companion Ticket.
Using the Offers function, you can offer 2-for-1 tickets for customers to book their free Companion tickets online. You can limit the Offer to customers who fit a certain eligibility (for example, those who have a Tag that shows they require an Essential Companion) and also only permit one use of the Offer per customer per Event.
Giving away tickets isn’t always an obvious option, but this is just another one of these areas that highlights how systemic change is needed. We’re talking about giving these tickets to essential/companions, without whom these access patrons wouldn’t be able to attend. There might be pushback to this from promoters and producers, but this is one of those shifts in thinking that the sector really needs.
Slides 27 and 28 As a great example of best practice, Hull Truck make it really clear on their website what their access discounts are. They’ve created a downloadable step-by-step guide that carefully and thoughtfully explains exactly how to book online as an access patron, ensuring customers get the best Offers available, the best seats for their needs, and can book a companion ticket if needed. When it comes to your access info, the more detail you can give, the better.
Remember: it’s not about giving out freebies, it’s about getting people into your venue/festivals and making your offering as accessible as possible. If someone requires a free companion ticket in order to attend, they’ll either come with a free companion or won’t come at all. This seems as good a time as any to mention that Attitude is Everything’s report showed that the average ticket spend for disabled attendees of live entertainment is £48 and the average supplementary spend is £30.
Slide 29 Once you’ve found your access customers and enabled them to book their tickets online, why not start enticing them to do so with direct marketing that caters to their requirements and interests? For example: a beautiful dotdigital campaign highlighting that season’s upcoming access performances. Slides 30 & 31 You can also send performance specific Pre-Show emails, giving you the option to, for example, send an alternative version for a captioned performance. This can include general information about the performance for those who haven’t self-identified as caption users, plus additional Dynamic Content that only appears to those who have.
Using Spektrix and dotdigital’s integration, you can choose to have entire sections of the email that only show to bookers who have a particular Tag against their customer record. This is really useful for not bombarding those who don’t need it with information, whilst ensuring those who do see everything they need.
Slide 32 Just as it’s important that the booking journey is as free and easy as possible, your access customers’ additional needs also need to be considered when they arrive at the venue.
Slide 33 Our friends at the Nuffield Southampton Theatres use a pre-show report, run daily, that highlights (amongst other things) the types of Locks held against an Event, as well as any access patrons attending that night’s performance and their access needs based on Order Attributes given at the point of purchase. This gives the Front of House team a heads up about who to expect, allowing them to provide any additional help needed.
Slide 34 Another cool thing you can do is to create Customer Groups based on Tags - for example, you might make one called Wheelchair Users that everyone who’s self-identified as a wheelchair user will be part of. This will show up in the Sales Interface for Box Office staff and can be set to show on Front of House scanners, making staff aware that they should direct the ticket holder to a particular area of the theatre. This is particularly helpful for performances with unreserved seating, as it allows Front of House staff to just scan and then guide people to the best seats for them without having to ask a bunch of questions.
Slide 35 If you don’t use scanners, you can have an Order Attribute or Customer Attribute pull through to your ticket design – for example, the access Order Attribute of Wheelchair – so your Front of House team are aware when the customer shows their ticket.
If you’re looking to help make sure your Front of House staff feel comfortable and equipped to assist your access patrons, Attitude is Everything and StageText both offer great support and training around disability awareness. In the end, everyone benefits from this – staff feel more confident and customers get better service.
Slides 36 & 37 In order to keep providing the best possible access offering, it’s vital that you’re able to report on previous events and learn from what worked - and what didn’t. Using the Post-Show email tool, you can send an email a day or two after an Event, with a survey asking about customers’ experiences and whether they made use of the captions (even if they weren’t expecting to – you’ll be surprised by how many people find them useful even if they wouldn’t consider themselves a ‘captions user’).
You might also consider asking for any suggestions people have on how you might improve things - no one knows better what your access patrons need than your access patrons themselves. Slides 38 to 42 If you’re interested in learning a bit more about your access patrons’ booking habits, you’ll want the Customer Behaviour Analysis report, which is part of your standard suite of reports. Then comes the magic bit: create a Customer List of people who have particular Tags against their customer record, then run the customers on that list through this report to show:
- How far in advance people booked (slide 39)
- The sales channel through which they booked (slide 40)
- Which other Events they’ve booked for (slide 41)
- The Offers they used (slide 42)
Using this information, you can get to know your access visitors and build on your access offering. If, for example, you see an overwhelming number of BSL users are purchasing tickets for a BSL interpreted show you’ve got coming up, maybe it’s worth putting on more interpreted performances of that Event!
Slides 43 to 47 So, let’s have a look at some case studies, beginning with the Arcola Theatre in London, who recently moved to offering customers the opportunity to flag their access requirements using a Tag group that’s available on the web.
Slide 45 shows what looks like this within their Spektrix, while slide 46 shows how it appears online, appearing as part of the account creation process after a customer’s given their details, address and contact preferences.
Off the back of this, Arcola received a glowing tweet from a happy customer – saying that, even though they didn’t have any access requirements of their own, it was the first time they’d seen such a comprehensive ask – and they were impressed enough that they gave the venue a donation!
Slides 48 to 51 Over in Hull, Danielle McLoughlin, Box Office Manager at Hull Truck Theatre, has done loads of great work on making online booking more accessible for everyone:
- Making their access page easier to find and use
- Adding access info to seating plans
- Enabling access tickets to be booked online
- Creating that How-To guide we saw earlier
- Crucially, getting customer feedback and making changes based on it.
The feedback Hull Truck have received off the back of this work has been great:
Once you’re set up with Online Access, it is the easiest and quickest way currently offered within the city or anywhere else I know for booking accessible tickets.”
“[The facility] actually encourages [me] to book more shows as I know I can do it online. I am currently considering at least 2-3 other shows next year.” It’s also worth taking an opportunity here to highlight something which happens a lot: too often, access performances aren’t ‘sold’ to anyone assumed not to ‘need’ them. You’ve probably heard stories of people being told, ‘oh no, you won’t want to come then, it’s a captioned show’ or similar.
Let’s use captioned performances as an example: you’ll find that even people who don’t identify as D/deaf benefit from them. Not only does it mean people can attend the same performances as their caption-using friends and relatives, but everyone can get something out of captioning.
StageText worked with the Octagon Theatre in Bolton to put on captioned performances and record audience feedback: one performance was attended by 112 people, none of whom identified themselves as caption users. At the end of the show, 70 people – that’s 63% of the audience – returned a card saying they found the captions useful.
**Slides 52 to 55**
If you’re looking to get some more information regarding access, you’ll be pleased to know there’s loads of wonderful organisations who can help you:
- **Attitude is Everything** release their *State of Access* report every two years and can offer loads of support around making your venue and programming as accessible as possible. They’re online at [http://www.attitudeiseverything.org.uk](http://www.attitudeiseverything.org.uk)
- **StageText** are a D/deaf-led charity who provide live theatre subtitling, training in best practice around captioning, advertise captioned shows and offer D/deaf awareness training. Their website is [http://www.stagetext.org/](http://www.stagetext.org/)
- **VocalEyes** provide audio description services, training and consultancy for arts and heritage venues – so not only for theatres, but also museums and other cultural venues. You can find them at [vocaleyes.co.uk](http://vocaleyes.co.uk)
**Slides 56 & 57**
Here the most important things to take away and start working from:
- **Consider the whole journey**: not just in-venue access, but the entire process from booking, through to attending the venue, through to communication after the fact.
- **Listen to your audiences**: they’ll let you know if what you’re offering is working for them or not. No one’s going to get it all exactly right every time – so learn from your mistakes!
- **Organisation-wide change is needed**: it’s one thing to make your online offer as accessible as possible, but what’s ultimately needed is a shift in thinking; that theatre should be accessible to everyone and making it such isn’t an imposition. This is vital.
**Slide 58**
Here’s a few quick wins for you to consider:
- 5 minutes? Create Customer Attributes or a Tag Group that’s visible on the web for customers to self-identify their access needs.
- 30 minutes? Set up online access booking using these Attributes, Tags or Memberships.
- 1 hour? Update your seating plans with access information using Info and Layout Overlays.
**Slide 59**
Please do get in touch with the Spektrix Support team if you’ve got any questions or want a hand implementing anything you’ve learned today.
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/0886-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 7,
"total-input-tokens": 9850,
"total-output-tokens": 4700,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
2482,
1
],
[
2482,
5228,
2
],
[
5228,
8385,
3
],
[
8385,
11826,
4
],
[
11826,
15048,
5
],
[
15048,
17517,
6
],
[
17517,
20624,
7
]
]
} |
a2854a6b20dcbebd7eec8eb4cb3071264f524769 | Access to initiatives managed by Arts Council England
Arts Council England (ACE) manages a number of cultural projects, programmes and initiatives that are open to archives. These include cross domain activities that in October 2011 transferred from the Museums Libraries and Archives Council.
Standards
Designation
Designation identifies the pre-eminent collections of national and international importance held in England's non-national museums, libraries and archives, based on their quality and significance. ACE manages the Designation Scheme on behalf of museums, libraries and archives. The National Archives provides expert advice on archive collections.
Funding
Arts Council England/V&A Purchase Grant Fund
The V&A Purchase Grant Fund contributes to the acquisition of objects relating to the arts, literature and history by museums, galleries, record repositories and specialist libraries in England and Wales which are not funded by central government.
Prism Fund
The fund for the Preservation of Industrial and Scientific Material (PRISM Fund) supports the acquisition and/or conservation of material objects which provide an important contribution to our understanding of science, industry or technology. As with the Arts Council England/V&A Purchase Grant Fund, this fund is available in England and Wales and only for organisations not funded by central government.
Grants for the Arts
Grants for the Arts is an open access funding programme for all types of organisation delivering arts activities (including museums, libraries and archives). The programme is funded from the National Lottery and particularly targets those projects which reach new audiences (typically 56% of successful applications and 40% of grants relate to individuals or organisations not previously funded by ACE). Cultural property
Government Indemnity Scheme The Government Indemnity Scheme offers an alternative to the cost of commercial insurance and is available to museums, galleries and libraries within the UK when borrowing works of art and objects for exhibitions and for long-term loan when particular security and environmental conditions are met.
Acceptance in Lieu The Acceptance in Lieu scheme enables taxpayers to transfer important works of art and other important heritage objects into public ownership while paying inheritance tax, or one of its earlier forms. The taxpayer is given the full open market value of the item, which then becomes the property of a public museum, archive or library. ACE manages the scheme. The National Archives provides expert advice on archival material.
Export Licensing The Export Licensing Unit issues, on behalf of the Secretary of State for Culture, licences to export cultural goods. Certain cultural objects more than 50 years of age and valued above specified financial thresholds require an individual licence for export out of the UK whether on a permanent or temporary basis.
Reviewing Committee on the Export of Works of Art The Reviewing Committee's terms of reference are:
- to advise on the principles which should govern the control of export of objects of cultural interest and the operation of the export control system generally
- to advise the Secretary of State on all cases where refusal of an export licence for an object of cultural interest is suggested on grounds of national importance
- to advise in cases where a special Exchequer grant in needed towards the purchase of an object that would otherwise be exported
Security advice The National Security Service gives free advice to cultural venues about standards of security for loans and exhibitions. The priority is to establish that venues which wish to make use of the Governments Indemnity Scheme are able to meet appropriate security standards. 2012
Stories of the World Stories of the World is part of the London 2012 Cultural Olympiad, and aims to welcome the world to Britain by using our rich museums, libraries and archive collections and working with young people to tell inspirational stories about the UK's relationships with the world.
The People's Record In 2010 an online space The People's Record was launched to showcase and sustain the results of museum, library and archive led projects supporting community groups to have their say and tell their stories as part of a comprehensive record of the Games.
Our Sporting Life Our Sporting Life is a unique and ambitious celebration of British Sport. It is the first project of its kind to salute sport from grass roots to Olympic podia and will culminate in the world's greatest exhibition on the history of sport as the Olympic and Paralympic Games are launched in London in 2012.
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/0887-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 3,
"total-input-tokens": 5534,
"total-output-tokens": 1001,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
1816,
1
],
[
1816,
3787,
2
],
[
3787,
4687,
3
]
]
} |
6aec59220972a5b986345bb67ebf38f9ca9449c0 | Access to key IT systems City of York Council Internal Audit Report 2016/17
Business Unit: Various Responsible Officer: Various Service Manager: Various Date Issued: 18th April 2017 Status: Final Reference: 10245/004
| Actions | P1 | P2 | P3 | |---------|----|----|----| | Overall Audit Opinion | Reasonable Assurance | Summary and Overall Conclusions
Introduction ICT plays a key role in the efficient delivery of services to the public, and is also vital to the effective internal operation of the Council. New technologies bring clear benefits, but also bring with them new obligations and areas of risk exposure.
Organisations must ensure that electronic information is held securely to prevent disruption to services, and personal data fall additionally within the scope of the Data Protection Act 1998. Compliance with the principles in the Act is monitored by the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), which since 2010 has regularly imposed fines on organisations for failure to comply. The ICO has the power to levy fines of up to £500,000.
Ensuring that access to data is restricted to authorised persons is therefore of vital importance to organisations. In the event of an information security breach, they must be able to demonstrate that as far as possible they had put in place appropriate procedural and technological security measures to manage risks.
Objectives and Scope of the Audit The purpose of this audit was to provide assurance to management that procedures and controls over key council systems will ensure that access to data is restricted to authorised users. The systems covered by this audit were:
- iWorld - Revenues and Benefits, Housing Rents;
- FMS - Civica Financials;
- Servitor - housing repairs management; and
- Frameworki - Adult Social Care.
This included a review of procedures for creating and removing user accounts, settings for passwords and other access control features, along with remote access by third parties such as suppliers. The fieldwork was carried out during 2016.
Key Findings The council generally has good processes in place to manage the aspects detailed above. To be able to access to the systems reviewed, a user must possess a valid domain username and complex password in line with Public Services Network requirements. Three of the four systems reviewed require them to have an additional valid username and password for the applications themselves. These provisions offer generally good control over user access, but we found that some systems’ password settings are weaker than desirable, or have not been fully investigated by the council.
Some processes for authorising and controlling several systems’ user accounts have not been formalised, which generates unnecessary work for the service desk staff and could lead to confusion over access levels required.
There are also various shared accounts in use and several non-human system administrator accounts in use, which are not subject to the same authorisation process as standard user accounts, and the use of which reduces individual accountability. Some of these have already been removed.
**Overall Conclusions**
It was found that the arrangements for managing risk were satisfactory with a number of weaknesses identified. An acceptable control environment is in operation but there are a number of improvements that could be made. Our overall opinion of the controls within the system at the time of the audit was that they provided Reasonable Assurance. 1 Shared and non-human user accounts
| Issue/Control Weakness | Risk | |---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------| | Unique accounts are not always provided for users, including administrators. | Lack of accountability for users' actions when using shared accounts.| | The creation of non-human user accounts is not required to be authorised. | Unauthorised persons gain access to data or make changes to council systems. |
Findings
We identified several Frameworki non-human users which appear never to have logged on: DASMAN, OMONITORING and CSUPPORT. The email address attached to OMONITORING relates to a user who also has an account in her own name.
From the list of iWorld users supplied, we identified twelve on the FIRST-DEFAULT profile and fifty-five on the RB-SYSADMIN profile. These are profiles with considerable rights. We queried whether all of these were necessary with administrators and were informed that many were redundant. They were removed during the course of the audit.
We identified: stodba and Ops$Walkthrough, which are Servitor non-human users and were advised that these are used by the database administration team and automated processes run using these users. Generic human users are: FRAUD1 used by the Veritau Fraud Team and HOUADMIN, which is shared by around ten IT administrators. We were informed that these are used because Servitor licences are expensive and the council operates a "one in, one out" licensing policy to stay within a restricted number of licences and avoid incurring additional costs.
Making accounts available to multiple staff makes it more difficult to establish or trace accountability. The shared use of the administrator account creates a particular risk, and if shared accounts are deemed necessary for cost reasons, the council could consider reducing this risk by providing administrators with individual accounts and creating lower risk shared accounts e.g. view only or similar.
Our sample testing of new user accounts also identified that authorisation is not required for the creation of system support admin user accounts. Examples found were “REPORT” (Servitor) and “Systems and Development, Resources” (FMS).
Agreed Action 1.1 - Framework
The users identified above were investigated and found the following:
The worker name ‘OMONITORING’ is a system worker used by the Intensive Support Priority
| Priority | Responsible Officer | |----------|---------------------| | 2 | ICT Systems Support Team Leader | Team within Adult Social Care. The role has never been logged into and the password has never been given out but it is an account that needs to be kept in the system.
The email address allocated to the worker is not necessary but enables the ICT System Support to have a contact person for this system worker.
The role enables the Intensive Support Team to have a holding account for all the outcome monitoring work and allows the service manager to allocate the client support requests to individual workers within the team.
| Agreed Action 1.2 - iWorld | | |-----------------------------|--| | All 55 users with profile RB_SYSADMIN have been either disabled or moved to the ALL_USER profile. | | | The same authorisation process for service accounts will be implemented as for human users. | |
| Priority | 2 | | Responsible Officer | ICT Systems Support Team Leader | | Timescale | 31/05/2017 |
| Agreed Action 1.3 - Servitor | | |-----------------------------|--| | The possibility will be investigated of assigning administrators individual accounts. The same authorisation process for service accounts will be implemented as for human users. | | | Licence implications and significant cost if systems support require individual named user accounts. A management decision to keep the current status has been taken. | |
| Priority | 2 | | Responsible Officer | ICT Systems Support Team Leader | | Timescale | 31/05/2017 |
| Agreed Action 1.4 - FMS | | |------------------------|--| | The same authorisation process for service accounts will be implemented as for human users. | |
| Priority | 2 | | Responsible Officer | ICT Systems Support Team Leader / ICT Infrastructure Manager | | Timescale | 31/05/2017 | 2 New user requests
| Issue/Control Weakness | Risk | |---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------| | Formal user management processes were not in place for the creation of new Frameworki, iWorld or Servitor user accounts or for revisions to them. | Inappropriate and / or unauthorised access to data and systems. |
Using model users means that access level errors may be duplicated.
Findings
We reviewed a sample of new users for each of the systems and examined how access was requested.
The request process for Frameworki, iWorld and Servitor is informal. Specific request forms are not used and instead requests are sent as emails to the service desk or are raised using the online self-service function. One request included an "Interim Frameworki Change Request Form", which is not intended for this purpose. Some requests indicate a model user, whose access level should be copied, while others specified a role, although the correct role name was not always given in the request. Requests do not always initially come from the appropriate authorising manager, and as a result service desk staff sometimes have to enter into lengthy chains of correspondence relating to a request, before all queries have been addressed.
When permissions are modelled on those of an existing user, such as those of the officer who is being replaced or who carries out the same duties, this can duplicate existing permissions errors if the permissions/roles/access levels have never been subject to a fundamental review of their capabilities.
The introduction of system-specific user request forms and the requirement for all user requests to be authorised and then directed to the service desk could streamline the process for creating new users. If it required roles or modules to be confirmed positively rather than a model user to be nominated, this could also ensure that future records and authorisations for user accounts are centrally maintained and stored.
For the FMS system, new user requests must be submitted on a unique form. Forms were available for all users samples, except for the system admin account mentioned previously and a user whose form could not be located. All forms had been appropriately authorised with the exception of one on behalf of an external auditor.
The list of FMS new user authorisers was out of date at the start of the audit, although it was updated after this was pointed out by the auditors carrying out the Main Accounting System audit.
Agreed Action 2.1 - Frameworki
Mosaic Adults replaced for Frameworki in November 2016. There is a new/amend user
Priority 2 form for Mosaic Adults. A new user form for access to Mosaic Childrens and Careworks has been created. All new users or changes to users require Service Manager approval.
| Responsible Officer | ICT Systems Support Team Leader | |---------------------|---------------------------------| | Timescale | Implemented |
**Agreed Action 2.2 - iWorld**
Specific user request forms for iWorld will be adopted.
| Priority | 2 | |----------|---| | Responsible Officer | ICT Systems Support Team Leader | | Timescale | 30/06/2017 |
**Agreed Action 2.3 - Servitor**
Specific user request forms for Servitor will be adopted.
| Priority | 2 | |----------|---| | Responsible Officer | ICT Systems Support Team Leader | | Timescale | 31/05/2017 | 3 Account security settings
| Issue/Control Weakness | Risk | |---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------| | The council has not made a risk-based decision on system password protection. | Inappropriate and / or unauthorised access to data and systems. | | Some security settings may not be strong enough for the sensitivity of the data being secured. | | | Servitor security settings have not been explored. | | | Some iWorld users have identical passwords. | |
Findings
It is important to note that all users are required to authenticate to the CYC network before accessing any of the systems which we reviewed. A user must therefore possess a valid domain username and complex password in line with Public Services Network requirements. Specific issues with each system’s own security settings are identified below.
The Frameworki password complexity follows the settings used for SQL Server 2005. These are broadly in line with Public Services Network and/or Microsoft requirements or best practice, although “Store passwords using reversible encryption” is enabled. Microsoft specifies that this should never be enabled, unless it is required for a specific purpose. The minimum password age of 0 days is also low, but as the password history setting is high at 20, it is very unlikely that a user would reset their password 20 times in immediate succession to get back to their original password.
Notes covering the new user process are available, but this guidance did not include any instruction to force the new user to change their password when they first log on. We were informed that this was changed during the audit.
For iWorld users except the system administrator accounts, some password settings are particularly weak: minimum password length is only five characters and no alphanumeric complexity is enforced. The maximum password age is 90 days, which is relatively long, given the sensitivity of the data. It is believed that all password settings are unchanged from the defaults for the system. The system administrator accounts cannot be locked out, their passwords do not expire and have fewer characters. Again no minimum alphanumeric complexity is enforced. However there is a justifiable reluctance to change these, as this may affect automated process functionality.
We were provided with a report of all iWorld users which included passwords in encrypted form. This revealed that some clusters of users have identical passwords. We would advise that this issue is investigated further. We also found that not all passwords were encrypted; although the guidance notes flag that encryption should be enabled. This has already been addressed for all accounts except systems accounts which may affect functionality.
For Servitor, administrators were unsure of the password configuration and could not provide screenshots, but did state that they do not expire, can be text only and users are locked out if they enter an incorrect password too many times. No other settings such as minimum length were known. Administrators have sought further details from the supplier.
We also noted that administrators keep a record of all users’ passwords in a spreadsheet when they are created, and users are not prompted to change them at first log on. Thus we were able to determine for example that some passwords were only three characters long and “password” can be used as a password. This indicates that the security of password settings is weak.
The Civica FMS system does not have its own authentication process and uses Active Directory authentication, so users do not have to enter a separate password to gain access. As noted in the Frameworki findings above, these are in line with best practice apart from “Store passwords using reversible encryption” being enabled.
We would advise that password settings for these systems are reviewed, and the council makes and documents a decision on the strength of security settings, based on the level of risk which the council feels is attached to the data in each system. The council has a policy on Active Directory security settings, but does not have a similar documented approach to the security of individual applications.
**Agreed Action 3.1 - Framework**
Mosaic Adults went live on 14th November 2016 – Frameworki is now redundant.
Mosaic Adults uses Active Directory authentication.
| Priority | Responsible Officer | Timescale | |----------|---------------------|-----------| | 2 | ICT Systems Support Team Leader | Implemented |
**Agreed Action 3.2 - iWorld**
Implemented more complex password on 9th May 2016 after a system update which made this possible – these must now be a minimum length of 8 characters and must include the following:
- Uppercase character
- Lowercase character
- Number
- Special Character
| Priority | Responsible Officer | Timescale | |----------|---------------------|-----------| | 2 | ICT Systems Support Team Leader | Implemented |
### Agreed Action 3.3 - Servitor
A process of implementing more complex Oracle passwords is now possible and has been carried out.
All non-super user account passwords will be a minimum length of 8 characters and must include the following:
- Uppercase
- Lowercase
- Number
- Special Character
Unable to change the main HOUADMIN password as this has operational database consequences.
| Priority | Responsible Officer | Timescale | |----------|---------------------|-----------| | 2 | ICT Systems Support Team Leader | Implemented |
### Agreed Action 3.4 - FMS
This will continue to use Active Directory authentication.
| Priority | Responsible Officer | Timescale | |----------|---------------------|-----------| | 2 | ICT Systems Support Team Leader | Implemented |
### 4 User security reviews
| Issue/Control Weakness | Risk | |------------------------|------| | Ability to monitor the effectiveness of reviews is limited. | Inappropriate and / or unauthorised access to data and systems. |
#### Findings
ICT send lists of users and their permissions to appropriate managers every six months and request that their access is confirmed as valid.
These checks are one of the key controls covering user permissions levels and were introduced by ICT to compensate for an apparent lack of accurate information on leavers and internal movers being provided to them.
We requested information on these checks and found that there was evidence of them being carried out regularly. However the information for each system was not stored methodically and it was not possible to determine how the managers’ responses are monitored at a detailed level.
For example, we could not readily examine how thoroughly individual managers check that their users are valid or how many accounts were amended as a result of the checks.
#### Agreed Action 4.1 - Framework
A standard template has been adopted to record the checks and actions carried out as result. Three reminders will be sent to managers and if a response is not received, access will be removed for any unconfirmed users.
| Priority | Responsible Officer | Timescale | |----------|---------------------|-----------| | 3 | ICT Systems Support Team Leader | Implemented |
#### Agreed Action 4.2 - iWorld
A standard template has been adopted to record the checks and actions carried out as result. Three reminders will be sent to managers and if a response is not received, access will be removed for any unconfirmed users.
| Priority | Responsible Officer | Timescale | |----------|---------------------|-----------| | 3 | ICT Systems Support Team Leader | Implemented |
#### Agreed Action 4.3 - Servitor
A standard template has been adopted to record the checks and actions carried out as
| Priority | |----------| | 3 | result. Three reminders will be sent to managers and if a response is not received, access will be removed for any unconfirmed users.
| Responsible Officer | ICT Systems Support Team Leader | |---------------------|---------------------------------| | Timescale | Implemented |
**Agreed Action 4.4 - FMS**
A standard template has been adopted to record the checks and actions carried out as result. Three reminders will be sent to managers and if a response is not received, access will be removed for any unconfirmed users.
| Priority | 3 | |----------|---| | Responsible Officer | ICT Systems Support Team Leader | | Timescale | Implemented | Audit Opinions and Priorities for Actions
Audit Opinions
Audit work is based on sampling transactions to test the operation of systems. It cannot guarantee the elimination of fraud or error. Our opinion is based on the risks we identify at the time of the audit.
Our overall audit opinion is based on 5 grades of opinion, as set out below.
| Opinion | Assessment of internal control | |--------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | High Assurance | Overall, very good management of risk. An effective control environment appears to be in operation. | | Substantial Assurance | Overall, good management of risk with few weaknesses identified. An effective control environment is in operation but there is scope for further improvement in the areas identified. | | Reasonable Assurance | Overall, satisfactory management of risk with a number of weaknesses identified. An acceptable control environment is in operation but there are a number of improvements that could be made. | | Limited Assurance | Overall, poor management of risk with significant control weaknesses in key areas and major improvements required before an effective control environment will be in operation. | | No Assurance | Overall, there is a fundamental failure in control and risks are not being effectively managed. A number of key areas require substantial improvement to protect the system from error and abuse. |
Priorities for Actions
| Priority | Description | |----------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Priority 1 | A fundamental system weakness, which presents unacceptable risk to the system objectives and requires urgent attention by management. | | Priority 2 | A significant system weakness, whose impact or frequency presents risks to the system objectives, which needs to be addressed by management. | | Priority 3 | The system objectives are not exposed to significant risk, but the issue merits attention by management. | Where information resulting from audit work is made public or is provided to a third party by the client or by Veritau then this must be done on the understanding that any third party will rely on the information at its own risk. Veritau will not owe a duty of care or assume any responsibility towards anyone other than the client in relation to the information supplied. Equally, no third party may assert any rights or bring any claims against Veritau in connection with the information. Where information is provided to a named third party, the third party will keep the information confidential.
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/0888-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 14,
"total-input-tokens": 27592,
"total-output-tokens": 5094,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
322,
1
],
[
322,
2429,
2
],
[
2429,
3501,
3
],
[
3501,
6266,
4
],
[
6266,
7997,
5
],
[
7997,
10854,
6
],
[
10854,
11622,
7
],
[
11622,
14748,
8
],
[
14748,
17138,
9
],
[
17138,
17927,
10
],
[
17927,
19961,
11
],
[
19961,
20640,
12
],
[
20640,
22834,
13
],
[
22834,
23434,
14
]
]
} |
37a28fb07a78aa344c4f72d095e74c1c91150057 | Access to NHS Records transferred to places of deposit under the Public Records Act Contents Access to NHS Records transferred to places of deposit under the Public Records Act ..................................................................................................... 1 1 Introduction ........................................................................................................... 5 1.1 What is the purpose of this guidance? ........................................................ 5 1.2 Who is this guidance for? ........................................................................ 5 1.3 Abbreviations and terms used in this guidance ....................................... 5 2 Statutory background .......................................................................................... 6 2.1 Public Records Act 1958 ........................................................................ 6 2.2 Previous access regime ........................................................................ 6 2.3 Current access regime ........................................................................... 6 2.4 Other legal factors affecting access ....................................................... 7 2.5 Non-applicability of certain legislation to transferred public records ... 8 3 Processing access requests .............................................................................. 8 3.1 Summary ..................................................................................................... 8 3.2 Allocation of responsibilities ................................................................... 8 3.3 Responses .................................................................................................. 9 3.4 Data Protection Act (s40 exemption) ....................................................... 10 3.5 Determining the ‘responsible authority’ ................................................ 10 4 Establishing procedures for consultation ....................................................... 11 4.1 Places of deposit based in NHS Organisations ..................................... 11 4.2 Records already held for operational purposes ..................................... 11 4.3 Consultation under Data Protection Act 1998 ....................................... 12 4.4 Sensitivity review on transfer ................................................................. 12 5 Designation of records as ‘open’ ..................................................................... 12 5.1 General considerations .......................................................................... 12 5.2 Application of existing ‘closure’ periods .............................................. 14 5.3 Retrospective ‘closure’ of records .......................................................... 15 5.4 Updating public information about access ........................................... 15 6 Release of information to specific individuals other than under Freedom of Information Act ........................................................................................... 15 6.1 General considerations .......................................................................... 15 6.2 Release of Information under Data Protection Act 1998 ....................... 16 6.3 Exemptions to access rights under Data Protection Act ....................... 17 6.4 Release under other statutory provisions ............................................. 17 6.5 Voluntary release of Information outside the terms of Freedom of Information Act ........................................................................................... 18 7 Applying exemption: working assumptions .................................................... 18 7.1 Background ............................................................................................. 18 7.2 General assumptions ............................................................................. 19 7.3 General administrative information ....................................................... 20 7.3.1 Scope ............................................................................................. 20 7.3.2 Working assumption ..................................................................... 20 7.3.3 Exceptions ................................................................................... 20 7.3.4 Discussion .................................................................................. 20 7.4 Information about identifiable living patients ......................................... 21 7.4.1 Scope ............................................................................................. 21 7.4.2 Working assumption ..................................................................... 21 7.4.3 Significant exceptions .................................................................. 22 7.4.4 Discussion .................................................................................. 23 1 Introduction
1.1 What is the purpose of this guidance?
NHS Trusts have a duty to select and transfer those of their records which have permanent value to the National Archives or an appointed place of deposit at or before they reach 30 years old(^1). The statutory regime for public access to these transferred records has been substantially altered following the entering into force of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
The purpose of this guidance is to assist NHS Trusts and places of deposit in carrying out their respective duties under this new statutory access regime. It also addresses closely related issues in the management of transferred NHS public records.
This guidance has been developed in consultation with Department of Health and the UK Information Commissioner’s Office.
1.2 Who is this guidance for?
Local NHS organisations, including hospitals, Trusts and Foundation Trusts particularly staff, such as corporate and health records managers, Caldicott Guardians, Freedom of Information and Data Protection officers.
Organisations responsible for Places of Deposit appointed to hold records of NHS organisations under s4(1) of the Public Records Act 1958 particularly staff with roles primarily concerned with information governance or with managing or providing access services in respect of records held under the Act.
1.3 Abbreviations and terms used in this guidance
| Abbreviation | Description | |--------------|-------------| | EIR | Environmental Information Regulations | | PoD | Place of Deposit | | LCI | Lord Chancellor’s Instrument | | FOIA | Freedom of Information Act 2000 | | DPA | Data Protection Act 1998 | | PIT | public interest test | | NHS | National Health Service | | PRA | Public Records Act 1958 | | s | section |
In this guidance, ‘patient’ includes not only persons using NHS services for medical treatment, but also persons involved with the NHS in respect of related purposes such as screening or research.
(^1) This period was amended to 20 years by s.45 of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, but the introduction of the change is subject to transitional arrangements. 2 Statutory background
2.1 Public Records Act 1958
(Note: this Act refers to the ‘Public Record Office’ and ‘The Keeper of Public Records’: although these statutory titles continue to exist, since 2003, these have commonly been referred to as ‘The National Archives’ and the ‘Chief Executive of The National Archives’ respectively)
Under Schedule 1 of the Act(^2), NHS Trusts are designated as public records bodies. Section 3(1) places a duty on such bodies to select such of their records as are worthy of permanent preservation, and to transfer these to The National Archives or to a ‘place of deposit’ appointed under section 4 (1) at or before they reach 30 years old, calculated from the last date on the record unit(^3) unless an LCI under s3(4) of PRA applies. This period was amended to 20 years by s45 of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010(^4), but the introduction of the change is subject to transitional arrangements This duty is to be carried out under the supervision of The National Archives, which is effected through guidance issued in consultation with the Department of Health, and through the appropriate PoD.
2.2 Previous access regime
Before January 2005, The National Archives and PoDs had a statutory duty to make transferred records available for public inspection once a physical file unit (file, register etc) reached 30 years old, measured from the latest recorded date, unless there was a Lord Chancellor’s Instrument (LCI) specifying an alternative period.
LCI 92 specified a period of 100 years for NHS records containing information relating to the health of identifiable patients. Record units more recent than this were generally referred to as ‘closed’ and access was at the discretion of the NHS body which had transferred them to the place of deposit, subject to any other relevant legal provisions (often referred to as ‘privileged access’).
2.3 Current access regime
In January 2005, these access provisions were effectively replaced when s67 and Schedule 5 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA)(^5) amended the Public Records Act.
The system of ‘closure periods’ (including the extended closure implemented by LCI 92) and ‘privileged access’ has ceased to have statutory effect. The duty to give access under section 5(3) of PRA now relates to information in transferred public records ‘which fall to be disclosed in accordance with Freedom of Information Act
(^2) [www.opsi.gov.uk/RevisedStatutes/Acts/ukpga/1958/cukpga_19580051_en_1](http://www.opsi.gov.uk/RevisedStatutes/Acts/ukpga/1958/cukpga_19580051_en_1)
(^3) The same basis of calculation applies through FOIA s62(2): note that this may differ from the date at which NHS bodies may consider that records have been ‘closed’ (ie that no further or additions will be made to them).
(^4) [www.opsi.gov.uk/RevisedStatutes/Acts/ukpga/2010/cukpga_20100025_en_1](http://www.opsi.gov.uk/RevisedStatutes/Acts/ukpga/2010/cukpga_20100025_en_1)
(^5) [www.opsi.gov.uk/RevisedStatutes/Acts/ukpga/2000/cukpga_20000036_en_1](http://www.opsi.gov.uk/RevisedStatutes/Acts/ukpga/2000/cukpga_20000036_en_1) 2000’ which is now the main legislation controlling access. However, as a condition of appointment PoDs are expected to actively promote public access beyond the basic provisions of FOIA.
Some NHS records may also contain environmental information, as defined by the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (notably regulation 2(1)(f) ‘…the state of human health and safety…in as much as they are or may be affected…by the state of the elements of the environment’). Slightly different, provisions apply to such information. In this guidance, references to FOIA, and exemptions to FOIA, will also apply to EIR, and exceptions to access under them unless specifically stated to the contrary.
FOIA provides a general right of access to information held by public authorities, subject to a number of exemptions. Even where a possible exemption exists, FOIA does not require it to be applied, although there will normally be good reasons to do so. Unlike PRA, FOIA and EIR apply to information, not the physical records in which it is contained, and limitations on access (exemptions or exceptions) are now based primarily on the nature of the information, rather than its age.
General guidance on the interaction of FOIA and PRA is available at:
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/archives/foiguide.htm
Only those aspects most relevant to transferred NHS public records are described here.
2.4 Other legal factors affecting access
A variety of other legal factors affecting access to transferred public records, are given effect through the application of Freedom of Information Act exemptions, notably:
- Data Protection Act 1998 (section 40 exemption)
- The Environmental Information Regulations (section 74 and section 39 exemption)
- common law of confidence (section 41)
Human Rights Act should normally be taken into account through its effect on the interpretation of these other legal provisions, rather than directly as a statute bar (section 44 exemption) in its own right.
______________________________________________________________________
6 General guidance on the implementation of the Freedom of Information Act can be obtained from the Information Commissioner and Ministry of Justice: www.ico.gov.uk www.justice.gov.uk/guidance/guidance.htm
General guidance on EIR is available from: www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/policy/opengov/eir/index.htm
7 Following the approach of the Information Tribunal in: www.informationtribunal.gov.uk/Documents/decisions/mrspluckvinformationcommissioner(17sept2007).pdf 2.5 Non-applicability of certain legislation to transferred public records
A number of statutes and regulations affecting access to NHS records no longer have effect once they have transferred to a place of deposit. Most notably, the Access to Health Records Act 1990, which provides additional access rights to the health records of deceased patients for certain specified categories of persons, applies to such records while held by or on behalf of health professionals. However, in practice, similar provision can be made through the application of FOIA exemptions.
3 Processing access requests
3.1 Summary
- Primary responsibility for responding to requests for transferred records (whether under FOIA, DPA or EIR) lies with the PoD, which acts on behalf of the Lord Chancellor, by virtue of its appointment under PRA.
- The PoD must consult the NHS Trust when processing FOI or EIR requests.
- The Trust has a duty to carry out public interest tests where necessary.
- When processing DPA subject access requests the PoD must consult the ‘appropriate medical professional’ in the Trust who will determine whether information should be withheld due to possible ‘serious harm’
- The PoD holds transferred records ‘on behalf of’ the Lord Chancellor under PRA, and is data controller for most purposes under DPA. However, the NHS Trust is also data controller in respect of certain processing (notably processing of subject access requests) as above.
- The National Archives will provide advice and guidance, including reference to the Lord Chancellor if there is doubt over which NHS Trust is the ‘responsible authority’, in consultation with Department of Health
- Timescale for responses is 30 working days (FOI, EIR) or 40 calendar days (DPA), but ‘reasonable’ additional time is allowed for PIT’s.
3.2 Allocation of responsibilities
- Before 2005, records’ status as ‘open’ or ‘closed’ was determined directly by statute (ie PRA) or by an LCI issued under it by the Lord Chancellor in accordance with the date and type of the record units concerned. Access to ‘closed’ records was at the discretion of the transferring organisation. • Section 15 of FOIA now defines roles and responsibilities. The PoD ‘holds’ NHS records transferred to it by virtue of its appointment by the Lord Chancellor in terms of section 1 of FOIA.(^8)
• Decisions on access to transferred NHS records under FOIA are now made jointly by PoDs, acting on behalf of the Lord Chancellor as the ‘appropriate records authority’ under section 15(5) of FOIA, and the appropriate NHS Trust (normally the transferring NHS organisation, see below) as ‘responsible authority’.
3.3 Responses
When responding to any request for information which is, or may be, contained in records which are not ‘open’ the PoD must assess whether the information is covered by a FOIA exemption and respond to the applicant.
When doing so, section 66 of FOIA requires that the PoD also consults the ‘responsible authority’ designated under section 15(5). The form of consultation is not specified in the Act, so there is scope for local decision. As a minimum, however, the NHS Trust must receive sufficient timely information to enable it to make representations to the PoD if it wishes to do so, and, it should do so sufficiently promptly to enable the PoD to take account of these while responding to the applicant within the statutory timescales.
Where PoDs and NHS Trusts have reached an agreed approach to common access scenarios, it may be sufficient for the PoD to inform the Trust through a simple exchange of e-mail that request(s) have been received and ask the Trust to confirm that it should be dealt with accordingly, leaving a more formal process to more unusual or sensitive cases. E-mail is not a secure medium, however, and care should be taken to ensure that adequate information can be exchanged without compromising the secure processing of highly confidential or sensitive personal data.
When a PoD determines that an exemption requiring a public interest test (PIT) applies it must send a copy of the request to the responsible authority. The responsible authority must carry out the PIT within a reasonable period of time, and inform the PoD whether the public interest requires that the exemption should be applied or not. The PoD must then inform the applicant of the decision. Although the Act does not specify a time limit for the PIT, it should take no more than a further 20 working days(^9).
The place of deposit must then tell the applicant whether it holds the information sought or not, and if it is withheld, explain which exemptions have been applied and why. In some cases, it may be appropriate to refuse to confirm or deny whether the information is held. (see section 6 below)
As transferred public records are involved, the place of deposit has 30 rather than the usual 20 days to respond to the applicant under The Freedom of Information (Time
(^8) [www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/library/freedom_of_information/detailed_specialist_guides/awareness_guidance_12_info_caught_by_foi_act.pdf](http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/library/freedom_of_information/detailed_specialist_guides/awareness_guidance_12_info_caught_by_foi_act.pdf)
(^9) [www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/library/freedom_of_information/detailed_specialist_guides/foi_good_practice_guidance_4.pdf](http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/library/freedom_of_information/detailed_specialist_guides/foi_good_practice_guidance_4.pdf) for Compliance with Request) Regulations 2004 (SI 2004 No. 3364) to allow time for consultation to take place.
3.4 Data Protection Act (s40 exemption)
For the purposes of DPA, the PoD is normally considered to be the data controller, with responsibility for responding to requests by data subjects for their personal data contained in public records.
However, other bodies may be also be considered data controllers in common where they process the same data in respect of their own specific statutory duties: for example, where an NHS body has temporarily recalled transferred records under s4(6) of PRA, it will be data controller in regard to any processing undertaken for NHS operational purposes, but it will not be data controller as regards decisions to destroy personal data contained in them, as destruction of transferred public records is a function reserved to the Lord Chancellor under PRA s6.
3.5 Determining the ‘responsible authority’
In the great majority of cases, the ‘responsible authority’ for information contained in records which have been transferred from an NHS body will be the body from which the transfer has been, or is being, received.(^{10})
However, in some cases, the transferring body may have ceased to exist since transfer (for example due to re-organisation or hospital closure), or legacy records may be transferring from premises not currently occupied by an NHS body carrying out the functions to which the records relate.
In such cases, the ‘responsible authority’ should normally be the NHS body currently providing the relevant functions in the area to which the records relate or dealing with the assets or people concerned. For example, if the records are those of a closed mental hospital, the trust or foundation trust currently providing mental health services in the area where the hospital was located should be the Responsible Authority.
Rarely, there may be more than one possible successor body because the function has been split or is exercised over a different geographical area.
The PoD should consult with the NHS bodies involved to establish which of them has the most appropriate knowledge and expertise to carry out PITs in respect of the matters to which the records relate. In case of difficulty the PoD should contact The National Archives, which in consultation with the Department of Health will secure a determination by the Lord Chancellor under section 15(5) of FOIA.
______________________________________________________________________
(^{10}) The Hosprec database: [www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/hospitalrecords/default.asp?source=ddmenu_search6](http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/hospitalrecords/default.asp?source=ddmenu_search6) provides useful background information on the administrative history of local NHS structures. 4 Establishing procedures for consultation
NHS bodies should already have contact with the PoD appointed to receive those of their records selected for permanent preservation. Where this is not the case, they should contact The National Archives:
[email protected]
which will refer them to the appropriate institution (in most cases, this will be the local authority archive service for the area).
Places of deposit and the NHS body or bodies transferring records to them should establish local written agreements on consultation under s66 of the Freedom of Information Act. Where more than one PoD or NHS body, is involved, it may be appropriate to do this collectively rather than bilaterally. A summary should be publicly available (for example, on organisational websites).
The format of such agreements is for local decision, but a checklist of appropriate content is given as Appendix 1. They should be formally authorised and recorded, and be subject to periodic review.11
4.1 Places of deposit based in NHS Organisations
A few PoDs are located within NHS Trusts, and managed by seconded NHS staff, who may also carry out other roles within the Trust. It is important that the legal distinction between the functions of the PoD under PRA and the internal operational records functions of the Trust be maintained, and consultation processes documented in some way, even if these are effectively internal to the Trust.
4.2 Records already held for operational purposes
In some cases an NHS Trust and the governing authority of the PoD may have ongoing operational collaboration, for example in respect of the provision of care services or shared back-office functions, or local authorities running PoDs may hold records transferred from NHS bodies for operational public health and social care purposes.
Any issues regarding operational records management in relation to such records must be kept distinct from those relating to Public Records Act functions and PoDs must document the change in status of these records once they are being held for purposes of the Public Records Act even if the records do not physically move, as this will affect how statutory access decisions are made.
11 In some cases it may be possible to repurpose certain elements of existing corporate data sharing agreements. For guidance on information sharing generally, see: www.foi.gov.uk/sharing/toolkit/infosharing.htm 4.3 Consultation under Data Protection Act 1998
To avoid unnecessary duplication, the agreement should also cover procedures for identifying and seeking the opinion of the ‘appropriate health professional’ on requests by former patients for access to their own medical records, as required under Data Protection Act and para.6(2) of SI 2000/413: www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2000/20000413.htm
This potentially limits the right of patients to access information relating to themselves contained in health records. Arrangements for consultation under this heading should take account of the extent to which such limits are likely to be applied in relation to the specific records transferred.
4.4 Sensitivity review on transfer
Irregular or unplanned transfers of substantial backlogs of records from Trusts to PoDs present significant risks of non-compliance with information legislation as records may be inappropriately destroyed or retained, or their whereabouts may not be documented.
Agreements on access procedures should therefore also consider processes for selection and transfer of records, and the authorising and recording of these processes so that both organisations can identify the existence and current location of records and discharge their respective legal responsibilities. Access agreements should also provide for the re-assessment of access conditions in respect of records transferred before 2005 where necessary.
5 Designation of records as ‘open’
5.1 General considerations
Since 2005, the duty to provide reasonable facilities for inspecting public records relates to records which ‘fall to be disclosed’ under FOIA. There are no statutory ‘closure periods’.
Records which contain no information to which a valid FOIA exemption can be applied should be considered ‘open’ records, and on transfer the PoD should provide facilities for public inspection, and copying in accordance with their duty under s5 of PRA, and any related guidance from The National Archives.
12 For selection generally, see: www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/information-management/projects-and-work/acquisition-disposition-strategy.htm www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance/DH_4131747 www.healtharchives.org/docs/hospital_case_records_2006_final_version.pdf Records which may or do contain information to which an exemption under FOIA should be applied are not subject to the PRA duty to provide facilities for public inspection.
However, some information within such records may be accessible to the public (for example, by the provision of redacted copies on request) whether through individual written (or in the case of EIR oral) request, or in accordance with the PoD’s publication scheme.(^{13})
The processing of individual requests incurs costs in terms of staff time and delay for requestors, which can be avoided if records are designated ‘open’ as soon as possible. In addition to consulting over individual access requests, PoDs and NHS Trusts will therefore also need to proactively assess whether transferring records contain, or may contain, any information to which a valid exemption applies.
Selection and transfer can take place at any time before records reach 30 years old(^ {14}), preferably as part of normal NHS administrative processes for records disposal.
If the Trust is satisfied that transferring records do not contain any information subject to an FOI exemption, they should designate them as ‘open records’, and this should be recorded in the transfer documentation sent to the PoD.
The PoD should make these records available for public inspection in accordance with PRA as soon as processing of the accession has been completed.
However, in many cases, at the time of transfer, records will either:
- be known to contain some exempt information, or:
- their exemption status of their contents will be unknown.
In the first case, the NHS Trust should notify the PoD of the known applicable exemptions (whether at record series or item level as appropriate), and the PoD should fix an appropriate date for review of the status of the records.
Otherwise, PoDs, in consultation with the NHS Trust, should carry out a brief initial high-level assessment to determine whether the records contain any information that may be subject to valid exemptions, and the likely nature of these.
Records should not be made available for public inspection until this review is carried out, and any catalogue entry should be marked to indicate the intended review date, and FOI processes for access before that date.
In the light of this, they should set a point at which a more detailed review should be carried out, then proceed as above. This preliminary assessment should take into
(^{13}) For general guidance on publications schemes and charging for access under them, see:
www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/library/freedom_of_information/practical_application/usingthedefinitiondocuments.pdf
www.justice.gov.uk/guidance/foi-procedural-fees.htm#Charging_a_fee_limit_exceeded
nationalarchives.gov.uk/documents/guidance_paid_research.pdf
(^{14}) unless the Trust needs to retain records longer for operational reasons under .3(4) of PRA account the costs of detailed review, the likelihood of it resulting in the records (or a significant portion of them) being designated ‘open’, the potential information risks attached to the records concerned and the likely level of public demand for access in the meantime.
For example, if an initial assessment of the minutes of a hospital medical committee shows that it was common practice to record significant medical information regarding identifiable patients, it is unlikely to be productive to review these in detail for several decades.
Subsequent review(s) may involve a more detailed level of consultation and examination of the records depending upon the nature of any information risks identified in the initial assessment. Where these are low at the point of review it will normally be sufficient to review an appropriate sample of the content, rather than the whole.
In some cases, the preliminary assessment may indicate that immediate review is appropriate. Depending upon the information content of the records, it may also be possible to fix a future date at which the records will be designated as open, even if this is not feasible at the point of review.
These reviews are also covered by s66 of FOIA even though no actual request for information is involved. The PoD must consult the NHS Trust, and the latter must carry out any PITs necessary. In this case, there are no statutory deadlines for response, but Trusts should aim to comply with these as far as possible. Procedures for conducting them should be included in consultation agreements.
5.2 Application of existing ‘closure’ periods
Records transfers before 2005 will not have taken FOIA into account. The dates at which record units were scheduled to be made open to public inspection will have been determined on the basis of the periods specified under PRA (30 or 100 years as appropriate) and the last date recorded on the record unit. These periods no longer have statutory force, and in principle, the public may access information from any record unit regardless of date.
Records can be ‘closed’ only in the sense that, if the place of deposit considers that an exemption may apply to some or all of their information content, it will require members of the public to access the records via a formal FOI request, which may in some cases be refused, or granted in part through the provision of redacted copies or summaries, rather than through normal access channels, such as routine inspection in the reading room.
Ideally, PoDs should conduct a review of records transferred before 2005 which have not yet reached the dates for opening set under the old access regime, to determine whether they contain information that is subject to one or more FOIA exemptions. If not they should be designated ‘open’ and made available for public inspection immediately. This review must be done in consultation with the transferring NHS body concerned, under s66 of FOIA.
More realistically, where capacity for such a review is limited, they should consider whether there are smaller subsets of existing ‘closed’ holdings that could usefully be reviewed (as per 5.1 above), such as those for which high levels of public enquiries are being received.
Where it is not possible to conduct a detailed access review of records they should be designated as ‘open records’ at the dates previously fixed under the old PRA legislation unless one or more of the factors for retrospective ‘closure’ listed below is known to apply..
Where a PoD has reviewed a record which is not currently ‘open’ in response to a specific access request under FOIA, and it contains no exempt information it should be designated an ‘open record’ regardless of date.
5.3 Retrospective ‘closure’ of records
Rarely, material may have been opened to the public under the pre-2005 access regime, which would not have been if the current statutory framework and working assumptions in this guidance had been applied at the time. However, FOIA has a presumption in favour of openness, and it would be perverse to apply exemptions in a way which unnecessarily removes currently open information from public access.
Open material should only be retrospectively withdrawn from public access in where there is a specific statutory duty to do so, or a clear and substantial risk that one of the adverse consequences which the exemptions are designed to cover will in fact occur, taking into account the age of the records, the length of time for which they have been in the public domain, and the likelihood of the same or similar information being otherwise in the public domain.
5.4 Updating public information about access
Whether they are able to carry out a review or not, PoDs should amend their catalogues, publicity materials, forms (both on-site and online) web sites and reading room notices as appropriate to draw the attention of the public to the fact that material previously referred to as ‘closed’ may nevertheless now potentially be accessible under the provisions of FOIA (and possibly other legislation including DPA and EIR). Any existing references to access procedures as they existed before 2005 should as far as practicable be deleted or amended accordingly. Notices should provide details of internal appeals procedures and contact information for the Information Commissioner.
6 Release of information to specific individuals other than under Freedom of Information Act
6.1 General considerations
The duty to provide public access to inspect records under s5(3) and (5) of the Public Records Act (as amended) applies only to those records which ‘fall to be disclosed in accordance with’ FOIA. Section 7 of this guidance provides working assumptions for use in assessing this in respect of NHS records. Nevertheless, there are circumstances where it is appropriate for places of deposit to release information to specific categories of individuals outside the terms of their duty to give access to the public in general under PRA and FOIA, either on practical grounds, or because other statutory provisions apply.
While consultation on these is not a requirement under s66 of FOIA, on practical grounds it will usually be sensible for PoDs and NHS Trust to consider these issues in parallel with the s66 process.
6.2 Release of Information under Data Protection Act 1998
The most common specific statutory duty to release information from NHS records will be that arising under Data Protection Act 1998, i.e. release of information (‘data’) about a person (‘the data subject’) to that person.
- This takes place under section 7 of the Data Protection Act, even if the applicant specifies FOIA in the request.
- The time limit for a substantive response in such cases is 40 calendar (not working) days.
- A set fee may be charged (normally £10, but in the case of manual health records £50), although many public authorities waive this.
- Where personal data (other than that specifically relating to a person’s health contained in a health record, as defined by s68 of DPA) is contained in unstructured manual filing systems, a more limited subset of DPA applies, and subject access requests under section 7 need not be complied with if the cost limit under fees regulations would be exceeded.
In some cases, an applicant may request a range of information, some of which constitutes his or her personal data, and some which does not. It should be made clear to the applicant that his or her own personal data is being supplied in accordance with DPA rather than FOIA. The s40(1) exemption removes the need to release of such information under FOIA.
Given the sensitivity of much personal data in transferred NHS records, and the lack of any ongoing contact with the data subject, PoDs should request reasonable evidence of identity from the applicant before responding, as permitted by s.7(3) of Data Protection Act. Applications may also be made by third parties (for example, relatives or solicitors) acting on behalf of the data subject, in which case PoDs must also take steps to satisfy themselves that that is in fact the case.
For example where the data subject lacks capacity, an application might be made on their behalf by a person able to demonstrate that they have a Lasting Power of Attorney registered with the Office of the Public Guardian.(^{15})
As far as possible, any s66 consultation agreement should align requirements for the provision of evidence of identity between the two organisations, bearing in mind that the passage of time may render some forms of evidence difficult for the data subject to provide.
(^{15}) For more information on this latter point see: [www.publicguardian.gov.uk/](http://www.publicguardian.gov.uk/) 6.3 Exemptions to access rights under Data Protection Act
There are a number of exemptions to s7 and the other data subject rights under DPA. The Data Protection (Subject Access Modification) (Health) Order 2000 (SI 2000/413) made under that section, enables personal health data to be withheld from data subjects if release would cause ‘serious harm to the physical or mental health or condition of the data subject or any other person’.
Article 6 of the Order requires those controlling health data, including PoDs, to consult the ‘appropriate health professional’ before considering whether release might cause ‘serious harm’, unless it is reasonable to suppose that the applicant already has knowledge of the information concerned (Article 6(2)). Note that this criterion is very similar to that used by the s38 exemption under FOIA.
Where this requires different consultation processes and lines of communication from those under s66 of FOIA these should be separately included in consultation agreements, along with any agreed working assumptions on the circumstances in which the PoD can reasonably suppose that the applicant has knowledge of the information concerned.
Where extensive categories of data can be readily identified as being very unlikely to cause ‘serious harm’, it may be appropriate for such agreements to include provision for regular ‘blanket’ medical opinions to be supplied to the place of deposit to that effect. Conversely, where an NHS organisation has identified that records may contain information involving a high risk of ‘serious harm’, the place of deposit should be informed of this at or before transfer, and specific procedures put in place for dealing with any subject access requests to these.
In many cases, it may be sufficient to obtain a written statement at six-monthly intervals from a relevant health professional within the transferring Trust(s) that subject access to specified categories or classes of transferred records will not cause serious harm, confining specific consultation to those cases, or classes of case, believed likely to pose problems..
Where personal information relating to other identifiable living persons is contained in the same file unit, this should not normally be released under Data Protection Act, unless it consists of incidental references to medical staff and there is no reason to suppose that their safety would be compromised by release (SI2000/413, s8), or it is otherwise reasonable under all the circumstances to do so (for example, the reference is clearly to something that the data subject already knows).
Note that unless this regulation, or one of the other exemptions contained in Part IV of DPA, applies, subject access rights under s7 of DPA will always have effect regardless of any other legal provision to the contrary, in accordance with s27(5) of DPA.
6.4 Release under other statutory provisions
As noted above, the statutory duty to release information regarding deceased patients under Access to Health Records Act 1990 ceases to have effect once transfer to a place of deposit has taken place (though see section 7.5.3 below).
A number of other statutes such as Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 or National Health Service Act 2006 contain provisions which may require the production of information to specified bodies in specific circumstances. If this arises in respect of the older records held by places of deposit, The National Archives can provide guidance as to the appropriate response.
6.5 Voluntary release of Information outside the terms of Freedom of Information Act
Freedom of Information Act is generally ‘applicant blind’. Information should only be released to one individual under the Act if it could be released to any individual who requests it. Moreover, release under the Act cannot be made subject to conditions (except in the sense that the applicant may be subject to other legal constraints).
However, there may be circumstances where the release of information to a specific person would be entirely proper, or could be rendered so if certain conditions were imposed, even though exemptions would apply if release was being considered in relation to the public in general under FOIA. This guidance cannot cover all such possible circumstances, but reference is made to some of the more common ones below.
Before 2005, this situation was normally covered by the process referred to as ‘privileged access’ and release to the specified individual took place entirely at the discretion of the organisation (in this case the NHS body) transferring the records concerned to the place of deposit. This often included the imposition of conditions (for example in terms of the onward transmission of the information to others).
If requested records cannot be made generally accessible, pods and NHS bodies should consider whether release outside FOI would be possible. Care must be taken to ensure that use of this option does not compromise the ability to protect the information in response to other requests for access, for example, by undermining the confidential status of information subject to the s41 exemption. and the reasons for the decision should be documented.
With this option, conditions on subsequent use of the information should be employed to ensure that it does not enter the public domain. Applicants should be required to sign an undertaking to abide by these conditions. It should be made clear that access is being provided only to the individual (or class of individuals) concerned.
7 Applying exemption: working assumptions
7.1 Background
PoDs must consider the application of exemptions in relation to individual requests for information contained in records which are not yet ‘open’ on a case by case basis. However, many requests for access to information in records which are not yet ‘open’ will fall into common categories.
This section offers working assumptions to assist PoDs and NHS organisations to agree in advance how they will approach the application of exemptions in these common scenarios, so that they can be dealt with as expeditiously as possible, confining the need for detailed discussion to unusual or difficult cases. It is good practice to cite all relevant exemptions when responding to access requests. This will not remove the requirement to respond to each individual request, or for consultation under s66, but will make it easier to produce a consistent and considered response to requests.
7.2 General assumptions
This guidance assumes that records have transferred to a place of deposit thirty years after active administrative use ceased. Where an NHS Trust has transferred records substantially earlier, this may modify some of these assumptions, and should be subject to close consultation with the place of deposit.
Most people will, at some point in their lives, receive treatment from the NHS, and the mere fact that someone has received unspecified care should not in itself normally be considered ‘medical information’.
However, in some cases, information that is in itself purely administrative may imply medical information about an individual that is sufficiently specific to require it to be treated as medical: When assessing whether this might be the case, PoDs should take account of whether the patient is known, or can be presumed to be, dead, as this will affect the application of DPA, and the nature of the condition or the information in relation to the patient’s expectation of confidentiality at the time. For example, a list of patients admitted to a general hospital conveys little information other than that they were ill, as most people are from time to time, whereas the same list in regard to an STD clinic would strongly imply that the person was suffering from a particular class of disease to which some social stigma may have attached at the time, and in respect of which their expectations of confidentiality will have been extremely high.
In practice several categories of information listed below may well be found within the same physical records: for example, general hospital administration minutes may contain significant medical references to an individual patient whose case is raising discussion about possible changes in hospital policy.
Individuals may not always be identifiable, even if named (for example, a reference to ‘John Smith’ of uncertain date). Conversely, even if not named in a given file unit, an individual may be identifiable by virtue of other information held by the PoD (for example a reference to ‘the patient in bed 57’ may be identifiable if there is a corresponding register of beds giving names and other identifying details) Where a specific FOI request is involved, account should also be taken of other ‘means that are likely to be used by a determined person with a particular reason to want to identify individuals’.
Where it is unknown whether an identifiable individual is still alive, PoDs may make the following assumptions:
- assume a lifespan of 100 years
______________________________________________________________________
16 (Information Commissioner’s Office in case FS50162459) 17 See ‘Code of Practice for archivists and records managers under Section 51(4) of the Data Protection Act 1998’: nationalarchives.gov.uk/documents/dp-code-of-practice.pdf • if the age of an adult data subject is not known, assume they were 16 at the time of recording
• if the age of a child data subject is not known, assume they were less than 1 at the time of recording
There may be further indications in the records: for example, where a woman is said to have recently given birth.
7.3 General administrative information
7.3.1 Scope
Any NHS records not covered by other parts of section 7: examples might include committee minutes, agendas and reports, general correspondence about the administration of the organisation, property and financial records.
7.3.2 Working assumption
Release. Records should normally be considered ‘open’ on transfer.
7.3.3 Exceptions
Some of these records may contain incidental references to identifiable patients, staff or other persons (see 7.4-7.10 below).
Where this is the case, the record unit should not be designated as ‘open’ until the incidental information is no longer covered by an exemption, but the majority of the information content may still be disclosed in response to a specific request, for example by the release of copies or summaries redacted in accordance with sections 7.4 to 7.10 below quoting the exemption at s40(2) and 3(b) or Regulation 12(3) and 13(5) (Personal Information) as appropriate.
If it is sufficiently localised within the file unit it may be possible to consider other options such as physical access to the open portion under close supervision, or temporary extraction from the file unit, if this is compatible with preservation requirements.
7.3.4 Discussion
Most NHS general administrative records which are transferred at 30 years old will not contain any exempt information, or exemptions will have ceased to apply under FOIA s63 including s32 (court proceedings, including inquests) s33 (audit) s36 (prejudice to conduct of public affairs) s42 (legal privilege) and s43 (commercial interests).
Even where records have been transferred a few years early, it is very likely that the passage of time will have strongly weighted the public interest against the use of these, and some of the other possible, exemptions such as s41 (actionable breach of confidence) and s43 (commercial interests).
7.4 Information about identifiable living patients
7.4.1 Scope
This heading includes the major series of patient medical files (where these are preserved) and other series with a patient focus, such as admission and discharge registers, but is not confined to purely medical information and may include, for example, files relating to individual patient complaints or litigation.
When responding to requests from third parties, PoDs need not make unusual efforts to determine whether the patient concerned is alive, but should give the applicant an opportunity to supply proof that the person concerned is deceased, either informally at an early stage, via a standard paragraph in enquiry forms, or after a formal decision to withhold access under FOIA. See section 7.2 above for presumption of death.
7.4.2 Working assumption
Records containing such information should not be declared ‘open records’ while the data subject is, or may be, still alive. See 7.5 and 7.6 for decisions on opening once the patient is, or may be presumed, dead.
Where such information relating to a specific patient is requested by a third party from records which are not yet ‘open’, the PoD should neither confirm nor deny that information is held about any particular patient, quoting s40 (2) and s40(5) (data protection) exemption and the s.41 (actionable breach of confidence) exemption.
Alternatively, if the request is primarily for environmental information (eg a request for information about patients treated for asbestosis) the PoD should quote EIR Regulations 12(3) and 13(5). Unlike other EIR exceptions, this does not require any consideration of the public interest.
Where such information occurs incidentally within a file unit which does not primarily relate to the particular patient the record may be designated as ‘open’ if:
- the information is unstructured by reference to individuals and
- does not include or strongly imply clearly sensitive personal data (for example, a specific diagnosis of medical condition) and
- does not relate to matters where the patient would have a strong expectation of confidence (for example, a general complaint about the state of cleanliness of the hospital would not, whereas a complaint about a specific effect of this on the patient’s treatment might.) and is unlikely to cause substantial damage or distress.
18 See for example:: www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2008/fs_50083381.pdf www.informationtribunal.gov.uk/Documents/decisions/MerseyTunnelDecision_website.pdf Otherwise, it should normally be redacted from copies or summaries supplied to the applicant quoting the exemptions above, and the record should not be designated as ‘open’.
7.4.3 Significant exceptions
Note that in all the following instances, any release of information will be made outside the provisions of Freedom of Information Act (or EIR), and will therefore be confined to the particular applicant concerned. The applicant should be informed that the information is being released on that basis. Such releases will not cause the records affected to be designated ‘open’.
7.4.3.1 Subject access requests
See section 6.2 above.
7.4.3.2 Reactivation for medical purposes
Under s4(6) of Public Records Act 1958, NHS bodies may request the temporary return of transferred records for operational purposes: rarely, it may be necessary for medical staff to have access to older information about a patient, for example in relation to a further episode of patient care.
In practice, it may be more appropriate to create a copy of the original record which can be added to the new current patient file. Such requests should be made via the usual consultation arrangements, which should include provision for verifying that the receiving NHS staff have appropriate cover under schedules 2 and 3 of DPA to process the personal data it contains.
7.4.3.3 Medical research
There are established procedures for authorising medical research within the NHS, and statutory support for this is provided through the National Information Governance Board under s251-2 of the National Health Service Act 2006, and the Control of Patient Information regulations. Places of Deposit should suggest that medical researchers use these processes whenever possible. Details are available at: www.nigb.nhs.uk/ecc
Note that this covers only medical research (although arguably that might extend into closely related areas such as social policy): other research purposes are not covered, and would need to establish some other basis for processing under schedule 3 of DPA, of which explicit consent is the most likely, or some form of anonymisation.
7.4.3.4 Records covering long time spans
Under the pre-2005 access regime, PoDs had discretion to give physical access to older pages within registers or files, provided they could do so without risk to entries less than 100 years old, and services may wish to consider this option where appropriate, as information should not normally be less accessible under FOIA. 7.4.3.5 Other cases
There may be other rare instances where third parties legitimately need access to patient information, but are unable to secure consent of the patient(s) concerned. These will require careful and detailed consultation between PoDs and NHS Trusts. In each case, a valid grounds for processing under schedule 3 of Data Protection Act 1998 will need to be identified, and release should be limited to the minimum information necessary. Reference should also be made to current NHS guidance on patient confidentiality.(^{19})
7.4.4 Discussion
7.4.4.1 Application of Data Protection Act 1998
Although not all NHS information relating to identifiable living patients constitutes ‘sensitive personal data’ as defined by Data Protection Act 1998, in an NHS context it may convey some degree of implied information about health, and should therefore be treated as such even when it does not technically satisfy the definition.
It is vital to the functioning of the NHS that it provides, and is seen to provide, exemplary protection for patient information, which should not be undermined by its engagement with the Public Records Act. This may mean that in some cases, the data protection exemption will apply to information of NHS origin which could be released in another context.
PoDs are public authorities, as they hold public records on behalf of the Lord Chancellor under the terms of their appointment, even if their parent body is not itself a public authority. Thus unstructured manual personal data held by a place of deposit is covered to a limited degree by Data Protection Act.
Sensitive personal data may lawfully be ‘processed’ (which term includes giving access) only if at least one condition in each of schedules 2 and 3 of Data Protection Act can be met. While the transfer of records containing sensitive personal data to a PoD under sections 3(1) and 4(1) of Public Records Act is covered by the s7 of Schedule 3 (‘the exercise of any functions conferred on any person by or under an enactment’) of Data Protection Act, this does not in itself provide a basis for providing access to such records to persons other than the data subject.
s.40(2) of FOIA provides an absolute exemption if release would contravene the Data Protection Principles, or could be exempt from access by the data subject under s7 (s40(4) exemption): and a qualified exemption if it would contravene s10 of DPA (s40(3) a), The release of structured data relating to living patients to the public in general will usually be prohibited by DPA, as it is very unlikely to be ‘fair and lawful’ and both of these conditions will usually apply. The s13(5) exception of EIR provides a parallel basis for withholding personal data: again, no public interest test is required.
(^{19}) This is currently to be found on the Department of Health website at: www.dh.gov.uk/en/Managingyourorganisation/Informationpolicy/Patientconfidentialityandcaldcottguardians/DH_4084181 By s33A of DPA as amended, unstructured personal data is exempt from all but the 4th and parts of the 6th Data Protection Principles, as well as other significant provisions. DPA may therefore not prohibit the release of such information in many cases. Nevertheless the FOIA s40(3)(b) exemption (and the corresponding EIR exception) enables such data to be withheld from third parties requesting it, and the sensitivity of information about NHS patients will normally make it appropriate to do so.
7.4.4.2 Law of confidence
The NHS and its staff also owe an equitable duty of confidentiality to patients in accordance with long-standing ethical and professional codes. Medical information is widely recognised as being particularly sensitive and confidential, and capable of causing substantial harm or distress to individuals if mishandled. In addition, the law of confidence has been significantly affected by Articles 8 and 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, implemented in UK law through the Human Rights Act 1998 c.42. This effectively extends it to protect clearly ‘private’ information, such as information about health or family relationships, even if this has not been acquired directly from the patient by medical staff under a specific duty of confidence (for example, via observation or testing).20
While the s40 exemption will usually provide quite sufficient protection for patient information, it will also be appropriate to use the s41 exemption, as release to the public would normally involve a clear breach of the patient’s confidence that would be actionable in the courts. For further discussion of this exemption see 7.5.4.2 below).
7.4.4.3 No confirm/no deny
When using FOIA exemptions/EIR exceptions in respect of living patients (or in most cases, ex-patients) it is important that PoDs consistently neither confirm or deny that they hold information in relation to any particular patient. A standard response paragraph along the following lines should be used:
Blankshire Record Office holds certain historical records of NHS hospitals, as described in our published catalogues, including some records of former patients. Information regarding the health of living individuals is protected by the Data Protection Act 1998, and the duty of confidentiality owed by the NHS to patients in its care, and therefore in accordance with the exemptions at section 40 and 41 of the Freedom of Information Act, we cannot confirm or deny that we hold information regarding any individual, nor would we release such information to the general public if held. If you believe that there are reasons why information relating to an individual who might have been a patient may lawfully be released to you in particular, please supply further details.
This will avoid the risk that requestors may be able to draw limited inferences about patients from negative responses.
20 As noted by Lord Nicholls in Campbell v MGN [2004] UKHL 22: ‘The essence of the tort is better encapsulated now as misuse of private information. ..the touchstone of private life is whether in respect of the disclosed facts the person in question had a reasonable expectation of privacy’. 7.4.4.4 Incidental information
Unstructured patient information in records whose primary focus is on other matters is not subject to key elements of DPA. Nevertheless, the information can be withheld under FOIA, because s40(3) permits public authorities to treat unstructured personal data ‘as if’ it is structured, and fully subject to DPA. However, even if DPA applied, such information would not constitute sensitive personal data, and so could be processed – in this instance by being made accessible to the public – by reference to a DPA schedule 2 purpose only.
The purposes at 6(1) (‘necessary for the purposes of legitimate interests pursued by the data controller or by the third party or parties to whom the data are disclosed’) or 5(d) (‘other functions of a public nature exercised in the public interest by any person’) will normally apply to PoDs provided release does not cause ‘prejudice to the rights and freedoms or legitimate interests of the data subject’, which is very unlikely given the passage of time and the incidental nature of the information.
Where the patient is unlikely to have had high expectations of confidence at the time, and the information is several decades old, a breach of confidence is unlikely to be ‘actionable’ (see 7.5 below).
Use of this exception will avoid disproportionate obstruction to rights of access to information under FOIA and PRA merely because they contain trivial incidental references to individuals, in accordance with the general presumption of openness under FOIA.
Where more substantial references occur within records not primarily relating to patients, the records should not be designated as open: their access status should be scheduled for future review, at latest when the patients referred to can be presumed dead. Nevertheless, with the exception of the personal references, the other information on the file unit must be released on request by other means, such as the provision of redacted copies.
Under the pre-2005 access regime, PoDs had discretion to give physical access to older pages within registers or files, provided they could do so without risk to entries less than 100 years old, and services may wish to consider this option where appropriate, as information should not normally be less accessible under FOIA.
7.5 Medical information relating to identifiable deceased patients
7.5.1 Scope
Unlike the previous section, this section refers specifically to information relating to the diagnosis, care and treatment of identifiable patients, or details of private life otherwise obtained within the context of medical care (for example, references to sexual partners, or to internal family relationships) which the patient would have expected to remain confidential. Typically this would occur in records such as patient case notes, but possibly also in those administrative records which strongly imply information about a patient’s health (see 7.2 above). 7.5.2 Working assumption
This information should not be made accessible under Freedom of Information Act until the record unit is designated ‘open’. This will normally be at 100 years after the last date on the record (presuming the latter to be the most recent date on which care was received) - see 5.2 above.
The s41 exemption (actionable breach of confidence) should normally be quoted (other exemptions may apply in addition to this).
In the unlikely event that a request for such information falls under the Environmental Information Regulations (for example, a query concerning possible environmental health hazards), PoDs should consider redacting or withholding it under Regulation 12(5)(f) (interests of person providing the information). As with all EIR exceptions, the application of this is subject to a public interest test, carried out by the NHS Trust.
7.5.3 Exceptions
Access under FOIA or EIR may be considered where:
- the deceased patient was born more than 150 years ago, and:
- the information does not relate to a medical condition which is known to be strongly inherited or to be sexually transmitted, and:
- the information relates to matters likely to have been known or reasonably obvious to anyone having contact with the patient outside a medical context, and:
- the patient has not expressed a wish that the information should be treated as confidential.
Where a decision to release information is made, the record containing it may also be designated ‘open’ unless it also contains other information which should be withheld.
Access to information which is contained in records not yet ‘open’ should also normally be given to certain specific categories of person or organisation outside the terms of the Freedom of Information Act. Information necessary for the legitimate purposes of the applicant should be explicitly supplied in confidence in all these circumstances as follows:
- the patient’s surviving personal representative (if any) unless the patient is known to have expressly requested otherwise
- any person who may have a claim arising out of the patient’s death
- in certain circumstances, to close family of the deceased patient: (for details, see 7.5.4.8 below).
- for purposes of medical research, where statutory cover under s251-2 of the National Health Service Act 2006 is provided by the National Information Governance Board (see 7.4.3.3 above)
- the transferring NHS organisation.
There may also be other unusual circumstances in which access should be given, for example, to the police where necessary to the conduct of an ongoing criminal investigation. 7.5.4 Discussion
7.5.4.1 s40 (Data Protection)
Information falling under this heading would be defined as ‘sensitive personal data’ under s.2 of the Data Protection Act while the patient was alive. After death the exemption at s40 (Data Protection Act) and the corresponding exceptions at Regulations12(3) and 13(2)(a) of the Environmental Information Regulations can no longer be used to withhold access to such information.
7.5.4.2 The s.41 (actionable breach of confidence) exemption
However, it may still be possible and appropriate to apply the s41 exemption (actionable breach of confidence). Use of this exemption requires that:
- the information concerned must have been supplied by another person (s41(a)) and:
- disclosure to the public would constitute a breach of confidence actionable by that or any other person (s41(b)).
All NHS records received by a PoD under PRA will by definition have come from another person (in this case, another public authority), and will therefore meet the requirements of s41(a)21.
This is an absolute exemption, so no PIT under FOIA is required, although as an overriding public interest is one of the possible grounds for legitimately breaching confidence, a similar test is inherent in the exemption.
A successful action for breach normally requires that:
- The information must have the necessary quality of confidence
- Has been imparted in circumstances importing an obligation of confidence and
- There is unauthorised use detrimental to the party communicating it
In addition, a possible breach must be ‘actionable’ which in this context means that an action for breach, if brought, would be likely to succeed.22 This may also be dependent upon whether a breach could be defended as being in the public interest.
7.5.4.3 Who can bring an action
There is some limited case law to suggest that an obligation of confidence to the patient may continue to be enforceable by the patient’s personal representative
______________________________________________________________________
21 Even in the case of an NHS-based PoD, since the records are in legal terms ‘transferred’ from the NHS Trust to the PoD, acting for the Lord Chancellor.
22 [www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2006/101391_dn_rt_changes.pdf](http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2006/101391_dn_rt_changes.pdf) (specifically) after death. The s41 exemption (actionable breach of confidence) may therefore continue to be used, and will normally be the main basis for withholding deceased patient information (see 7.7 below for cases where a breach would be actionable otherwise than on behalf of the deceased patient).
Although the function of personal representative can in theory be passed on through multiple generations, various events such as intestacy can bring it to an end, and in practical terms, there will come a point when it is extremely unlikely that there is a specific person willing to act.
The Information Commissioner has taken the view that ‘it is sufficient for the purposes of section 41 if a suitable person or class of persons would be able to raise an action... even if in fact no living individual can be identified’, although this is untested in the courts. Places of deposit therefore need not locate such a person in order to use the exemption: however, they may reasonably take this factor into account when deciding whether a breach is in fact ‘actionable’.
7.5.4.4 Impact of the Convention rights on confidentiality
As noted in 7.4.4.2 above, these requirements must now be interpreted in accordance with the Convention rights under s 6(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998. They now cover personal information in respect of which an individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy, even where no confidential relationship exists between the parties, and the necessity for detriment is also removed, as a significant impact on personal privacy is in itself considered detrimental. The existing scope for confidentiality to be overridden where there is a significant public interest in doing so also now has to be interpreted in the context of the Convention rights.
The key Convention rights engaged are Articles 8 and 10. Article 8 gives public bodies, including the courts, a duty to ‘respect’ private and family life, homes and correspondence. Article 10 imposes a similar obligation not to interfere with the rights of individuals to impart and receive information, including rights granted by information legislation such as FOIA. Both Articles may be subject to limits, provided these limits are in accordance with the law and ‘necessary’ in a democratic society to achieve specified purposes.
Article 8 rights can be limited where necessary for purposes including the protection of health, or the rights and freedoms of others. Potential limits on Article 10 rights may include the protection of health or morals, the protection of the reputation or rights of others, and preventing disclosure of information received in confidence. In practice therefore, the rights and limits embodied in these two articles work reciprocally.
23 See for example the ruling of the Information Tribunal in EA/2006/0090: www.informationtribunal.gov.uk/Documents/decisions/mrspbluckvinformationcommissioner17sept07.pdf
For inheritance of the broader Convention right to enforce ‘respect for private and family life’ under Article 8 see, for example, Plon v France 58148/00): http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?item=1&portal=hbkm&action=html&highlight=Plon%20%7C%20FRANCE&sessionid=58010990&skin=hudoc-en
24 In the Information Commissioner decision notice FS101391: www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2006/101391_dn_rt_changes.pdf Since both Articles are engaged, it is necessary to provide an appropriate balance between the two, taking account of the relative importance of the respective rights, and the justifications for applying any limit.
In interpreting FOIA and EIR in relation to current NHS medical information Article 8 will normally, though not always(^{25}), outweigh Article 10 as this is consistent with the permitted limits on the latter, notably the preservation of confidence, but also possibly the protection of health, as breaches in medical confidentiality may cause patients to be less open with medical staff, with a consequent impact on health care(^{26}). Both considerations relate to a ‘pressing social need.’ However, issues of proportionality must also be considered, and there may be instances where privacy rights can appropriately be overridden to protect public health (for example in investigations of medical negligence).
The inherent presumption of openness which FOIA embodies fits closely with Article 10 rights. Most relevant litigation tends to relate to the freedom of the press to report matters of public interest and hold public bodies to account. In an archival context, such issues are less likely to be of importance, as matters such as medical malpractice will usually (though not always) already have been resolved or rendered meaningless by the passage of time.
However, there remains a public interest in the ability to carry out historical research, broadly defined, to inform public knowledge and debate, as evidenced in the existence of legislation such as FOIA itself, the Public Records Act, the Local Government (Records) Act, s33 of the Data Protection Act, and in public funding for academic research. This has been recognised both by the European Court and by the Information Commissioner although it may not be regarded as particularly strong..(^{27})
Effectively, therefore when assessing whether the s41 exemption can and should be applied, it is necessary to assess under what circumstances protection of the ‘rights and freedoms of others’ under Article 10 will outweigh those in Article 8, or to express it conversely, the circumstances under which the imposition of limits on Article 10 can no longer be justified.
7.5.4.5 Default assumption
It has long been recognised that the passage of time will tend to erode the quality of
(^{25}) ‘Not every statement about a person’s health will carry the badge of confidentiality or risk doing harm to that person’s physical or moral integrity’ Baroness Hale in MGN v Campbell and ‘The law of privacy is not intended for the protection of the unduly sensitive’ Lord Goff in Attorney-General v Guardian Newspapers Ltd (No 2) [1990] 1 AC 109, 282
(^{26}) See (Z v Finland ) (1997) 25 EHRR 371 ‘It is crucial not only to respect the sense of privacy of a patient but also to preserve his or her confidence in the medical profession and in the health services in general.
(^{27}) ‘Access to original documentary sources for legitimate historical research is an essential element of the right to freedom of expression’ Kenedi v Hungary (31475/05). The Information Commissioner decided against release of information in, for example FS50132796 in respect of armed forces service records, and FS50163705 in a medical context, but this was essentially because the legitimate interest in research was outweighed by the fact that it was still relatively recent, and the availability of other sources made release less ‘necessary’. confidence. The extent of this erosion will depend upon the actual effect upon the adverse consequences that the obligation of confidence was designed to prevent.(^{28})
Clearly there can no longer be an ongoing direct effect on the patient him or herself in respect of privacy or reputation after death. Arguably however the possibility of release after death may have a prospective effect on the patient while alive. In practice, therefore, case law suggests that continuing maintenance of confidentiality is based upon the impact of release upon the feelings and attitudes of surviving family or associates in respect of the patient, although there is some ambiguity as to whether this is technically posthumous maintenance of the rights of the deceased, or maintenance of the Article 8 rights of surviving associates themselves in terms of their relations with the deceased. This corresponds with the ‘protection of the rights and freedoms of others’ limit on Article 10 rights.
The other major issue is the inherent public interest in protecting the legal principle of confidentiality in the medical context: This may be linked to the previous point, in that a fear of the prospective effects of release on family and friends, even after his or her own death, might increase the patient’s reluctance to be open with medical staff, while knowledge that release has occurred in respect of a deceased patient may affect the behaviours of other living patients. This corresponds with the ‘protection of health’ and ‘protection of information received in confidence’ limits on Article 10 rights.
There is little hard research or evidence on how the attitudes of patients or the public in general to medical confidentiality after death to inform decisions in respect of s41.(^{30})
In Plon v France, the European Court suggested that the impact on ‘the legitimate emotions of the deceased’s relatives’ of release would be very significant immediately after death, but might decline quite quickly thereafter to a point where ultimately public release would be justified. However, the case related to a public figure who had voluntarily placed certain medical information in the public domain, and where further information had also been extensively leaked to the press. Neither of these conditions is likely to apply to most cases dealt with by places of deposit, and there will clearly be variations depending upon specific circumstances.(^{32})
In the absence of specific evidence, the default policy is based on three key principles.
______________________________________________________________________
(^{28}) Attorney-General v Jonathan Cape Ltd [1975] 3WLR 606
(^{29}) It is crucial not only to respect the sense of privacy of a patient but also to preserve his or her confidence in the medical profession and in the health services in general (Z v Finland) (1997) 25 EHRR 371.
(^{30}) Most studies on public attitudes relate to records of the living, but see for example, research carried out by IPSOS MORI for the Medical Research Council in 2007 (p20): www.mrc.ac.uk/Utilities/Documentrecord/index.htm?d=MRC003810
(^{31}) Editions Plon v France ECHR 58148/00: see http://echr.coe.int/echr/en/hudoc
(^{32}) For example, the Royal College of Psychiatrists suggests that the grieving process may normally last for about two years, but there are clearly exceptions: www.rcpsych.ac.uk/mentalhealthinfoforall/problems/bereavement/bereavement.aspx Firstly, in so far as the patient’s attitudes to release can be presumed to be based on the prospective impact on surviving family and associates, it cannot be affected by persons who are not in existence at the time of the relevant care episode, or anything which may happen after the latter have themselves died.
Secondly, the intention of Freedom of Information Act 2000 was to increase the accountability of public authorities, rather than to significantly increase access to private information relating to deceased individuals. On the other hand, the intent of the legislation was clearly not to reduce existing levels of access to information.
This suggests that major changes to rights of access as they existed before 2005 would probably not be justified. For that reason, this guidance suggests maintaining the pre-2005 100-year period from the last date on the record as a default for the general ‘opening’ of the physical file unit. Since this was the general statutory position from 1958 onwards, both NHS Trusts and patients will (in so far as they considered the matter) have expected confidentiality to persist over that time period in relation to access by the general public.
The elapse of this period will also ensure that the patient concerned is in fact dead, and that there is little likelihood of significant impact on their family and associates, either because the latter are also dead, or because the illness and treatment concerned took place many years ago.
For the same reasons, as before 2005, where a file unit relates to more than one patient, information more than 100 years old within the file should be releasable, either through the use of redacted copies, or physical access subject to the type of security measures suggested.
7.5.4.6 Environmental information regulations
Rarely, places of deposit may receive requests for deceased patient information that fall under the heading of environmental information. Here an explicit PIT is involved. The exception at Regulation 12(5) (f) may apply where the information has been supplied voluntarily by the patient, directly or indirectly, this is subject to a public interest test, carried out by the NHS Trust. There may be some difficulty in using this exception where the patient has been treated involuntarily (for example, under the Mental Health Acts), although in this case it might be argued that the state is acting voluntarily on the patient’s behalf while the latter is unable to do so.
There will be a very strong public interest in applying this exception where medical information is concerned, in terms both of protecting the principle of personal privacy and confidentiality (in Art.8 terms) and of enabling the NHS to function. Arguably, if patients suffering from environmentally-related diseases were deterred from treatment by the fear of release of information, it might even subvert the purpose of environmental protection that the Regulations are designed to support.
However, where there are genuinely significant environmental health issues involved, these may well fall within the purposes of public safety and protection of health, and possibly prevention of crime, specifically recognised by Article 8 as providing possible exceptions to the general right of respect for private life, and therefore constitute an exceptional case where release is justified.
7.5.4.7 Exceptions: possible earlier access under FOIA
The approach with regard to the s41 exemption laid out above may be disproportionate and unnecessary in terms of the convention rights in some circumstances. In particular, the different bases of the pre-2005 access provisions of PRA and FOIA could result in access to records relating to routine care for persons long deceased being unnecessarily withheld.
- Where patients were born more than 150 years ago, there is no significant probability that immediate descendants will be alive, and very little that members of a younger generation known to the patient will be. In most cases therefore, the passage of time will rule out any significant impact on living individuals, or divergence from the expectations of confidentiality of the deceased while still alive and receiving treatment.
- The remaining additional conditions are intended to deal with the few remaining instances where some impact is still possible, both in terms of individuals and in terms of public confidence in medical confidentiality.
- Many common medical conditions have a genetic component, but this will not normally be sufficient to make significant inferences about persons other than immediate descendants (beyond those available from public sources such as death registration). Where a genetic component is sufficiently strong to draw such inferences about subsequent generations who are still alive (for example, Huntington’s disease) release to the public in general in advance of the default option would not be appropriate.
- Sexually transmitted illness has been recognised as particularly likely to carry stigma for patients, and is the subject of specific legal protection within the NHS.
- In many cases, a patient’s medical condition will have been either physically obvious (for example, a broken leg), or regarded by the patient as so trivial (a cold) that it will have been known to wider social contacts as well as close family. While medical confidentiality would still apply at the time, the quality of confidence in such information it would decline much more rapidly after the patient’s death, as the patient’s expectations of confidentiality and the potential additional impact of release on others will have been much lower.
- For the same reasons, release is unlikely to have significant prospective effect on current patients’ trust in medical confidentiality.
- Nevertheless, patients have different degrees of expectations of confidence, and where a patient has expressed wishes in this regard, whether generally, or as regards specific persons, these should be respected, both on their own account, and to maintain trust in the principle of medical confidentiality among current patients.
- The approach outlined here should only be adopted after a thorough assessment of the records in consultation between the Trust and the PoD, and where there is whether the specified conditions apply or not, early release should not take place.
7.5.4.8 Exceptions: access outside FOIA
See 6.1 above for general principles of release outside FOIA.
- The first two exceptions listed at 7.5.3 are based upon the rights of specified persons created by Access to Health Records Act 1990.
- While the Act does not apply to records held by places of deposit, it embodies
______________________________________________________________________
33 NHS Trusts and Primary Care Trusts (Sexually Transmitted Diseases) Directions 2000: www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsLegislation/DH_408302
7. The corresponding 1991 Directions continue to apply in Wales. a public interest that should be sufficiently strong to justify breach of confidence in releasing information to the specified classes of persons, and it would be manifestly unfair if they were deprived of effective access by legal technicalities consequent upon the transfer of records to a place of deposit. The basis for such disclosure in Article 8 terms would be ‘the protection of the rights and freedoms of others’.
- Moreover, if the personal representative of a deceased patient has standing to bring an action for breach of confidence, it seems unlikely that a breach would be ‘actionable’ if they themselves are applying for access and hence have no intention of bringing such an action (unless a third party would have grounds to bring an action on their own behalf, see 7.7 below).
- Where substantial periods of time have elapsed since death PoDs should exercise reasonable flexibility in requiring evidence that the applicant belongs to these classes of persons. After several decades, if the applicant can produce evidence that they might be a person with a plausible claim to be the personal representative, and is willing to give an undertaking that this is the case, that should be sufficient unless there is reason to suspect the contrary.
- Note however that a personal representative cannot force disclosure to other specific persons, they can only remove one possible ground for withholding access to the general public under FOIA. However, his or her support for such disclosure outside FOIA would be a significant factor in favour of that course.
- Where the deceased patient has specifically requested that no information should be released to the personal representative and no other exemption can be applied the NHS Trust might consider whether it would have sufficient standing to bring an action for breach of confidence on its own behalf. Note however that as the Trust is not a private individual, it may be limited to protecting information specifically obtained via a confidential relationship with the patient.
- Applications for information regarding deceased patients are most likely to come from close associates or the family of the patient. Where requests come from family members other than a personal representative, a number of factors should be considered with regard to access.
- The grounds for access by close family member(s) would be the positive duty of a public authority under Article 8 to respect the private and family life of the applicant(s) in relation to the deceased patient by the provision of necessary information. This is likely to be stronger than the broader, but shallower, general public interest in research and accountability which is the primary focus of FOIA and PRA.
______________________________________________________________________
34 See Information Tribunal case EA/2006/0090: www.informationtribunal.gov.uk/Documents/decisions/mrspbluckvinformationcommissioner17sept07.pdf
35 ‘Although the object of Article 8 is essentially that of protecting the individual against arbitrary interference by the public authorities, it does not merely compel the State to abstain from such interference: in addition to this primarily negative undertaking, there may be positive obligations inherent in effective respect for private or family life. In determining whether or not such a positive obligation exists, the Court will have regard to the fair balance that has to be struck between the general interest of the community and the competing interests of the individual, or individuals, concerned’ (ECHR Ginley and Egan v UK 21825/93 and 23414/94): • Medical records may well contain information relevant, for example, to the safeguarding of family members’ own health, to the establishment of family relationships (for example where there has been disputed parentage or family breakup following mental illness) or to the understanding of family circumstances.
• The definition of ‘close family member’ in this context will clearly extend to spouses, parents, grandparents, uncles/aunts and siblings but may include step-family, or even non-relatives where there is evidence of close ‘family’ ties. For the first group, relevant civil registration certificates should suffice as evidence of relationship, but for others, it may be necessary to require the applicant to give a fuller demonstration of close family ties. Again, the passage of time may require some flexibility.
• This right must be balanced against the general public interest in maintaining medical confidentiality, as well as any known potential competing Article.8 rights of other private individuals in relation to information about the deceased.
• If a surviving personal representative exists and objects, or is thought likely to object, or if the records contain an express or strongly implied wish of the patient that information should not be disclosed, it can be assumed that disclosure would be ‘actionable’ and the exemption at s41 will therefore also stand. unless there is some other very strong public interest to the contrary, for example if the records contain evidence of a treatable hereditary condition.
• Clearly, consultation with an appropriate clinician at the NHS Trust will be necessary when considering medical reasons for disclosure, to ensure that this has the intended beneficial results and that any possible harm is minimised. The basis for such disclosure in relation to Article 8 would be the public interest in ‘the protection of health’.
• It is unlikely that places of deposit will reasonably be able to seek the views of other family members given the passage of time. However, if they are aware that another close family member or the personal representative is likely to object then care is needed and the disagreement either needs to be resolved, or the reasons for it need to be explored to see if some partial release is feasible. If a known or probable personal representative agrees release, their views carry particular weight in the case of any disagreement, but is not conclusive in terms of release outside FOIA.
• If there is reason to believe (on the basis of the content of the records and other available sources) that no other relevant parties survive it seems
______________________________________________________________________
36 ECHR 10454/83 In Gaskin v UK, which concerned access to records of upbringing in state care, the court established that people ‘have a vital interest, protected by the Convention, in receiving the information necessary to know and to understand their childhood and early development... the interests of the individual seeking access to records relating to his private and family life must be secured when a contributor to the records either is not available or improperly refuses consent.’
37 ECHR Marckx v Belgium 6833/74
38 ECHR Keegan v Ireland 16969/90
39 See General Medical Council guidance at: www.gmc-uk.org/guidance/ethical_guidance/confidentiality.asp unlikely that there would grounds to withhold.\\textsuperscript{40}
- In cases of uncertainty, it may also be helpful to consider the nature of the medical or private information itself, as noted above.
- For return to the Trust, see 7.4.3.2 above: in this case use will usually be for legal or administrative rather than medical purposes.
- For medical research access, see 7.4.3.3 above: note that there may be a ‘fast track’ process for access to records of deceased patients.
7.6 Administrative information relating to identifiable deceased patients
7.6.1 Scope This section refers to information which was recorded for the purpose of organising care for a patient who is known to be, or can be assumed to be dead [see 7.2 above] but which does not contain specific medical information or confidential information relating to private life. Examples would include records of dates of treatment, or inventories of a patient’s property.
7.6.2 Working assumption Information of this type should be released. If no other exemptions or exceptions apply to information within the physical file unit, this should be designated ‘open’.
7.6.3 Exceptions
- Where the context in which this information is recorded implies a significant degree of information about the nature of the patient’s condition or treatment, even though this falls short of the detailed information covered in section 7.5 such information should be dealt with as if it were medical information in accordance with the that section.
- For example, an inventory of property contains no medical information per se, but if it is among the records of a mental hospital, it implies that the patient has been treated for some form of mental illness whereas similar records in a general hospital would normally not carry any such implication.
- It is unlikely that a request specifically for such information would fall under the Environmental Information Regulations: however, on the rare occasions this applies, PoDs should consider withholding it under Regulation 12(5)(f) (interests of person providing the information). As with all EIR exceptions, the application of this is subject to a public interest test, carried out by the NHS Trust.
7.6.4 Discussion
- Information concerning patients is no longer covered by Data Protection Act once they are dead. The s40 exemption is therefore no longer applicable.
\\textsuperscript{40} In Grass-Russo v Nugent [(2001] EWHC Admin 566; [2002] 1 FLR 1, which concerned information regarding natural and adoptive parents as well as the applicant adoptee herself), the court took the view that, while in principle confidentiality in relation to these could outweigh the applicant’s right of access, it was clear that the other persons named were all now dead, and there were no other persons who would obviously be adversely affected by release. • However, as discussed in section 7.5 above, the s41 exemption, and the corresponding EIR exception 12(5)(f)) can still apply after the death of the patient concerned and places of deposit and NHS Trusts must look at the balance of factors involved to determine whether the exemption should be applied.
• During a patient’s lifetime, the NHS normally treats all personal information recorded in the context of ongoing care as confidential, not just that which is specifically medical. However, the degree of confidentiality may vary depending upon the nature of the information, and NHS confidentiality guidance recognises, for example, that in some circumstances it may be appropriate to confirm in response to a media enquiry the bare information that a particular patient is currently receiving treatment. If this was true at the time, while the patient was alive, it will be more so after the patient’s death.
• Some of this information will either effectively have been in the public domain (for example, details of address or phone number will often have been widely available through electoral registers or phone directories), or at least will have been known at the time to persons other than the patient and the NHS staff treating him or her (for example occupation). While this would not necessarily prevent it being confidential at the time, the patient’s expectation of confidence will therefore have been somewhat lower than in respect of strictly medical information, or other personal information obtained in the context of the patient-doctor relationship. For this reason, release of such information is unlikely to undermine protection of the principle of medical confidentiality.
• The passage of time can therefore be expected to erode any remaining quality of confidence in such information relatively quickly once the patient has died, and records transferred to a place of deposit will normally be at least thirty years old. For any implications in respect of third parties, see section 7.7.
• Even where residual confidentiality remains, this has to be weighed against the general public interest in access to information contained in public records [see 7.5.4.4 above]. In most cases within scope of this section, it will be disproportionate to use the s41 exemption to limit this right, given that the person to whom the information relates is dead and can no longer be directly affected by release.
• In some cases, however, the context may imply some degree of medical information about a patient, even though no specifically medical information is recorded, and the recorded information itself is relatively innocuous and not particularly private. Access decisions should therefore be made in relation to the implied information rather than the information actually recorded, in accordance with the working assumption relating to private and medical information in 7.5. In some cases, it may be necessary to refer to information in other related records in order to assess some of the factors referred to in 7.5.
7.7 Incidental references to patient family etc administrative information
7.7.1 Scope
Information of an administrative nature relating to patients’ families, friends, colleagues and other personal contacts (for example, contact details of next of kin, references to visits etc). This will not normally be the main focus of the record. 7.7.2 Working assumption
This information should normally be released.
If no other information in the physical file unit involved is covered by an exemption or exception, the file unit should be designated ‘open’.
7.7.3 Exceptions
- the information falls within the definition of ‘sensitive personal data’ in Data Protection Act or:
- the record specifically states that the particular item of information is considered to be confidential, and the grounds for that statement have not clearly ceased to exist; or the context suggests that there are circumstances which may require it to be treated as confidential, and:
- the individual is, or could still be, alive
- PoDs should consider whether to redact or withhold, quoting the exemption at s40(2) and 3(b) or EIR exceptions at Regulation 12(3) and 13(5) (Personal Information) as appropriate. It may also be appropriate to use the exemption at s41 (actionable breach of confidence) or, if the request was essentially in respect of environmental information, the exception at EIR Regulation 12(5)(f) (interests of person providing the information). In this case, the record containing the information should not be designated as ‘open’ until the person concerned is, or can be presumed to be, dead or until the reasons for confidentiality have clearly ceased to apply, whichever is sooner.
- If the context suggests that release may endanger a living person (for example, release of an address where the record suggests domestic violence affecting a family) PoDs should consider redacting or withholding using the exemption at s38 (health and safety): in this case, the NHS Trust must carry out the necessary public interest test. However, note the relatively high threshold for application of this exemption.
7.7.4 Discussion
In the great majority of cases, this type of information will either be relatively trivial (for example notes of visits) or to some extent in the public domain (contact details, the fact of relationship). Given that the information is over 30 years old, this is unlikely to have significant sensitivity, or impact on the persons concerned if released, even if they are still alive.
The exceptions relate to cases where such impact is possible even after that length of time (for example, information that the person concerned was in prison at the time, or that they had asked for their address details not to be supplied to the patient or other family members).
In these circumstances, while Data Protection Act may not technically require unstructured personal information (which will form the majority of this type of information) to be withheld, it will often be appropriate to do so, as it would be unfair or unlawful to release it if it related to structured personal data. Given the essentially private nature of the information, it will also be feasible to use the s41 exemption, regardless of whether the information was supplied in confidence or not.
Where the original reason for withholding information other than sensitive personal data has ceased to apply, it will no longer have the necessary quality of confidence, nor is it unlikely to be unfair or unlawful to withhold it.
However, once the person concerned is or can be presumed dead, there will rarely be reason to withhold such information, as Data Protection Act will have ceased to apply, and there can no longer be any direct effect on them of release, so the information is unlikely to retain the necessary quality of confidence.
7.8 Patient family personal or medical information
7.8.1 Scope
Information of a personal or medical nature relating to patients’ families, friends, colleagues and other personal contacts (for example, information as to state of health or personal relationships supplied by the patient in the course of medical treatment, but excluding the mere fact of relationship, unless this was not likely to have been in the public domain through civil registration etc)
7.8.2 Working assumption
Where this relates to identifiable individuals who are, or may still be, living, it should be redacted or withheld, quoting the exemption at s40(2) and 40(3), or the EIR exception at Regulations 12(3) and 13(5) as appropriate, unless it is information which is in the public domain.
In so far as the information relates to applicants themselves, it should normally be supplied to them under the terms of Data Protection Act unless it is contained in a record relating to a patient who is, or may still be, alive, in which case reference should be made to the Information Commissioner’s guidance on shared personal information:
http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/library/data_protection/detailed_specialist_guides/sar_and_third_party_information_100807.pdf
Where this relates to identifiable individuals who are, or can be assumed to be, dead, it should normally be redacted or withheld in the same way as deceased patient medical information [see 7.4], quoting the section 41 exemption (actionable breach of confidence) or EIR Regulation12(5)(f) (interests of person providing the information). As with all EIR exceptions, the application of these is subject to a public interest test, which must be carried out by the NHS Trust.
7.8.3 Exceptions:
Where any such information is less than 100 years old and release is likely to endanger the physical or mental health of any living individual consideration should also be given to redacting or withholding it under the s38 exemption or the EIR exception under Regulation 12(5)(a). 7.8.4 Discussion
Even where information of this nature does not fall within any of the specific categories of sensitive personal data, it is inherently worthy of protection in accordance with the duty to respect private and family life under Article 8 of the European Convention, and in most cases is likely to have been acquired by NHS bodies in the context of a confidential medical relationship.
As noted in 7.4.4.1, although Data Protection Act does not absolutely require unstructured personal data to be withheld, it can be, using s40(3) (and the EIR equivalent) while the person concerned is alive.
If the information relates to the applicant, it would normally be disclosed to him or her as required by Data Protection Act s7. However, in a health context it may well be intermixed in the same file unit as sensitive information relating to a patient or other persons, and particular care is therefore needed to ensure that significant information regarding these other persons is not released as a consequence, as discussed in more detail in the ICO guidance referred to. Also, as with information relating to the patient, in so far as such information relates to the health of the applicant (for example, reference in a discussion of mental health issues within the patient's family) the Data Protection (Subject Access Modifications) Order 2000 may potentially apply.
When the information relates to a person who is deceased, it will normally still be feasible to withhold it using s41 as being of an inherently private or confidential nature, given recent developments in the law of confidence.
In addition to the inherent public interest in protecting privacy in accordance with Article 8, there is a further strong public interest in the NHS protecting, and being seen to protect, information supplied to it with an expectation of confidence, even if it does not directly relate to an NHS patient. While the quality of confidence will tend to decline with the passage of time, these specific public interests will normally be sufficient to outweigh the general public interest in research for some considerable time, in the same way as patient-related medical information.
7.9 Information relating to NHS staff
7.9.1 Scope
This covers information substantially focused on individually identifiable members of NHS Staff or former members of staff who are currently, or can be presumed to be currently alive. Typically this would include personnel/ staff files or registers. Information relating to groups of staff falls under the administrative records heading
7.9.2 Working assumption
Information relating to the day to day working of staff (eg duty rosters or incidental references in patient files etc) should be released, and if no other exempt information is on the file unit, it should be designated as 'open'. 7.9.3 Exceptions
Information relating to:
- personal or family circumstances
- disciplinary matters
- likely to raise significant risk of fraud or ID theft
- matters where the context suggests that the safety of any one may be placed at risk by the release of such information
should be withheld until the staff members concerned are, or can be presumed to be, deceased [see 7.2]. Records containing such information should not be designated as 'open', and it should be redacted where information is supplied from records not yet open in response to a request. The exemptions at s40 (2) and s41 (or EIR exceptions at Regulation 12(3) and 13(5) (Personal Information) should be quoted in the first two cases.
s31(a) (prevention or detection of crime) may also be quoted in the third case.
s38 (health and safety) may be quoted in the fourth case.
7.9.4 Discussion
In a number of cases, the Information Commissioner has ruled that incidental information about NHS staff acting in the course of their normal day to day duties should be released, as it does not relate to them in any significantly personal way and therefore use of the s40 exemption is not appropriate. Most NHS staff operate to some degree in public-facing roles, and would expect this level of information to be known by people beyond their own colleagues.
S.7(4) of Data Protection Act makes specific provision for such incidental references to be released in response to subject access requests.
Given that transferred public records will be at least thirty years old, most staff information will have no bearing on current circumstances, and most staff referred to will in any case have left NHS service. These assumptions may not apply where Human Resources records focused on staff are involved.
Information about the personal or family circumstances of staff which would not have been known outside their immediate circle or beyond NHS line management or the HR department will be subject to many of the same considerations as similarly private information relating to patients and their families, in that it will attract the protection of Article 8, even if not technically 'sensitive' personal data.
Similarly, certain employee information such as National Insurance Numbers (NINO's) although not 'sensitive' could potentially be misused for purposes of fraud which would directly impact on the employee or former employee concerned. Release of such information would be 'unfair' in terms of Data Protection Act, and will also usually have been supplied in the expectation of confidence. Although ID theft involving deceased persons is an issue, there is no direct impact on the individual staff member concerned once they are dead, and there are likely to be many more current risks than older employment records. Disciplinary cases are likely to have been processed with at least an implicit expectation of confidence on the part of the employee. While there may be cases where there is a substantial public interest in the process (for example, where a patient has suffered harm as a result of employee negligence) there will usually have been some output from an investigatory process which will be in the public domain, and hence reduce the public interest in a breach of confidentiality.
Occasionally, for example, due to mental illness or a serious breakdown of relations between a patient or their family and NHS staff, the latter may be at some risk of harm if information about them is released. Where there is specific evidence of this in the records, it may be appropriate to withhold access using the s38 exemption, despite the significant lapse of time. However, note that the level of risk required to engage this exemption is quite high, and that a PIT by the NHS Trust is required.
7.10 Information relating to other identifiable persons having dealings with the NHS
7.10.1 Scope
This could include persons supplying goods or services to the NHS (for example, correspondence about the supply of goods and services); contacts with other public services outside the NHS (for example local authority or police staff); or members of the public having contact with the NHS eg making general enquiries or complaints about NHS activities or services, responding to NHS consultations etc.
7.10.2 Working assumption
Release. Where no other information subject to an exemption or exception is contained in the record, it should be designated ‘open’.
7.10.3 Exceptions
Where the information constitutes sensitive personal data (for example, regarding possible criminal activity) and the person(s) concerned are, or may still be, alive information may in some cases appropriately be withheld. The exemption at s40(2) and 40(3) or EIR exceptions at Regulation 12(3) and 13(5) (Personal Information) should be quoted as appropriate if substantial damage or substantial distress is likely to result from release.
7.10.4 Discussion
While the information may have been supplied in confidence at the time (and been marked as such) and therefore would have potentially attracted the exemptions at s41 (actionable breach of confidence) or s43 (commercial confidentiality) the passage of time (at least 30 years) will normally have reduced the quality of
41 Where staff members are, or are likely to still be alive, the exemption at s.40(2) is also likely to apply, see for example: www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2007/fs_50090630.pdf confidence to the point where it has either ceased to exist altogether, or is outweighed by the general public interest in research.
Even where the individual concerned is or may still be alive, the information will usually be subject to the provisions of the Data Protection Act only by virtue of s1(e) (unstructured manual personal data held by a public authority), which effectively limits application of the Act to a very limited subset of the provisions.
The Act is therefore very unlikely in itself to prevent release of such information, even if it is possible to withhold or redact such information using the s40 (3)(b) exemption of FOIA (or the equivalent exception in EIR’s). as it is also unlikely that release will be unfair or unlawful.
The exception relates to those cases where such information consists of sensitive personal data (for example, that information exchanged with the police on a security incident refers to a criminal conviction of a person involved)
It is also possible consider use of the s41 exemption if the information was explicitly acquired on a confidential basis, or is of such a nature that an implicit duty of confidentiality may have been considered to exist, regardless of whether the person concerned is still alive or not. As discussed above, recent developments in the law of confidentiality may lead to such a duty arising even where there the information has been acquired outside the scope of a confidential relationship between the parties concerned.
However, in either case, the place of deposit should consider whether the circumstances that made the information sensitive or confidential continue to apply. For example, a note that a relative is not coming to visit the patient as arranged because the relative is suffering from a cold is technically sensitive personal data if the relative is still alive, but the trivial and transitory nature of the circumstances mean that redaction or withholding would be unnecessary, if not absolutely required by the Data Protection Act.
Places of deposit should therefore not redact or withhold the information unless release is still likely to cause substantial damage or substantial distress. This will enable them to designate many more physical file units as ‘open’.
8 Further information
This guidance can cover only the more common circumstances regarding the release of NHS records. Where Places of Deposit and NHS Trusts cannot resolve more difficult or unusual cases locally, they are welcome to contact Archives Sector Development at The National Archives:
The National Archives Kew Richmond Surrey TW9 4DU
[email protected]
020 8876 3444x2635 9 Appendix 1: Checklist for Consultation Agreements
9.1 Who should be Involved
- The officer appointed by the Lord Chancellor to manage the place of deposit under section 4(5) of the Public Records Act.
- The officer(s) responsible for the operation of Freedom of Information Act and Data Protection Act in the PoD (or its parent authority).
- The officer responsible for patient records management in the NHS body (or bodies).
- The officer responsible for other records management in the NHS body (or bodies).
- The Caldicott Guardian in the NHS body (or bodies).
- The officer(s) responsible for the operation of Freedom of Information Act and Data Protection Act in the NHS body (or bodies).
- Appropriate authorising parties.
In some cases these roles may not exist, or it may not be necessary for them to be involved in detailed drafting.
9.2 Content of the Agreement
The Agreement should specify:
- the parties
- the statutory background
- the scope of the records covered
- the normal points of contact in each organisation, including arrangements for dealing with unexpected staff absence or turnover;
- roles and responsibilities
- agreed timescales for communications between the parties during the various stages of the consultation process (taking account of the fact that these may need to vary depending upon the specific legislation engaged)
- working assumptions (reference may be made to this guidance, as well as any local variations which may be necessary, and the reasoning behind these)
- processes for handling appeals and references to the Information Commissioner • processes for recording consultation actions;
• the form of communication (which may vary from case to case, depending upon the sensitivity of the information which needs to be communicated in order to consult effectively).
• transfer processes, including those for access review on transfer
• links to other relevant policies and guidance
• authorisation and processes for periodic review.
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/0889-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 44,
"total-input-tokens": 89062,
"total-output-tokens": 25762,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
84,
1
],
[
84,
84,
2
],
[
84,
5091,
3
],
[
5091,
5091,
4
],
[
5091,
7329,
5
],
[
7329,
10466,
6
],
[
10466,
12929,
7
],
[
12929,
15074,
8
],
[
15074,
18442,
9
],
[
18442,
21189,
10
],
[
21189,
23619,
11
],
[
23619,
25922,
12
],
[
25922,
28841,
13
],
[
28841,
31976,
14
],
[
31976,
34628,
15
],
[
34628,
37589,
16
],
[
37589,
40884,
17
],
[
40884,
43895,
18
],
[
43895,
46881,
19
],
[
46881,
48973,
20
],
[
48973,
51636,
21
],
[
51636,
54142,
22
],
[
54142,
57120,
23
],
[
57120,
60312,
24
],
[
60312,
63266,
25
],
[
63266,
65887,
26
],
[
65887,
68188,
27
],
[
68188,
71554,
28
],
[
71554,
75075,
29
],
[
75075,
78485,
30
],
[
78485,
82149,
31
],
[
82149,
85440,
32
],
[
85440,
89000,
33
],
[
89000,
92313,
34
],
[
92313,
95165,
35
],
[
95165,
98551,
36
],
[
98551,
101344,
37
],
[
101344,
104076,
38
],
[
104076,
106916,
39
],
[
106916,
109715,
40
],
[
109715,
112359,
41
],
[
112359,
115031,
42
],
[
115031,
116626,
43
],
[
116626,
117022,
44
]
]
} |
4d96872eb6f2a17c584314fedf2635c990427955 | Accessibility statement for food.gov.uk
This accessibility statement applies to the FSA website food.gov.uk.
This website is run by the Food Standards Agency. We want as many people as possible to be able to use this website. For example, that means you should be able to:
- change colours, contrast levels and fonts
- zoom in up to 300% without the text spilling off the screen
- navigate most of the website using just a keyboard
- navigate most of the website using speech recognition software
- listen to most of the website using a screen reader (including the most recent versions of JAWS, NVDA and VoiceOver)
We’ve also made the website text as simple as possible to understand.
AbilityNet has advice on making your device easier to use if you have a disability.
How accessible this website is
We know some parts of this website are not fully accessible. You can see a full list of any issues in the Non-accessible content section of this statement.
Feedback and contact information
If you need information on this website in a different format like accessible PDF, large print, easy read, audio recording or braille:
- Email: [email protected]
- Phone our Helpline: 0330 332 7149 (open 9.00 until 17.00, Monday to Friday)
Reporting accessibility problems with this website
We’re always looking to improve the accessibility of this website. If you find any problems not listed on this page or think we’re not meeting accessibility requirements, contact:
- Email: [email protected]
- Phone our Helpline: 0330 332 7149 (open 9.00 until 17.00, Monday to Friday)
Enforcement procedure
The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) is responsible for enforcing the Public Sector Bodies (Websites and Mobile Applications) (No. 2) Accessibility Regulations 2018 (the ‘accessibility regulations’). If you’re not happy with how we respond to your complaint, contact the Equality Advisory and Support Service (EASS).
If you are in Northern Ireland and are not happy with how we respond to your complaint you can contact the Equalities Commission for Northern Ireland who are responsible for enforcing the Technical information about this website’s accessibility
The Food Standards Agency is committed to making its website accessible, in accordance with the Public Sector Bodies (Websites and Mobile Applications) (No. 2) Accessibility Regulations 2018.
Compliance status
This website is partially compliant with the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines version 2.1 AA standard, due to the non-compliances and exemptions listed below.
Non-accessible content
The content listed below is non-accessible for the following reasons.
Non-compliance with the accessibility regulations
The content that is not accessible is outlined below with details of planned dates for when issues will be fixed.
Some filter elements do not behave in the expected manner for users of assistive technologies and are not accessible to users that do not use a mouse. (WCAG 2.1 A 4.1.2 Name, Role, Value). We plan to fix this by March 2021.
PDFs and other non-HTML documents
Some of our PDF documents are not fully accessible, including:
- Manual for official controls chapters have some issues with URLs, poor images and table of contents. We plan to fix these issues by 5 October 2020.
- Safer food, better business guidance has some issues with colour contrast, font size and form labels. We plan to fix these issues (within a wider continuous improvement project) by September 2021.
- Safe Catering guidance has some issues including colour contrast, font size, inconsistent tagging order and sideways pages. We plan to fix these issues (within a wider continuous improvement project) by September 2021.
- A Practical Guide for Milk Producers has some issues including images, colour contrast, navigation and bookmarks. We plan to fix these issues by March 2021. Some of our Word documents are essential to providing our services. For example, we have forms published as Word documents. We plan to fix these by October 2020. We’re also developing a new service for the meat establishment Approvals process. This new service will meet accessibility standards and we anticipate a completion date of mid-2021.
**Disproportionate burden**
We have not made any disproportionate burden claims.
**Content that’s not within the scope of the accessibility regulations**
The accessibility regulations do not require us to fix PDFs or other documents published before 23 September 2018 if they’re not essential to providing our services.
Any new PDFs or Word documents we publish will meet accessibility standards.
**What we’re doing to improve accessibility**
We plan to identify and fix issues according to the timescales shown for each area above.
**Preparation of this accessibility statement**
This statement was prepared on 21 September 2020.
This website was last tested on 20 July 2020. The test was carried out by Digital Accessibility Centre (DAC)
We selected the sample of pages to test based on common user journeys that also include a wide variety of different content types. This includes accessing guidance, reporting a food problem and accessing food alerts.
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/0890-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 3,
"total-input-tokens": 5076,
"total-output-tokens": 1294,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
2146,
1
],
[
2146,
3897,
2
],
[
3897,
5208,
3
]
]
} |
ab86b2d9435a5e4db622a8b7d5356faa9a20480a | Welcome
The National Archives is the official archives and publisher for the UK Government, and for England and Wales. We work to bring together and secure the future of the public record, both digital and physical, for future generations.
The National Archives is open to all, offering a range of activities and spaces to enjoy, as well as our reading rooms for research. Many of our most popular records are also available online.
The National Archives Kew Richmond Surrey TW9 4DU nationalarchives.gov.uk
Email us 0208 876 3444
Follow us on Twitter Like us on Facebook Watch our 'Archives Inspire' video
# Table of Contents
Welcome .......................................................................................................................... 1
Getting here .................................................................................................................... 4 Travel by public transport ............................................................................................. 4 Parking ............................................................................................................................ 4
Arrival and indoor areas .................................................................................................. 6 Walkway to main entrance ............................................................................................ 6 Main entrance ................................................................................................................ 6 Lift .................................................................................................................................. 8 The Welcome Desk ........................................................................................................ 9 Shop ............................................................................................................................... 10 Keeper’s Gallery ........................................................................................................... 11 Open Reading Room ..................................................................................................... 13 Library ........................................................................................................................... 14 Document Reading Room (First floor) ......................................................................... 15 Map and Large Document Reading Room (Second floor) ........................................... 15
Places to eat and drink .................................................................................................... 16 The Dining Room ......................................................................................................... 16 The Balcony Café .......................................................................................................... 16 The Terrace .................................................................................................................. 17
Public toilets .................................................................................................................... 19 The Dining Room toilets – Gents and Ladies ............................................................... 19 Security Control Room ................................................................................................. 19 First floor lift area ......................................................................................................... 22 Library accessible toilets ............................................................................................. 23 Second floor lift area ..................................................................................................... 24
Outside areas .................................................................................................................. 25 Pocket park ................................................................................................................... 25 Getting here
Travel by public transport
- You can travel to The National Archives by bus, Underground and train.
- The R68 bus route (from Hampton Court via Richmond) ends at Kew Retail Park which is a 0.2 mile / 0.32 km walk to the entrance to The National Archives.
- The nearest Underground and train station is Kew Gardens Station which is 0.5 miles / 0.80km to The National Archives.
Parking
- We have a visitor car park which has level access and the route is at least 3200mm wide.
- We have free accessible parking bays at the rear entrance of the building (which are about 60m from the door). Please book a space ahead of your visit by calling or emailing us so we can assist as appropriate.
- The nearest drop-off point to The National Archives is at the rear of the building adjacent to the designated accessible parking spaces.
Figure 2. View of The National Archives’ entrance from visitors’ car park Figure 3. View of accessible parking bays and rear entrance ramp
Figure 4. View of rear entrance ramp from accessible parking bays Arrival and indoor areas
Walkway to main entrance
- From the street to the main entrance, there is level access.
- The path is at least 2000mm wide.
Main entrance
- The main entrance has level access.
- The outer door is 1050mm wide, sliding and automatic.
- The inner door is revolving and automatic with button-activated accessible access doors at either side.
Figure 5. Outside view of front entrance porch, outer sliding doors to inner revolving door and accessible doors Figure 6. Side view of outer sliding door
Figure 7. Inside view of revolving and accessible doors Lift
- We have one public lift which serves the first and second floors.
- The lift door is 920mm wide. The lift is 900mm wide and 1350mm deep.
- The lift announces and shows the floor number at each floor and the buttons have raised numbers/letters.
Figure 8. View of the public lift.
Figure 9. View of public lift entrance. The Welcome Desk
- The foyer area is at least 7000mm wide and the door is at least 2000mm wide.
- The Welcome Desk has a low section.
- We have a complimentary ticket policy for personal assistants attending events.
Figure 10. View of Welcome Desk from front entrance Shop
- The shop is located through the doors to the left of the Welcome Desk. From the main entrance, there is level access and the route is at least 2000mm wide.
- The route through the shop is at least 800mm wide.
Figure 11. View of the shop from the side. Keeper's Gallery
- There is level access from the main entrance to the gallery. The route is at least 2000mm wide. The door is 6000mm wide.
- Some display information is situated in a low position, for wheelchair users. Some videos have subtitles and there is low lighting to preserve the original documents on display. Figure 13. Keepers Gallery. Open Reading Room
- From the main entrance to this area, there is level access and a lift from the ground floor.
- From the lift to this area, the route is 970mm wide and the door is 920mm wide.
- Some display information is situated in a low position for wheelchair users.
- Seating is available in this area.
- There is a hearing loop and videos have subtitles.
Figure 14. Open Reading Room. Entrance from lift on left, entrance to Balcony Café on right.
Figure 15. Research area and entrance to the Library. Library
- From the main entrance to this area, there is level access from the lift.
- From the lift to the library, the route is at least 970mm wide and the narrowest door is 920mm wide.
- Some display information is situated in a low position, for wheelchair users and there is some seating available.
- There is a hearing loop.
Figure 16. View of one library column. Document Reading Room (First floor)
- From the main entrance to the First Floor Document Reading Room, there is level access from the lift.
- From the lift to the Reading Room, the route is at least 970mm wide and the narrowest door is 920mm wide.
- Some display information is situated in a low position, for wheelchair users and there is seating provided.
- There is a hearing loop and videos have subtitles.
Map and Large Document Reading Room (Second floor)
- From the main entrance to the Map and Large Document Reading Room, there is level access from the lift.
- From the lift to the Reading Room, the route is at least 970mm wide and the narrowest door is 920mm wide.
- Some display information is situated in a low position for wheelchair users and there is seating provided.
- There is a hearing loop and videos have subtitles. Places to eat and drink
The Dining Room
- Our main dining area is located on the ground floor, opposite the Shop and Keeper’s Gallery.
- From the main entrance, there is level access and the route is at least 800mm wide.
- To get to a table, there are no steps and if you need table service, catering staff can help or assist you.
- There is no background music.
- The table and plates have high colour contrast.
- We cater for sugar-free (diabetic), vegetarian, gluten-free (coeliac), lactose-free, nut-free, low-fat, low-potassium, low-sodium, high-fibre and vegan specific diets. Please do ask a member of staff for dietary information.
The Balcony Café
- This is a café area located on the first floor, connected to the Open Reading Room. Only drinks, sandwiches and cakes are served here but visitors may bring up food bought in The Dining Room up to eat. There is also seating outside on the balcony areas which does not have level access.
- There is level access from the lift and the route is at least 920mm wide.
- There are no steps to get to a table, and if you need table service, staff can help you.
- There is no background music. The Terrace
- The Terrace seating area is located outside the main entrance and anyone visiting our grounds may use this area.
- There is level access and a permanent ramp.
- There are no steps to get to a table.
- There is no background music.
Figure 18. The Terrace. Figure 19. The Terrace.
Figure 20. The Terrace. Public toilets
- All of our accessible toilets have level access, some from the lift.
- The toilet doors are 910mm wide
- There is 1200mm in front of the toilet, the seat is 425mm high with handrails.
The Dining Room toilets – Men and Women
- These are public toilets in the Dining Room area on the ground floor with an accessible toilet inside. Figure 24. The Dining Room women’s w/c.
Figure 23. The Dining Room accessible women’s w/c. Security Control Room
- This is a public toilet for visitors with accessibility needs. This is also a Changing Places toilet.
- This toilet is located opposite the Security Control Room, to the right of the main entrance.
Figure 25. Accessible toilet opposite Security Control Room. First floor lift area
- This is a public toilet for visitors with accessibility needs.
- This toilet is located next to the lift door on the first floor with level access.
Figure 26. Accessible toilet, first floor lift area. Library accessible toilets
- These are public toilets for visitors with accessibility needs.
- They are located in the Library area on the first floor.
Figure 27. Library accessible w/c – left, closest to men’s.
Library accessible w/c – left, closest to men’s
Figure 28. Library accessible w/c – right, closest to women’s toilets. Second floor lift area
- This is a public toilet for visitors with accessibility needs.
- This toilet is located next to the lift door on the second floor with level access.
Figure 29. Accessible toilet, second floor lift area. Outside areas
Pocket park
- This is a grassy and pebbled area with picnic benches which is open to all visitors.
- Each route from the main entrance and car park is at least 1050mm wide.
- Assistance dogs can be walked and toileted here. Please dispose of dog mess in the outdoor bins provided.
Smoking area
- The smoking area has a shelter and level access and is located through the rear entrance doors.
- The entrance is 1050mm wide.
Additional details
- We provide wheelchairs at no charge.
- We have hearing loops in the following places: Readers Registration Desk, Open Reading Room, Research Enquiries Desks, Document Reading Room Information Desk, Map and Large Document Reading Room
- The fire alarm is a continuous bell with flashing lights.
- We have emergency evacuation procedures for disabled visitors. All public staff are trained to assist with evacuating visitors safely and appropriately.
- Glass doors have contrast markings. The walls and doors have high colour contrast.
- There are power points in all public areas.
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/0891-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 25,
"total-input-tokens": 36695,
"total-output-tokens": 3404,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
613,
1
],
[
613,
4098,
2
],
[
4098,
4098,
3
],
[
4098,
5016,
4
],
[
5016,
5148,
5
],
[
5148,
5629,
6
],
[
5629,
5728,
7
],
[
5728,
6057,
8
],
[
6057,
6327,
9
],
[
6327,
6588,
10
],
[
6588,
6909,
11
],
[
6909,
6937,
12
],
[
6937,
7451,
13
],
[
7451,
7822,
14
],
[
7822,
8663,
15
],
[
8663,
9812,
16
],
[
9812,
10083,
17
],
[
10083,
10132,
18
],
[
10132,
10481,
19
],
[
10481,
10573,
20
],
[
10573,
10858,
21
],
[
10858,
11085,
22
],
[
11085,
11420,
23
],
[
11420,
11650,
24
],
[
11650,
12693,
25
]
]
} |
e592a9d157b5a5f5ab5c6fa74dc6c8bd48daa27b | Accessible Travel Policy
Guidance for Train and Station Operators
September 2020 edition
## Contents
1. **Introduction**\
1.1 Accessible Travel Policies\
1.2 About this guidance\
1.3 Relevant legislation\
1.4 Maintaining this guidance\
1.5 ORR contact information
2. **General requirements**\
2.1 Name, structure and format\
2.2 Approvals and reviews
3. **Passenger leaflet**\
3.1 Introduction\
3.2 Assistance: what is available and how to get it\
3.3 What to expect – our commitment to passengers at every stage of\
3a • Before you travel\
3b • At the station\
3c • On the train\
3d • If things do not go as planned\
3.4 Where to get more information and how to get in touch
4. **Policy document**\
A. **Commitments to providing assistance**\
A1 Booking and providing assistance\
A2 Passenger information and promotion of Assisted Travel\
A2.1 • Accessible Travel Policy documentation provision and promotion\
A2.2 • Stations and rolling stock accessibility information\
A2.3 • Passenger journey information (online, at stations, on trains)\
o Train departures and arrivals\
o Connections and wayfinding\
o Delays and disruption\
A2.4 • Information points, help points and contact centres\
A2.5 • Websites\
A3 Ticketing\
A4 Alternative accessible transport\
A5 Mobility scooters and mobility aids\
A6 Delays, disruption to services, and emergencies A7 Station facilities A7.1 • Left luggage A7.2 • Disabled parking A7.3 • Third party provided facilities A7.4 • Replacement facilities A7.5 • Station entrances A8 Redress
B B. Strategy and management B1 Strategy B2 Management arrangements B3 Monitoring and evaluation B4 Access improvements B5 Working with disabled passengers, local communities and local B6 Staff training
Appendix A Glossary Appendix B Station accessibility classification system Appendix C Handover protocol Appendix D Mandatory training outcomes Appendix E Approval flowcharts Appendix F Network Rail station guide for disabled and older people Section 1: Introduction
1.1 Accessible Travel Policies
1.1.1 Each passenger train operator, and each station operator (train and station operators are henceforth referred to collectively as ‘operators’ in this document), requires an operating licence, issued by the Office of Rail and Road (ORR).
1.1.2 These licences include a condition entitled Accessible Travel Policy, which requires each operator, including Network Rail in respect of the stations it operates, to establish and comply with an Accessible Travel Policy, stating how they will protect the interests of disabled users of their trains and stations.
1.1.3 The licence condition also requires that, in establishing the Accessible Travel Policy and in making any alteration to it, the licence holder shall have due regard to the Design Standards for Accessible Railways: A Joint Code of Practice published by the Department for Transport (DfT) and Transport Scotland1.
1.1.4 The Accessible Travel Policy must be established by an operator prior to the licence being granted and must be approved by ORR. Under the terms of the licence condition, ORR can also instruct the licence holder to carry out a review of its Accessible Travel Policy.
1.1.5 Accessible Travel Policies are the vehicle for operators to set out, for passengers and ORR, their commitments and standards of service provision, as well as relevant policies and practices, with regard to disabled people using the rail network. They will also provide an overview of the accessibility of the operators’ facilities and services.
1.2 About this guidance
1.2.1 This guidance is the result of work undertaken since 2017 to develop and consult on proposals for improvement in the passenger experience and awareness of assisted travel, based on the results of the extensive research we published at the time and informed by our subsequent engagement with interested and affected organisations. ORR published two public consultation on improving assisted travel, firstly in November 2017 and then in November 2018, which included draft revised guidance. Over this time ORR also held a series of discussions and workshops with representatives from disabled people’s organisations, passenger champions, the rail industry, franchising authorities and other stakeholders. A further consultation on the issue of rail replacement services was published in December 2019, which included proposal for revisions to the guidance. This was followed by additional engagement with interested and affected organisations.
______________________________________________________________________
1 Design Standards for Accessible Railway Stations: A Joint Code of Practice, available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/accessible-railway-stations-design-standards 1.2.2 This version of the guidance has been derived from previous guidance issued by DfT in 2009. Along with the Joint Code of Practice, this guidance is designed to protect the interests of users of railway passenger services or station services who are disabled, in line with the Secretary of State’s responsibility under section 71B of the Railways Act 1993 (as amended). Providers of such services should also note the application of the Equality Act 2010 Services, Public functions and Associations: Statutory Code of Practice².
1.2.3 This guidance sets out the criteria ORR will normally adopt in exercising its function, under the ‘Accessible Travel Policy’ condition of the passenger and station licences³, of approving each operator’s Accessible Travel Policy. In particular, it explains what an approved Accessible Travel Policy ‘must’ contain as a minimum in order to comply with the licence condition. It is also intended to set out recommended good practice that an approved Accessible Travel Policy ‘may’ contain. In addition, it provides an introduction to the relevant background material that licence holders will need to take into account when drawing up an Accessible Travel Policy for ORR’s approval.
1.2.4 However, the guidance is not intended to dictate to operators how they should deliver commitments or what their policies should be. This is largely for operators to decide, and it remains their responsibility to ensure that they are compliant with relevant legislation. Where appropriate the guidance requires operators to provide details of these policies and practices in their Accessible Travel Policy.
1.2.5 In particular, operators have a duty under s.29 of the Equality Act 2010 to make reasonable adjustments. The duty requires TOCs to anticipate the needs of disabled people in a given situation and to think at an early stage about how to make reasonable adjustments. These adjustments should seek to remove or reduce any ‘substantial disadvantage’ which disabled people encounter in accessing transport, where it is reasonable to do so. There is statutory guidance on how service providers should approach the duty.⁴
Network Rail
1.2.6 As the operator of Great Britain’s largest stations, and the provider of almost one third of all passenger assistance, Network Rail is critical to the experience of disabled passengers using the railway. As it does not operate passenger rail services, some areas of the guidance are not applicable to Network Rail.
1.2.7 These sections are:
Section 3: Passenger Leaflet (Instead Network Rail must provide a guide to each station for older and disabled people – see Appendix F)
______________________________________________________________________
² https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/publication-download/services-public-functions-and-associations-statutory-code-practice ³ http://orr.gov.uk/\_\_data/assets/pdf_file/0011/2234/lic-passlic.pdf ⁴ https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/sites/default/files/servicescode_0.pdf Section 4: Policy Document
A2.2 Rolling stock accessibility information A2.3 Passenger journey information on trains A3 Ticketing and fares (certain requirements do not apply) A4 Alternative accessible transport A5 Mobility scooters and mobility aids
1.2.8 All other sections are relevant to Network Rail and the related commitments and standards of service must be included in its Accessible Travel Policy document.
1.2.9 In cases where a small part of a section does not apply to Network Rail, i.e. references to train services, this is indicated in square parentheses [].
1.3 Relevant Legislation
Railways Act 1993
1.3.1 The Act contains ORR’s section 4 statutory duties which ORR must take into account in exercising our economic functions. Section 4 includes a duty to have specific regard to the interests of persons who are disabled when undertaking its general duty to promote the interests of users of railway services.
1.3.2 One of the ways that ORR achieves this duty is by requiring licence holders to establish and comply with an Accessible Travel Policy that states how they will protect the interests of disabled people who use their trains and stations.
Human Rights Act 1998
1.3.3 The Human Rights Act requires public bodies to act in accordance with the rights set out in the European Convention on Human Rights. As a transport provider, you should provide services in a manner that is compatible with the requirements of the Act.
1.3.4 The rights provided by the Convention include a qualified right of protection from discrimination, which is set out in Article 14. Article 14 states that the enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set out in the European Convention on Human Rights shall be secured without ‘discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status’. This means that the protection provided by Article 14 only applies to matters which are covered within
______________________________________________________________________
5 S.71B of the Railways Act 1993 also imposes an obligation on the Department for Transport to prepare and revise a Code of Practice, after consultation with DPTAC that protects the interests of users of railway passenger services who are disabled. The document that currently fulfils that obligation is the Design Standards for Accessible Railway Stations; a joint Code of Practice. This is authored by the Department for Transport and Transport Scotland, after consultation with DPTAC and MACS respectively. the Convention. The European Court of Human Rights has determined that ‘other status’ includes the grounds of disability.
**Transport Act 2000**
1.3.5 The Transport Act 2000, in so far as it addresses railways provided the first major change in the structure of the privatised railway system established under the Railways Act 1993. In particular for the purposes of this Accessible Travel Policy guidance, section 248 sets out a requirement that, in broad terms, if a person who provides railway carriage services instead provides substitute road services, those substitute road services, shall as far as reasonably practicable, allow disabled passengers to undertake their journeys safely and in reasonable comfort.
**Equality Act 2010**
1.3.6 The Equality Act 2010 entered into force on 1 October 2010 and consolidated previous anti-discrimination legislation into a single Act. The previous Disabled People’s Protection Policy guidance referred to the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 which is no longer in force.
1.3.7 The Equality Act 2010 identifies nine protected characteristics: age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex and sexual orientation.
1.3.8 Part 3 of the Equality Act 2010 makes it unlawful for service providers or public authorities to discriminate against a service user on the basis of a protected characteristic. This Part applies whether the service is being provided by the public sector or privately, and whether that service is for payment or otherwise. Service providers have a legal obligation under section 29 of the Equality Act 2010 not to discriminate against people on the basis of a protected characteristic. This includes by refusing to provide them with a service, by terminating a service provided to them, by not providing them with the service in the manner or on the terms which are usually offered to the public, or subjecting them to any other detriment concerning the service provided.
1.3.9 In respect of people with disabilities, there is an additional duty on service providers to make ‘reasonable adjustments’. This applies where a provision, criterion or practice puts a person with a disability at a substantial disadvantage compared with a person who is not disabled. It also applies where a physical feature puts a disabled person at a substantial disadvantage in relation to a relevant matter in comparison with persons who are not disabled. Finally, it applies where a disabled person would be at a substantial disadvantage in comparison to persons who are not disabled if an auxiliary aid is not provided, to take reasonable steps to provide the auxiliary aid. There are a few exceptions to this duty(^6) and providers should familiarise themselves with the exact scope of the duty.
1.3.10 The test of what is a reasonable adjustment is by its nature an objective one and whether an adjustment is reasonable depends on all the circumstances including:
a. how practical it is for the organisation to make the change;
b. the cost of the change;
c. the impact of the change on other service users;
d. the organisation’s resources and size; and
e. whether financial support is available to help the organisation make it.
1.3.11 In agreeing an Accessible Travel Policy with an operator, ORR would expect to see evidence that the operator has broadly anticipated the requirements of disabled people and reflected these in their policies, practices and procedures in accordance with Part 3 of the Equality Act 2010. In following this guidance to produce an Accessible Travel Policy, and following that Accessible Travel Policy thereafter, we expect that an operator will be able to demonstrate compliance with its duties under the Equality Act 2010. However, the onus is on the operator to ensure that they comply with the Equality Act 2010, as failure to do so could render them liable to civil court proceedings.
1.3.12 Operators should also make themselves familiar with Part 12, Chapter 3 of the Equality Act 2010 which deals with rail vehicle accessibility regulations.
Under section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 ORR is required to have due regard to:
- eliminating discrimination, harassment, victimisation and any other conduct that is prohibited by or under this Act;
- advancing equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it (relevant protected characteristics are – age; disability; gender reassignment; pregnancy and maternity; race; religion or belief; sex; sexual orientation);
- fostering good relations between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share.
This is known as the Public Sector Equality Duty. ORR has had due regard to this duty in drafting this guidance, and will continue to have regard to it when assessing licence holders’ Accessible Travel Policies submitted for approval.
(^6) For example, the duty does not extend to taking steps to alter or remove physical features of rail vehicles themselves (paragraph 3(2) of Schedule 3 of EA10), nor does the s.29 duty apply to anything which is instead governed by the PRO Regulation EC1371/2007. EC Rail Passenger Rights & Obligations (EC1371/2007)
1.3.13 The Passenger Rights and Obligations Regulation (PRO) entered into force on 3 December 2009 and aims at establishing rights and obligations for rail passenger service users in order to improve the efficiency and attractiveness of rail transport for passengers. In Great Britain, this has been implemented through the Rail Passengers’ Rights and Obligations Regulations 2010, and all parts of EC1371/2007 are now in effect (the last set of GB exemptions for domestic services expired in December 2019).
1.3.14 Operators will need to be mindful of the requirements of the PRO when developing their policies and practices. In particular, Articles 19 to 25 inclusive give certain rights to Disabled Persons and Persons with Reduced Mobility (DPRM). Passengers have rights to information, reservations and tickets, assistance, care and compensation in the event of delay or cancellation, free-of-charge assistance (for persons with disabilities and/or reduced mobility), compensation in the event of an accident, and a system of national enforcement bodies (NEBs) and complaint handlers.
1.3.15 In December 2019, the European Council agreed to the Commission’s Proposal to recast and modernise Regulation EC1371/2007 on rail passengers’ rights and obligations, including in the area of assistance for passengers with reduced mobility. The effect on GB operators will depend on the date the recast comes into effect (during or after the GB transition period), and, operators will need to be aware of the proposed changes and when they will take effect.
Rail Vehicle Accessibility (Non-Interoperable) Regulations (2010)
1.3.16 These Regulations (commonly known as RVAR) aim to set standards designed to improve accessibility for disabled people on light rail passenger vehicles. This includes metro, underground and tram systems, which are not subject to the Railways (Interoperability) Regulations 2011 (nor therefore Persons with Reduced Mobility – Technical Specifications for Interoperability (PRM-TSI), see below).
1.3.16 RVAR cover the areas of a rail vehicle accessed by the passenger, including boarding devices, doors, controls, floors, seats and passenger information. RVAR apply to vehicles entering into service from 1 January 1999.
1.3.18 DfT sets the target for all rail vehicles in Great Britain – both heavy and light rail – to be accessible by no later than 1 January 2020 (unless appropriate exemptions are in place). Operators should be mindful of the requirements of this legislation when developing their policies and practices.
Railways (Interoperability) Regulations (2011)
1.3.19 These regulations implement European Directives which have the purpose of establishing common operational standards and practices across European railways. They require new, upgraded or renewed structural subsystems or vehicles to be authorised, before they can be used on the mainline railway. Operators should be mindful of the requirements of this legislation when developing their policies and practices.
**Persons with reduced mobility – PRM-TSI (1300/2014)**
1.3.20 PRM-TSI relates to the accessibility of the EU's rail system for persons with disabilities and persons with reduced mobility. This does not include light rail or metros, which are covered by RVAR in the UK and which is outlined separately above.
1.3.21 The legislation provides the technical specifications for trains, stations and other facilities. It includes items such as lighting, door widths, toilets, clearances and seats. This is mandatory for all new equipment and provides guidelines for how refurbished or upgraded equipment should meet the requirements. It does not provide any guidance for safety, emergency response (e.g. train evacuation) or the competence required for staff to assist passengers.
1.3.22 Annex 2.2 contains the following definition: “‘Person with disabilities and person with reduced mobility’ means any person who has a permanent or temporary physical, mental, intellectual or sensory impairment which, in interaction with various barriers, may hinder their full and effective use of transport on an equal basis with other passengers or whose mobility when using transport is reduced due to age.”
**Consumer Rights Act 2015**
1.3.23 The Consumer Rights Act 2015 provides to passengers a route to redress, and potentially a full or partial refund, should an operator fail to provide a service with reasonable care and skill and / or where information provided to a passenger before purchasing a ticket, whether oral or in writing, (and relied upon by the passenger in making the purchase) is not adhered to.
**Public Service Vehicles Accessibility Regulations 2000**
1.3.24 The Public Service Vehicles Accessibility Regulations 2000 (PSVAR) came into force on 30 August 2000, and apply to buses and coaches with a capacity of more than twenty-two passengers which are used to provide local and scheduled services. The Regulations extend to cover such buses and coaches being used as rail replacement vehicles. These Regulations require that all buses with more than 22 seats, and all such coaches by January 2020, have to be accessible, safe and comfortable for disabled people including wheelchair users. Failure to comply is a criminal offence under the Equality Act 2010. The Secretary of State for Transport can permit coach and bus operators that provide rail replacement services to apply for time-limited special authorisations pursuant to section 178 of the Equality Act 2010.7
______________________________________________________________________
7 At the time of publication such special authorisations had been provided until 31 December 2020. 1.4 Maintaining this guidance
1.4.1 Assisted travel is a vital service for disabled people and others that may need assistance from railway staff to complete their journey. ORR is committed to ensuring train and station operators, including Network Rail, comply with their obligations to provide this assistance to which rail passengers are entitled. Our vision is of a railway network where passengers can request assistance with confidence and ease: safe in the knowledge that it will be provided reliably, effectively and consistently by staff that have the training, knowledge and attitude to do so with confidence and skill – irrespective of train company or station operator.
1.4.2 Expectations of the service will continue to grow as rolling stock and stations become increasingly accessible, and as the use of smart technology to improve the passenger experience becomes more widespread. ORR will keep this guidance on writing Accessible Travel Policies under more frequent review in the light of experience and regular consultation with licensed operators and disabled people’s organisations. This will enable substantive developments in operating practice, technology and good practice to be kept under review and reflected more quickly in the experience of passengers.
1.4.3 ORR will consult on proposals for any substantive changes to the guidance. We will publish revised guidance, if appropriate, following the consultation. ORR will continue to undertake monitoring and investigation of how Accessible Travel Policies are working in practice to ensure that passengers benefit from the commitments made by licensees in this area.
1.5 ORR contact information
1.5.1 We encourage operators, if they have any questions about any part of this guidance, to seek advice from the Consumer team at ORR (contact details below).
E-mail: [email protected]
Consumer Policy Team Office of Rail and Road 25 Cabot Square London E14 4QZ Section 2: General requirements
2.1 Name, structure and format of Accessible Travel Policies
2.1.1 As set out in section 1.2 passenger train and station operator licences have an obligation for operators to produce Accessible Travel Policies. The 'Accessible Travel Policy' condition of passenger and station operator licences requires licence holders to:
“Establish and thereafter comply with:
(a) a statement of policy; and
(b) a detailed body of arrangements, procedures, services and other benefits to be implemented or provided by the licence holder designed to protect the interests of people who are disabled in their use of trains of which the licence holder is the operator pursuant to this licence and to facilitate such use (together ‘the Accessible Travel Policy’).”
2.1.2 In meeting the above licence obligation, operators must adhere to the document structure set out below when producing their Accessible Travel Policy.
1. Passenger leaflet
This customer-facing document must be titled Making Rail Accessible: Helping Older and Disabled Passengers.
It must be structured as follows (detailed guidance is in Section 3):
3.1 Introduction
3.2 Assistance: what is available and how to obtain it
3.3 What to expect – our commitment to you a. Before you travel b. At the station c. On the train d. If things do not go as planned
3.4 Where to get more information and how to get in touch
It must be produced as a DL-sized leaflet. It must also be provided in a range of alternative formats as set out in section C, A2.1.
It must be written in Plain English and may achieve Crystal Mark accreditation.
2. Policy document
This policy document must be titled 'Accessible Travel Policy'. It must be structured as follows (detailed guidance is in Section 4).
A. Commitments to providing assistance
A1 Booking and providing assistance
A2 Information provision A2.1 Accessible Travel Policy documentation including alternative formats A2.2 Stations and rolling stock accessibility information (to be provided separately – see 3 overleaf) A2.3 Passenger journey information (online, at stations, on trains) ▪ Train departures and arrivals
______________________________________________________________________
88 Details on how to achieve Crystal Mark accreditation can be found here: http://www.plainenglish.co.uk/services/crystal-mark/frequently-asked-questions.html
- Connections and wayfinding
- Delays and disruption
A2.4 Information points, help points and contact centres
A2.5 Websites
A3 Ticketing and fares
A4 Alternative accessible transport
A5 Scooters and mobility aids
A6 Delays, disruptions and emergencies
A7 Station facilities
A8 Redress
B. Strategy and Management
B1 Strategy
B2 Management arrangements
B3 Monitoring and evaluation
B4 Access improvements
B5 Working with disabled passengers, local communities and local authorities
B6 Staff training
It must be produced as an A4-sized document in both Word and PDF format. It must also be provided in a range of alternative formats as set out in section 4, paragraph A2.1.
For the purposes of this guidance, where these documents are referred to collectively, the term ‘Accessible Travel Policy’ will be used.
Where the document ‘Making Rail Accessible: Helping Older and Disabled Passengers’ is referred to, the term ‘passenger leaflet’ will be used.
Where the document ‘Accessible Travel Policy’ is referred to, the term ‘policy document’ will be used. 3. Stations and rolling stock accessibility information
See section 4, A2.2. for further details on the documents that form part of the Accessible Travel Policy but which that must be provided separately online and on request.
2.1.3 The table below provides an overview of the documentation operators must provide:
| Accessible Travel Policy | Passenger Leaflet | Policy Document | Rolling stock information | Stations information | |--------------------------|-------------------|-----------------|---------------------------|----------------------| | **Train operators** | At stations, online and on request | Online and on request | Online and on request | Online and on request | | **Network Rail** | Station Guides at stations, online and on request | Online and on request | N/A | Online and on request |
2.2. Approval and review of Accessible Travel Policies
2.2.1 All licensed operators must have an Accessible Travel Policy compliant with this guidance.
Approval of Accessible Travel Policies
2.2.2 When submitting Accessible Travel Policies to ORR for approval, operators must submit the documents electronically to [email protected]. ORR will approve each operator’s Accessible Travel Policy. Operators are not required to fully design or make ready documents for publication before submitting them to ORR, to avoid potentially wasteful costs.
2.2.3 At the time of submission, operators must confirm that they have sought and considered feedback from local groups such as their passenger panel, accessibility forum and local user groups, as appropriate. Operators may also choose to consult other stakeholders on their draft but ORR will formally consult with the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee (DPTAC) (or Mobility and Access Committee for Scotland - MACS, as relevant for operators serving locations in Scotland), Transport Focus and (where relevant) London TravelWatch on the draft Accessible Travel Policy documents during the approval process and collate a single set of comments to feed back to the operator.
2.2.4 New operators must obtain approval for their Accessible Travel Policy prior to a licence being granted. Drafts should be submitted to ORR as early as possible for initial comment and at least twelve weeks before the intended start of operations. We aim to approve the documents at least four weeks prior to the start of operations, but this is dependent on the operator working with us to make the necessary changes to their draft Accessible Travel Policy to ensure it complies with the guidance.
2.2.5 Once we have approved the draft as appropriate, we will issue an approval letter to the operator, to which will be annexed a copy of the approved Accessible Travel Policy. This will also be published on our website.
2.2.6 The final version must be published on the operator’s website and notified to us and to DPTAC (and/or MACS) and Transport Focus (or London TravelWatch) by the operator by the start of operations. Hard copies of the revised Passenger Leaflet must be available to passengers at staffed stations within eight weeks of the approval date. The operator must inform ORR when these hard copies have been made available. Where exceptional circumstances mean that these deadlines cannot be met for any reason, this must be agreed with ORR in advance.
2.2.7 If an operator has any questions about writing their Accessible Travel Policies or the approval process, they can contact ORR for advice at [email protected].
Review of Accessible Travel Policies
2.2.8 Accessible Travel Policies must be reviewed by operators annually from the date of approval, or more frequently to ensure that they are as up-to-date as possible where there is a change in policy or procedure. ORR can also require the licence holder to carry out a review of the Accessible Travel Policy or any part of it or the manner in which it has been implemented, with a view to determining whether any change should be made to it.
2.2.9 As part of the review, operators must:
- Update their Accessible Travel Policy to reflect any changes to policies that may have occurred since the last approval or review;
- Update station accessibility information where changes may have occurred;
- Detail the extent to which any increase in the availability of accessible public service vehicles compliant with PSVAR and alternative accessible vehicles has been taken advantage of in the contracts with suppliers of such vehicles;
- Refresh information provided about any accessibility improvements that have been or are being carried out, or that are planned; and • Provide details of any key actions they have identified to improve performance.
2.2.10 Operators must submit their Accessible Travel Policy to the ORR for review at least six weeks before the anniversary of the date on which the Accessible Travel Policy was initially approved. The documents must be submitted electronically to [email protected] with any proposed changes clearly marked.
2.2.11 At the time of submission, operators must indicate how they have sought and considered feedback from local groups such as their passenger panel, accessibility forum and local user groups, as appropriate.
2.2.12 If the operator is proposing significant or material changes to its Accessible Travel Policy, ORR will undertake a review to inform our approval the revised Accessible Travel Policy. Significant or material changes are where policy or procedure changes may have a significant impact, positive or negative, on a number of passengers – this could include changes to the notice period for booked assistance, staffing at stations or on trains or rolling stock accessibility, for example. It does not include updates to the station accessibility information to reflect improvement works.
2.2.13 ORR will consult with DPTAC (and/or MACS, as relevant for operators serving locations in Scotland), Transport Focus and (where relevant) London TravelWatch on any significant or material changes. When approving a revised Accessible Travel Policy, ORR will issue an approval letter to the operator, to which will be annexed a copy of the approved Accessible Travel Policy. This will also be published on ORR’s website.
2.2.14 If an operator considers the proposed changes are not material or significant, the operator must confirm this to ORR with a brief summary of the proposed changes. In these circumstances, ORR will consider whether it agrees with this. If it does, ORR will not need to undertake a formal review and approve the changes. If ORR considers that the proposed changes are in fact material or significant, it will conduct a formal review in order to inform our approval as above.
2.2.15 The final branded version must be available on the operator’s website, provided to ORR for publication on our website and notified to DPTAC (or MACS) and Transport Focus (or London TravelWatch) by the operator within one week of the approval or anniversary date, as relevant. Hard copies at staffed stations must also be refreshed within eight weeks. Where exceptional circumstances mean that these deadlines cannot be met for any reason, this must have been agreed with ORR in advance. Section 3: Passenger Leaflet
[This Section does not apply to Network Rail. Network Rail must instead produce a document entitled ‘Network Rail station guide for disabled and older people, as set out in Appendix F.’]
To provide assured confidence to disabled and older rail travellers at every stage of their journey, and to ensure that they understand what assistance operators can offer, in the passenger leaflet operators must provide an explanation of:
- how to book assistance;
- what assistance they can and cannot offer; and
- where to get further information.
The following structure and content must be adhered to:
3.1 Introduction
Introduces in Plain English the purpose of the leaflet (i.e. to inform people that require assistance or additional information to travel by rail of the help that is available and how to obtain it).
3.2 Assistance: what is available and how to get it (see also section 4: A1, A3, A4, A5)
Explains that passengers that require assistance have two options:
A. They can turn up at any station that they have identified is accessible to them and request assistance on to a train from a member of staff, or via a help point or a Freephone number – either this will be provided or, where reasonably practicable, alternative accessible transport offered at no extra cost to the passenger; this may explain that where assistance has not been booked in advance it may take a period of time to be provided; or
B. Where travel is being arranged in advance, they can book assistance; this must explain that the maximum notice they need to provide is [XX] hours – licence holders that require less notice must clearly set out in what circumstances this is possible – and how passengers can book, including the relevant details for doing so online, by e-mail, over the phone, text relay, and video relay service (if applicable). It must make clear that assistance for any journey, including those with multiple connections using multiple train companies, can be booked using these channels. It must also ensure that passengers understand under what circumstances alternative accessible transport might be offered (e.g. when travelling to or from an inaccessible station); where an operator runs trains with no second person on-board to unstaffed or part-staffed stations, it must set out the extent to which assistance can be provided by on-board staff, station staff or mobile staff - where such working practices are routinely operated or can be accommodated.
Lists briefly the types of assistance that are available, to include:
- Journey planning
- Assistance with getting on and off the train
- Assistance around the station and to the platform, including when connecting between different train services, or from train to public transport / taxi / car park
- Purchasing tickets, making it clear that Advance fares can be booked at the same time as booking assistance via Passenger Assist
- Obtaining seat reservations and booking dedicated spaces (where applicable), including whether this is possible or advisable on the day of travel
- Explaining what services and facilities are available on the train and at the station
- Help with luggage
- Boarding with scooters or other mobility aids (if applicable)
Briefly explain that staff are trained to assist passengers with both visible and non-visible disabilities.
3.3 What to expect: our commitment to passengers at every stage of the journey (see section 4: A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, A6, A7, A8)
3.3a Before you travel
Commits to providing the information passengers need when planning their journey, irrespective of disability. This must set out briefly how passengers can obtain help with ticket purchase (which may include seeking help from staff at the gateline) and journey planning and how to obtain information that is useful to passengers when planning their journey themselves, including:
- station and train facilities and accessibility information, including staff availability, disabled parking spaces and any temporary reductions in accessibility (including of toilet facilities)
- train times and routes
- details of delays, disruption and emergencies (including emergency or temporary timetables)
- how to purchase a ticket, including the details of any discounts (which must include the national discounts available to blind and visually impaired passengers travelling with a companion in England and Wales, blind persons in Scotland(^9), and to passengers who stay in their wheelchair during a journey(^{10}), and railcards (which must include the Disabled Person’s Railcard); this must state that if a disabled person is unable to easily purchase a ticket at the station where the journey starts then the appropriate fare (including discount if applicable) can paid en route without penalty
- any restrictions on the use of wheelchairs, powerchairs, scooters and other mobility aids (to include limitations on weight and dimensions), and (where applicable) how to obtain a scooter card, assistance card or priority card
- any useful mobile apps
### 3.3b At the station
Commits to assisting passengers at stations, irrespective of disability. This must briefly set out in general:
- what sort of facilities are available at stations to help passengers and their hours of operation, including where to obtain useful information; and
- how assistance will be provided at the station (including with ticket purchase, interchange, boarding and alighting), and what steps the passenger can take to make themselves known to staff - setting out the differences between stations that have staff and those that are unstaffed for all or some of the time; this may include how long before departure a passenger is recommended to arrive(^{11}), details of any designated meeting and information points, and how to recognise the person that will be providing assistance.
### 3.3c On the train
Commits to assisting passengers on the train, irrespective of disability. This must briefly set out:
- what facilities are available on trains to help passengers, including aural and visual information, dedicated spaces for wheelchairs, how priority use of the wheelchair space for disabled people will be enforced, priority seats, how companions and family members travelling with the passenger will be seated, and toilets;
- any assistance that may be expected on board, and what steps the operator would take if passengers have additional requirements;
- any restrictions, including maximum dimensions for wheelchairs, scooters and other mobility aids; and
______________________________________________________________________
(^9) See: [http://www.nationalrail.co.uk/times_fares/46500.aspx](http://www.nationalrail.co.uk/times_fares/46500.aspx)
(^{10}) See: [http://www.nationalrail.co.uk/stations_destinations/44965.aspx](http://www.nationalrail.co.uk/stations_destinations/44965.aspx)
(^{11}) Operators must not require passengers to turn up more than 60 minutes in advance. • that when the train reaches its final destination, passengers will be assisted off within 5 minutes of arrival, where reasonably practicable.
3.3d If things do not go as planned
Commits to assisting passengers at time of disruption, delay or emergency and providing redress when assistance fails. This must briefly set out:
• what assistance will be provided when there is disruption, to include the provision of alternative accessible transport where appropriate;
• how passengers who have booked assistance in advance will be informed when there is disruption (which may include but must not be limited to via social media);
• how passengers will be informed at the station and on the train when there is disruption (this may include the use of social media or alerts via apps);
• what assistance the passenger should expect in case of emergency, and any action the passenger should take;
• what redress is available when assistance fails and how to claim it; and
• how passengers can inform the operator that something has gone wrong.
3.4 Where to get more information and how to get in touch (see section 4: A2, B5)
Sets out where further information may be obtained free of charge and how to get in touch with the operator. This must include:
• how to obtain the passenger leaflet in alternative formats;
• a very brief explanation of what the policy document is and how to obtain it (including in alternative formats);
• where to obtain stations and rolling stock accessibility information;
• who to contact on the day of travel with any queries or issues;
• contact centre opening hours and contact details (to include a dedicated text relay number and, where offered, how to get in touch via video relay);
• the National Freephone Passenger Assist and Textphone Free SMS Passenger Assist Forwarding Service contact numbers;
• how to provide feedback or make a complaint; this must set out that if the passenger is not happy with the way the complaint is dealt with, the passenger can contact the Rail Ombudsman (and provide the Rail Ombudsman’s contact details); • how to contact the operator via social media, including any Twitter accounts used for providing information to passengers; and
• how to contact the operator to get involved with its work with disabled people to improve accessibility. Section 4: Policy document
A. Commitments to providing assistance
In addition to commitments and information provided in the passenger leaflet, in its policy document each licensed operator must set out how it will provide assistance to disabled people as follows.
A1 Booking and providing assistance to passengers
A.1.1 Each licensed operator must set out its commitment to participate in a reservation system for disabled people whose journey begins at any of the stations at which that operator’s trains are scheduled to stop, and its commitment to improving the reliability of the service. The current system is Passenger Assist. To ensure consistency for passengers, operators must use the name Passenger Assist when referring to the system using any of the channels with which they communicate to passengers (see section A2.5 Websites).
A.1.2 Operators must also set out how they will deliver the following commitments:
a. provide sufficient resource to maintain Passenger Assist and improve performance;
b. From 1 April 2020 until 30 March 2021, permit passengers to book assistance through Passenger Assist until 10pm the day before travel. From 1 April 2021 not require passengers to give more than 6 hours’ notice when booking through Passenger Assist. From 1 April 2022, not require passengers to give more than 2 hours’ notice when booking through Passenger Assist. For international rail journeys, operators must not require passengers to give more than 48 hours’ notice when booking through Passenger Assist. Any reduction in the notice period below those set out above, due to a franchise commitment or for any other reason, must also be clearly communicated to passengers. Where an operator’s notice period is already shorter than the relevant minimum standard set out here, the operator is not obliged to revert to the minimum standard.
c. provide assistance, when booked in advance through Passenger Assist, at any station during the hours that trains are scheduled to serve that station, and ensuring that details of these times are available on the National Rail Enquiries website. When bookings are made via a contact centre and the journey involves a station with an accessibility classification A, B, or C (see Appendix B) the operator must ensure that relevant accessibility information on the National Rail Enquiries station web pages (see commitment k. below) is accessed and communicated to the passenger to ensure the journey can be completed; this must include providing the relevant information by post on request.
d. ensure that, where assistance has been arranged in advance, operators assist passengers off a train at its final destination as quickly as possible, and within a maximum of 5 minutes, wherever reasonably practicable; passengers booking such assistance must be informed of this as part of the booking process (e.g. in a booking confirmation).
e. where assistance is to be provided by station-based staff, in order that staff at the boarding station are able to ensure that the passenger will be met by a member of staff at the alighting station, operators must provide a dedicated telephone number and a member of staff responsible for receiving calls from staff, for every station that the operator manages; assistance staff must also follow the handover protocol where it applies. In meeting these requirements all operators must follow the passenger assistance handover protocol technical guidance set out at Appendix C; this technical guidance does not apply where ORR has agreed an alternative process or technology, with equivalent functionality and effectiveness, may be used by the operator.
f. provide assistance to disabled and older people who arrive at a station and require assistance to allow them to travel, but where assistance has not been arranged in advance, where reasonably practicable. Operators must provide clear and reasonable justification to passengers where assistance cannot be provided for any reason; where an operator may be considering a change to train or station staffing levels, they must have clear measures in place to ensure that passengers who have not booked assistance in advance can still receive it in a safe manner. Within the context of the facilities available at stations, they must submit to the ORR an assessment of where passengers are most at risk of not being able to receive the required assistance, and of the plans to mitigate this risk.
g. make ramps that are fit for purpose, available at all staffed stations (either at the station or on board the train) to facilitate the boarding or alighting of the train by disabled people, whether assistance has been booked in advance or not; in cases where assistance to board or alight from a train at an unstaffed station using a ramp has been booked, the operator must ensure that they make a member of staff with a ramp available to deliver the assistance.
h. when a passenger wishes to book assistance through Passenger Assist in advance to board from or alight to a part-staffed or unstaffed station, operators must consider the needs of the passenger and their intended journey; this must include consideration of the staffing levels on the train and at the station, the level of accessibility of the station to the passenger and the type of assistance being requested. The ORR will require from new licence holders an assessment of where passengers are most at risk of not being able to receive the required assistance, and their plans to mitigate this risk. The ORR will not approve an Accessible Travel Policy that describes an inflexible policy of only providing alternative accessible transport to an unstaffed but otherwise accessible station, without first considering other options; operators may wish to use on-board staff,
______________________________________________________________________
12 Noting the duty of operators under the Equality Act 2010 to make reasonable adjustments station staff or mobile staff - where such working practices are routinely operated or can be accommodated - to provide the assistance required.
i. work with other train and station operators, to agreed and established processes, to ensure that, where a disabled passenger’s journey involves changes or connections with other operators’ services, assistance can be arranged through Passenger Assist through a single point of contact. This must ensure that the booking allows the passenger sufficient time to make their connections. Where reasonably practicable, assistance must be provided when trains are re-platformed at short notice and where aural and visual announcements are made at short notice. This may include sighted guidance for visually impaired people, for example.
j. make clear in their policy what assistance their staff can and cannot provide disabled passengers in connecting to other services operating from the station, such as light rail, buses and taxis. This policy may include providing assistance to a taxi rank or bus stop that lies outside the station boundary. Where access by Private Hire Vehicles to stations is regulated under contract with the station operator, the terms of the contract must include, from the earliest opportunity, the requirement for the taxi operator to provide wheelchair-accessible vehicles and a reasonable number of drivers trained in disability awareness. Operators must make clear whether such arrangements are in place at any of their stations.13
k. ensure information on the National Rail Enquiries station pages is up to date and accurate, with the following fields populated for every station they operate:
- Step-free access note
- Assisted Travel
- Staff help available
The step-free access note field must be filled out as follows, using the station categories set out in Appendix B:
- For stations in category A, the text must read: "This station has step-free access to all platforms / the platform".
- For stations in category B, the text description must explain the access conditions. Where this varies by platform, operators must provide platform number and train direction where possible. Where platforms do not have step-free access operators must include the phrase: "There is no step-free access to Platform [X]".
- For stations in category C, the text must read: "This station does not have step-free access".
13 See section D1 of the Code of Practice Fields ii. and iii. **must** include:
- unambiguous information on the availability of station and on-train staff to provide assistance, detailing times and capability (e.g. whether only boarding/ alighting assistance or e.g. station navigation assistance), and whether available on a turn-up-and-go basis – and if not, what notice period is required;
- Platform-train ramp availability, including whether available on a turn-up-and-go basis, and confirming that this is always available with prior notice; and
- Information for passengers requiring assistance on arrival at station, indicating where to report to staff and/or other instructions such as use of Help Points or attracting attention of on-train staff on the platform.
Passengers who request assistance **must** be made aware of any limitations and/or temporary restrictions. This **must** include updating this information within 24 hours of notification of any changes; for instance, whenever any short-term or unplanned changes are likely to have significant impact on passengers’ ability to complete their journeys and this would not be captured by the weekly Knowledgebase update. This **may** include directly updating the Station Journey Planner by contacting the help desk, as appropriate.
Operators **must** state that the following are included in this commitment:
- where stations have a physical constraint that prevents some disabled people from using it;
- where significant temporary work that affects station accessibility is being carried out;
- where there are changes to stations that would make them temporarily inaccessible (e.g. when facilities such as lifts and toilets at stations are out of order);
- where facilities on trains that materially affect disabled passengers’ journeys are unavailable, including the use of inaccessible rolling stock on routes where stock is normally accessible, as far as this is reasonably practicable.[This bullet point does not apply to Network Rail]
l. consistent with the relevant sections of the National Rail Conditions of Travel, provide details of their policy for assisting disabled passengers with luggage, including the points between which operator’s staff are able to provide help. Where arranged in advance, operators **must** ensure that staff will be available to help. Operators **must** not charge disabled passengers for luggage assistance.
m. make every reasonable effort to ensure that disabled passengers can obtain a seat on a train, particularly where these are not reservable, and that wheelchair users are able to use wheelchair spaces\\textsuperscript{14}. This includes clearly stating their policy on reserving priority seats. This may also include operating a priority seating card scheme. Operators may also consider how companions and family members (with a particular focus on children when travelling with a parent who has booked assistance) can obtain a specific seat on the train close to the disabled passenger. Where assistance has been booked, but a specific seat or wheelchair space has not been reserved, this must be made clear to the passenger at the time of booking to avoid misunderstanding. [This paragraph does not apply to Network Rail]
n. consistent with the relevant sections of the National Rail Conditions of Travel, commit to the carriage of assistance dogs; where a seat or wheelchair space can be reserved, operators may consider how the assistance dog can also obtain sufficient space to lie down – in particular for longer journeys. [This paragraph does not apply to Network Rail].
A2 Passenger information and promotion of Assisted Travel
Information that is accessible, accurate, relevant, consistent, up-to-date and easy to understand helps provide passengers with assurance and confidence at every stage of their journey, including when journey planning prior to departure. This is particularly true where their journey involves a change of train or transfer to another mode of transport.
A2.1 Accessible Travel Policy documentation, provision and promotion
A2.1.1 The passenger leaflet [or Network Rail Station Guide] needs to be widely available so passengers understand what assistance is available and how to obtain it. Operators must set out how it will ensure that copies of this leaflet are:
- on display on leaflet racks and provided at ticket offices at all staffed stations called at by their services
- available online as a PDF that is accessible using screen readers or other software with accessibility features, such as Adobe Reader
- provided in alternative formats, including audio, on request within seven working days
- available on request via the operator’s website, phone and text relay
- available in prominent locations where public services are provided; this may include libraries, GP surgeries, job centres, Citizens Advice bureaux, hospitals, post offices etc. [This bullet point does not apply to Network Rail]
A2.1.2 Operators must also make their policy document (which may include alternative formats such as audio, British Sign Language video, Large Print,
\\textsuperscript{14} Noting the duty of operators under the Equality Act 2010 to make reasonable adjustments Easy Read, and PDF that actively considers the needs of blind and partially sighted people) available to passengers:
- online
- by request within seven working days; this must be without charge.
A2.1.3 Operators must ensure that at each station they operate there is a notice at a height that means it can be easily read by a wheelchair user setting out how to obtain the passenger leaflet and policy document.
A2.1.4 Operators calling at stations in Wales must provide their Accessible Travel Policy information in Welsh.
A2.2 Stations and rolling stock accessibility information
A2.2.2 Rolling stock and stations accessibility information must be kept up-to-date and made available to passengers:
- online, in a format that can easily be accessed using a personal mobile device; and
- in alternative formats, including print and audio, on request within seven working days.
This information may also be provided online as a PDF that is accessible using screen readers or other software with accessibility features, such as Adobe Reader.
The location of this information should be referenced in the policy document as per section A2.1.
A2.2.3 Operators must also give a commitment to providing information about the accessibility of facilities and services at stations and on their trains on the National Rail Enquiries website (see section A1 (i) for more information on the information that must be included). To ensure consistency of information for passengers and staff, the station accessibility classifications set out in Appendix B must be used when describing the extent to which a station is step-free.
A2.2.4 Operators must also set out how they will ensure staff at stations have access to up-to-date station accessibility information and are able to provide this information to passengers on request.
A2.2.5 Operators may choose to provide a ‘Step-free’ network map to help passengers understand which journeys are more accessible. If so, the station accessibility classifications set out in Appendix B must be used when describing the extent to which a station is step-free.
Rolling stock
[This section on rolling stock does not apply to Network Rail] A2.2.6 Operators **must** provide as part of their Accessible Travel Policy a separate document that gives an overview of the types of rolling stock [normally] used on their services, including information on the general accessibility of each type and details of the routes on which different types of rolling stock are normally scheduled to run. This **must** include information on whether and to what extent the following is provided on each rolling stock type:
- Wheelchair space
- Scooter / mobility aid acceptance
- Accessible toilet
- Standard toilet
- Boarding ramp
- Priority seating
- Aural information
- Visual information
- On-train staff to provide assistance
**Stations**
A2.2.7 Operators **must** also provide as part of their Accessible Travel Policy a separate document that gives details of services and facilities at all of the stations they manage and other stations called at by their services, including relevant stations operated by Network Rail.
As a minimum, this **must** include information on the following for each station:
- Staffing (indicating whether the station is staffed full-time, part-time or unstaffed).
- Step-free access (categorising all stations A-C in accordance with the definitions used in Appendix B)
- Designated disabled parking (indicating whether designated disabled parking bays are available at the station).
- Seating (indicating whether there is seating at the station that is compliant with the Joint Code of Practice, and details where this varies by platform) and heated waiting areas, indicating opening times and the level of accessibility.
- Toilets (indicating whether standard and/or accessible toilet facilities are available, their opening times and whether they are Radar Key controlled).
- Ticket sales facilities (indicating whether the station has ticket machines, smart ticketing readers, and ticket office counter(s)). • Passenger Assist meeting point (indicating whether the station has a designated Passenger Assist meeting point, with information as to where it is located).
• Customer information systems (indicating whether this includes visual, aural or both types of information system).
• Secure Station accreditation (indicating whether the station has Secure Station accreditation).
• Catering (indicating the range and type of facilities available).
A2.2.8 Operators are encouraged to define their understanding of these categories more clearly if appropriate. They may also wish to consider providing additional information that will be of use to disabled passengers, which might include:
• wheelchair availability; • ramp for train access; • induction loops; • accessible set-down and pick-up point; • automatic doors; and • platform-train stepping distance.
A2.3 Passenger journey information
A2.3.1 Many passengers who require assistance may only travel by rail infrequently; they may not know where or how to access important information. This may be particularly acute during times of disruption, diversion and delay. As follows, operators must set out how relevant information will be communicated accurately, clearly and consistently to passengers, including those with mental, intellectual or sensory impairments, at every stage of the passenger journey - whether at home, online, on the move, at the station or on the train.15
a. Train departures and arrivals information: this must include a commitment to providing, wherever possible, clear and consistent aural and visual information: both at the platform and on the approach to stations. On the train, station announcements must provide sufficient time for passengers requiring assistance to prepare to alight. [The requirement for on-train announcements does not apply to Network Rail]
b. Connections and wayfinding: this must include how the operator will work with local authorities to ensure that stations are clearly and consistently signposted, and may also include working with mobile application developers and others to ensure disabled passengers and those with reduced mobility
15 Section A1 of the Code of Practice also provides standards on guidance on pre-travel information are able to navigate easily and confidently around stations – including on arrival (by connecting train service, taxi, car, public transport, cycle, on foot or in a wheelchair, scooter or using another mobility aid) when locating the ticket office, toilet and other facilities, and when navigating to the correct platform; this must also include how information about the availability of onward accessible transport from the station, such as accessible taxis, will be communicated, both prior to their journey and at the station.
When a passenger is travelling with more than one operator, assistance information for the entire journey must be relayed by the operator initiating the journey to passengers booking through Passenger Assist.
c. Delays, diversions and disruption(^\\text{16}): where passengers have booked assistance in advance through Passenger Assist that, because of service disruption (which may include, but not be limited to, planned industrial action, engineering works or an emergency timetable), is no longer valid, operators must set out how they will contact passengers to inform them, provide them with information on the use of rail replacement services and discuss with them their individual needs and preferences in coming to alternative arrangements; this may include but must not be limited to the use of social media. Operators must also set out:
- for planned disruption, how they will inform passengers, including those with mental, sensory or intellectual impairments, in advance with appropriate, accurate and timely information about the accessibility of the rail replacement transport they will be providing for the affected service and the options available to the passenger to be able to make their journey;
- how they will inform passengers, including those with mental, intellectual or sensory impairments on board trains and at stations when there is disruption, a diversion or delay with no advance warning, whether assistance has been booked or not; this must include how clear aural and visual information will be provided to direct passengers to accessible substitute transport(^\\text{17});
- the mechanism to allow passengers to inform the operator when there is a problem, particularly at unstaffed stations but also on trains (such as an accessible toilet out of order); and when the level of accessibility of facilities at a station or on a train is less than that normally provided (e.g. as a result of the breakdown, alteration or removal of facilities) how details of the change to station or rolling stock accessibility, including a timescale for the expected return to the normal level of accessibility at the station, will be
(^{16}) N.B. Condition 4 of the passenger train operator’s licence requires train operators to provide appropriate, accurate and timely information to enable passengers and prospective passengers to plan and make their journeys with a reasonable degree of assurance, including when there is disruption.
(^{17}) Noting the duty of operators under the Equality Act 2010 to provide reasonable adjustments publicised. This may include providing notices on websites, appropriate signage at the station and on the route, as necessary, and ensuring that staff are kept informed. In particular operators must consider how, where reasonably practicable, passengers will be informed when an accessible toilet is out of order, providing sufficient time for alternative travel options to be considered as required. [The references to train facilities and rolling stock accessibility information do not apply to Network Rail]
A2.4 Information points, help points and contact centres
A2.4.1 Passengers who require assistance must be able to get all the information they need at a station from a single source.
A2.4.2 Operators must set out how they will provide the following clearly-marked information points at all ‘larger’ stations(^\\text{18}), which:
a. are designed and equipped to make it easy for disabled people to use, with timetables, posters, information leaflets and other materials placed so that both wheelchair users and standing passengers (who may be unable to stoop) can use them, wherever possible; it may be necessary in some circumstances to provide some or all of these at different heights to ensure that they can be accessed by everyone, where this is feasible
b. are open whenever the booking office is open
c. are clearly signposted and locating them in an obvious position close to, or on, the concourse
d. have available up-to-date information on:
- the facilities, services and accessibility of all the stations at which it calls
- timetables
- fares
- connections
- delays, disruption, diversions and emergencies
- confirmation of any help arrangements that have been made through Passenger Assist, including bookings by other operators
- the services and facilities provided by other operators calling at the station, as well as the accessibility of other transport available near the station. If staff are unable to provide information on the services and facilities of
(^{18}) Larger stations are defined here as Network Rail category A, B and C stations; largest are defined here as Network Rail category A stations other operators, or the accessibility of other transport, they must be able to direct passengers to where such information can be found.
A2.4.3 Booking offices themselves may be used as information points if suitably marked and equipped.
A2.4.4 Operators must provide clearly marked designated meeting points at stations for use by people that have booked assistance to meet staff. Operators may also consider using dedicated staff to provide assistance at the ‘largest’ stations.
A2.4.5 Operators must set out how they will ensure that, where reasonably practicable, at every station it is clearly indicated at a height that means it can be easily read by a wheelchair user how passengers are able to speak to a human operator who is able to provide assistance and service information: this may be in person, via a help point or, where there is sufficient mobile phone coverage, a Freephone number. Service information available at the station must be obtainable via these channels. At unstaffed stations, easily accessible information must be provided regarding the nearest staffed station.
A2.4.6 Operators must state their commitment to ensuring that all telephone services include providing a text relay number; they may also provide a video relay service.
A2.5 Websites
A2.5.1 Operators must commit to working towards achieving the industry-recognised WCAG standards. Where relevant, operators must highlight the accessibility of their website and provide information on how the website will work with screen readers, magnifiers, voice over software and in-browser accessibility functions.
A2.5.2 To help achieve consistency for passengers, operators must use the term Passenger Assist when referring to assistance booking services and must include an Assisted Travel icon or hyperlink on their homepage that displays that information. Operators must provide a source of relevant information on Assisted Travel on one page, which must include:
a. a summary of Passenger Assist and its services in a clear and concise manner, using plain English and avoiding the use of industry jargon;
b. the necessary contact information and provisions for passengers to book assistance (including details of the National Freephone Passenger Assist line and Textphone Free SMS Passenger Assist Forwarding Service) and purchase a ticket to travel (including details of any national discounts available to disabled passengers or persons with reduced mobility);
______________________________________________________________________
19 As required by EC1371/2007 20 Defined as Network Rail Category A stations. c. links to or expandable sections providing information of on-board facilities and station information, including accessibility information, staff availability, contact centre opening hours, disabled parking spaces.
d. links to or expandable sections providing information relating to any temporary reductions in accessibility and details of any delays and disruptions to facilities and services where relevant;
e. links to or expandable sections providing information to advise passengers of any restrictions on the use of wheelchairs, power chairs, scooters and other mobility aids and (where applicable) how to obtain a scooter card, assistance card or priority card;
f. a link to enable passengers to access the passenger document and details of how to obtain it in an accessible formats; and
g. instructions for passengers on how they can provide feedback or make a complaint, and include details on the availability of redress for when assistance has not been delivered as booked.
A2.5.3 Where information is located elsewhere, operators must provide a hyperlink to it on the Assisted Travel page.
A3 Ticketing
A.3.1 Operators must set out how they will ensure that, where disabled passengers are unable to buy a ticket at a station before their journey, they are able to buy a ticket without penalty on the train or at their destination. [This paragraph does not apply to Network Rail]
A.3.2 Operators must ensure that:
a. where automatic ticket machines are provided at stations, they have the facility to issue tickets at the reduced rate to holders of a Disabled Persons Railcard and to the holder’s companion; and
b. where a station has automatic ticket gates or manual gates, where these are unstaffed, or staff are not in attendance, they must be locked open.
A3.3 Where advance tickets are available for purchase (via any of the available channels, including online, at the ticket office or via telecommunications), the operator must ensure that disabled passengers are unable to purchase, or warned against purchasing, tickets they cannot make use of on the operator’s services e.g. due to the accessibility of rolling stock (e.g. when purchasing first class tickets, passengers should be warned if there is no wheelchair space in first class). [This paragraph does not apply to Network Rail]
A3.4 Operators may also consider, when reasonably practicable to do so, updating the ticket booking section of their website and, where necessary, their contact centre call handling procedures, so that when passengers indicate they have a
______________________________________________________________________
21 See section N3 of the Design Standards for Accessible Stations: A Joint Code of Practice. Disabled Persons Railcard during ticket purchase they are asked whether they require assistance with any aspect of their journey. [This paragraph does not apply to Network Rail]
A3.5 Standards and guidance on ticket sales points are provided in section N2 of the Joint Code of Practice.
A4 Rail replacement services and alternative accessible transport
[Section A4 does not apply to Network Rail]
A4.1 Operators must ensure that passengers who require assistance are able to make as much of their journey by rail as possible. However, there are circumstances under which substitute transport is provided to replace rail.
A4.2 The Public Service Vehicle Accessibility Regulations (PSVAR) require that public service vehicles (PSVs) must either be compliant with the (PSVAR), or be operated under special authorisation pursuant to s.178 of the Equality Act 2010.22
A4.3 Operators must take appropriate steps to procure, through explicit requirements in tenders for contracts with vehicle suppliers, the use of accessible PSVs that are compliant with PSVAR and alternative accessible vehicles for use where, for whatever reason, substitute transport is provided to replace rail (e.g. because of planned engineering works, industrial action or a replacement timetable).
A4.4 Such contracts must be reviewed annually to consider any changes in the availability of accessible vehicles.
A4.5 At least 12 weeks before all major planned engineering works23, operators must take appropriate steps to:
a. assess the requirement for accessible PSVs that are compliant with PSVAR and alternative accessible vehicles for use as substitute transport; and
b. where necessary, procure the use of such vehicles.
A4.6 There are additional circumstances under which alternative accessible transport must be offered instead of rail. Operators must consider the assistance requirements of the passengers, the relative journey times involved, the
______________________________________________________________________
22 N.B. ORR has published legal advice on the applicability of PSVAR when PSVs are used as substitute transport for rail on its website: https://orr.gov.uk/\_\_data/assets/pdf_file/0003/42483/accessible-travel-policy-rail-replacement-services-final-legal-advice-2020-02-06.pdf Compliance with and enforcement of PSVAR is a matter for DVSA.
23 By this, we refer to engineering works planned under rules set out in Part D of the Network Code which confirms the timetable 12 weeks in advance: https://www.networkrail.co.uk/industry-and-commercial/information-for-operators/network-code/ accessibility of the rolling stock and stations that may be used and the planned staffing levels on board the train and at the station, including the potential for the flexible deployment of staff to the station, in order to ensure that the full range of options can be considered. Operators must, where reasonably practicable, offer an option that most resembles the service provided to passengers not requiring assistance and, during all major planned engineering works, ensure waiting times for alternative accessible transport are similar to those for PSVs.
A4.7 For the circumstances under which alternative accessible transport is offered, operators must therefore set out how they will provide, without extra charge, an appropriate alternative accessible service to take disabled passengers to the nearest or most convenient accessible station from where they can continue their journey. In setting this out, operators will have regard to the anticipatory nature of the duty to provide reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act 2010. These circumstances are:
a. where a disabled passenger or passenger with reduced mobility is unable to travel from a station because the station is inaccessible to them (e.g. because of a physical constraint);
b. where a disabled passenger or passenger with reduced mobility is unable to travel from a station because the rolling stock is inaccessible to them (e.g. because of a physical constraint);
c. where, for whatever reason, substitute transport that is inaccessible to disabled passengers is provided to replace rail (e.g. because of planned engineering works, industrial action or a replacement timetable); where there is disruption to services at short notice that, for whatever reason, makes services inaccessible to disabled passengers.
A4.8 Standards and guidance on the provision of substitute transport (both pre-planned and emergency) are provided in section B1 of the Joint Code of Practice.24
A4.9 For transparency, operators may indicate what alternative accessible transport is usually provided - noting that, when providing taxis for disabled people, this will not always require an ‘accessible’ taxi. The need for ‘accessible’ taxis will depend on the specific needs of the individual passenger, which should be discussed with the passenger before taxis are arranged.
A5 Mobility scooters and mobility aids
[Section A5 does not apply to Network Rail]
24 See Section 248 of Transport Act 2000 A5.1 Operators must set out their policy regarding the carriage of mobility scooters and other mobility aids for mobility-impaired people on their trains. Operators must make the reasoning behind their policy clear, particularly with regard to any policy excluding the carriage of some or all mobility scooters and mobility aids. Any exclusion must only be as a result of an evidenced safety or physical restriction on carriage of scooters and other mobility aids.
A5.2 Operators may offer a scooter card scheme which allows passengers to apply for a permit for the carriage of their scooter based on its dimensions and other relevant information reasonably requested by the operator. Rejection of an application must be explained.
A5.3 Where operators do carry scooters on trains, operators must clearly set out whether passengers are required to transfer to a seat, rather than remain seated on their scooter while on board the train – and ensure passengers are informed.
A6 Delays, disruption to facilities and services, and emergencies
A6.1 Disruption to facilities and services can have a significant impact on both the accessibility of rail services to persons with reduced mobility and the confidence of disabled people and other passengers with reduced mobility in travelling on the railway. Where disruption does occur, operators must do everything possible to ensure that, wherever possible, passengers are able to continue their journey and are not left stranded.
A6.2 Operators must provide details of relevant policies and operational arrangements for meeting the needs of disabled passengers when dealing with the breakdown of facilities and services that can affect access to passenger trains and stations.
A6.3 This must include details of the operator’s policy with regard to assisting disabled people in making connections when trains are re-platformed at short notice, as well as information on policies and procedures relating to the provision of accessible substitute transport. Where substitute transport is inaccessible to some disabled people, alternative arrangements must be made, as set out at A4.
A6.4 Where passengers have booked assistance in advance through Passenger Assist that, because of service disruption, is no longer valid, operators must set out how they will contact those passengers to provide information on the use of rail replacement services, discuss the individual needs and preferences of the passenger and make appropriate alternative arrangements (such as re-booking assistance). Operators must also provide details of arrangements for assisting disabled people when disruption occurs with no advance warning.
A6.5 Operators must set how they will make reasonable efforts to provide, wherever possible, reasonable replacement facilities that are accessible when the level of accessibility of facilities at a station is less than that normally provided (e.g. as a result of the breakdown, alteration or removal of facilities). Guidance on provision of information during disruption is set out in section A2.3.
A6.6 Operators must also set out how they will ensure assistance is provided to disabled people at stations and on trains in the event of an emergency, including any relevant training given to staff.
A6.7 Operators are not expected to provide details about their plans for dealing with a range of specific emergencies.
A7 Station facilities
A7.1 Left Luggage
Operators must set out, where left luggage facilities are available to passengers, how these will be available to persons with reduced mobility, including wheelchair users. This requires lockers of different sizes to be provided at various heights to suit the range of passengers who may wish to use them. Lockers must also have a mechanism that can be easily used by people with a visual impairment and/or limited strength or manual dexterity.
A7.2 Disabled Parking
Passengers who require assistance to travel by rail should be able to travel to the station by private car and park with confidence. When the provision is not compliant with section C of the Joint Code of Practice, operators must set out how they will ensure there are sufficient designated disabled parking bays within the station lease area, including those operated by contractors, and that these are only used by motorists who hold disabled parking badges.
A7.3 Third party provided facilities
Operators must set out what actions they will take to ensure that services and facilities provided by third parties are as accessible as possible. Such actions may include ensuring that services and facilities provided by third parties are not located where they will cause an obstruction or, where operators have a contract with a third-party service provider, making accessibility a requirement of their contract. While it is recognised that third-party service providers have their own responsibilities under the Equality Act 2010, operators must make every effort to ensure that any services and facilities provided by others at their stations are accessible to disabled passengers and those with reduced mobility.
A7.4 Replacement facilities
Operators must commit to making reasonable efforts to provide, wherever possible, reasonable replacement facilities that are accessible when the level of
______________________________________________________________________
25 Noting the duty of operators under the Equality Act 2010 to provide reasonable adjustments accessibility of facilities at a station is less than that normally provided (e.g. as a result of the breakdown, alteration or removal of facilities).
A7.5 Station entrances
A7.5.1 Operators must give a commitment that they will not permanently close station entrances or gates if this will lead to a reduction in accessibility for disabled passengers to any platform or facility at that station, unless operators have first consulted with the DfT (or Transport Scotland in Scotland), Transport Focus (and London TravelWatch, where appropriate) and local access groups, and the changes to access have been approved by the DfT (or Transport Scotland in Scotland).
A7.5.2 Operators must consider the needs of disabled people when restricting or temporarily closing access points at stations. Section F2 of the Joint Code of Practice sets out mandatory standards regarding unobstructed progress during building works.
A7.5.3 For any permanent closure of an entrance or gate, an application for a minor modification determination would need to be made to the DfT under sections 34 and 35 of the Railways Act 2005. The DfT has issued an operational guidance note on minor modifications that is available to view on its website.26
A8 Redress
A8.1 When assistance has been booked but has not been provided as confirmed by the operator, due to a failure of the assistance service, the operator must provide appropriate redress to a passenger that has submitted a claim. The form and, where appropriate, value of this redress may be determined on a case-by-case basis to allow operators to consider the circumstances of the case. The operator must explain to the passenger in its response why the assistance was not provided, and what steps have been taken to ensure the failure does not reoccur. Operators must set out an overview of the claim process, which must be simple, straightforward and clear, and commit to promoting this to passengers, including on their website, via social media and in their passenger leaflet.
A8.2 A claim for redress about a specific assistance failure must be owned by the operator of the train the passenger was travelling on, or due to travel on, when the failure took place.
A8.3 A passenger must not have to submit a claim for redress to more than one operator. In cases of multiple assistance failure with a number of operators during a single multi-leg journey, the receiving operator must coordinate a single response on behalf of all of the operators involved. Sometimes this may not be sensible if the bulk of the assistance which was booked failed to be provided by another operator on whose train the passenger was travelling, or due to travel,
26 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/minor-modifications-operational-guidance-note when the failure took place. In this instance, it may be in the best interest of the claimant to receive a response directly from the operator primarily responsible. In this case the receiving operator may make arrangements to have the claim passed to the more appropriate operator. The operator must inform the claimant and obtain their consent when their claim is transferred to another operator.
A8.4 Nothing in this section is intended to diminish or remove the obligations that operators have to passengers under relevant legislation, including the Consumer Rights Act 2015, the Rail Passengers Rights and Obligations Regulations or the Equality Act 2010. 27
27 via the Equality Advice and Support Service B Strategy and Management
In addition to the commitments to providing assistance to passengers, set out in section 4, operators must also set out how they are:
embedding the provision of services to disabled people within their business and project planning
• continuing to improve access to the railways for disabled people and those with reduced mobility
• ensuring their staff have the resources, skills and confidence to deliver assistance to passengers; and
• measuring the success of their Accessible Travel Policies.
The following sections must be included:
B1 Strategy
B1.1 Operators must include in their policy document details of their strategy regarding accessibility. This must include a commitment to the continuous improvement of services and facilities for disabled people, details of the operator’s strategy for the implementation of plans and policies for improving access and services in the coming year, as well as any other information about how operators take the needs of disabled people into account as part of their day-to-day operations and longer-term planning. Operators must also include information on any relevant franchise commitments and investment plans.
B2 Management arrangements
B2.1 The provision of services to disabled people is an integral part of planning and delivering rail services. In order to demonstrate this, operators must allocate overall responsibility for the Accessible Travel Policy to a director of the licence holder’s company and should provide details of the following:
a. how their Accessible Travel Policy is integrated into both business and project planning, and how the needs of disabled people are taken into account;
b. the senior management reporting arrangements that are in place for the implementation of their Accessible Travel Policy;
c. how managers and staff are made aware of their responsibilities to disabled passengers;
d. what systems are in place to ensure that services and facilities for disabled passengers are provided according to the operator’s Accessible Travel Policy and the Joint Code of Practice; e. whether systems are in place for assessing the return on investment of improvements for disabled passengers.
B3 Monitoring and evaluation
B3.1 The monitoring and evaluation of performance in delivering services and facilities to disabled passengers, and acting upon the results, are crucial in ensuring that the standards of service committed to in Accessible Travel Policies are being met, as well as delivering on the commitment to continuous improvement.
B3.2 Operators therefore must monitor and evaluate their performance in meeting the standards and commitments in their Accessible Travel Policy. They must set out in their Accessible Travel Policies what mechanisms they have in place to monitor and evaluate performance, which should include the use of measurable criteria where appropriate. Where operators have a commitment in their franchise agreement to monitor and evaluate performance in providing booked assistance, they must include details of the processes in place for doing so.
B3.3 Operators must identify and set out in their Accessible Travel Policy the range of information that they use to monitor and evaluate performance. It is expected that this will largely depend on sources of data that are already available and be integrated with operators’ existing arrangements for performance management, although operators are encouraged to seek more information where this would be helpful.
B3.4 Operators must provide us with performance data to demonstrate they are complying with their obligations to passengers in relation to Accessible Travel Policies. This allows us to monitor operators' progress in these areas over time and improves transparency and accountability for passengers. Core data reporting requirements are set out in the ‘Reference guide for ORR Core Data compliance reporting’.
B3.5 As part of annual reviews, operators must provide the ORR with details of any key actions they have identified to improve performance.
B4 Access improvements
B4.1 Operators must state their commitment to comply with PRM-TSI and the Joint Code of Practice when installing or refurbishing rolling stock and facilities at stations. This must include a commitment to applying for derogations against the PRM-TSI and/or dispensations against the Joint Code of Practice when necessary, after every effort has been made to comply with the relevant requirements.
28 https://orr.gov.uk/statistics/published-stats/core-data B4.2 Operators **must** provide details about any specific access improvement schemes, including any relevant franchise commitments and investment plans. This **may** include:
a. identifying relevant schemes delivered since the last review (or, in the case of an initial Accessible Travel Policy, delivered in the previous twelve months);
b. reporting on the progress of ongoing schemes currently being delivered by the operator, including estimated timescales for delivery/completion;
c. providing information on the progress of key ongoing schemes being delivered by other parties, including estimated timescales for delivery/completion where possible;
d. details of any firm plans for future access improvements, including information about any priorities for future improvements that have been identified;
e. details of any plans for other station or rolling stock works, how accessibility improvements are being incorporated and how the needs of disabled people have been taken into account. This includes identifying where stations and rolling stock are being brought into line with the Joint Code of Practice and the PRM-TSI.
B4.3 When providing details on the above, operators **may** be pragmatic in deciding what information, to what level of detail, should be included. Operators **may** wish to make it clear, if necessary, that information (for example on timescales for delivery of schemes) is estimated and/or subject to change.
B5 Working with disabled passengers, local communities and local authorities
B5.1 As set out in section B2.2, it is vital that Accessible Travel Policies are developed with the input of disabled passengers themselves. Operators **must** operate a regular forum of disabled passengers, to include users of assisted travel, with whom they consult on accessibility issues, such as options for and prioritisation of access improvements, raising awareness of assisted travel and developing new initiatives under the Accessible Travel Policy.
B5.2 Operators **must** actively promote the availability of assisted travel, with a particular focus on the passenger leaflet. As well as ensuring that this leaflet is available at staffed stations, in prominent locations where public services are provided, and online, as required by paragraph A2.1.1, additional promotion of the assisted travel service **may** include, for example, advertising at stations, on train services and via social media. Operators **must** work with local authorities, local service providers and local or regional access groups and charities to promote the benefits of assisted travel; this **may** include using online forums to test ideas, producing and providing video testimony of positive experiences, and offering accompanied journeys to prospective users. This may also include taking part in schemes that help passengers with non-visible disabilities, such as cognitive and intellectual impairments, more easily travel by rail.
B5.3 Operators must provide an annual report to ORR on the activity and outputs of their work with disabled passengers, local communities and local authorities as set out in this section (see section CB2).
B5.4 Operators may also provide in their policy document (as an appendix if preferred) a list of key organisations (including, for example, any partnerships, local authorities and local access groups) that they consult with about accessibility issues.
B6 Staff training
B6.1 Operators must make the following commitments in their Accessible Travel Policy in relation to staff training, setting out a plan for how these commitments will be delivered:
a. By 31st July 2021 all new staff, including senior and key managers, must as part of their induction, receive relevant disability awareness training or disability equality training in a predominantly classroom-based setting that delivers mandatory training outcomes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 as set out in Appendix D.
b. In addition, by 31st July 2021, all frontline staff that interact directly with passengers at any time as part of their duties must, as part of their induction, receive training that delivers mandatory training outcomes 7, 8 and 9 as set out in Appendix D.
c. In order to achieve consistency of approach across operators for the benefit of passengers, operators must be able to demonstrate by 31st July 2021 that all current frontline staff have met the mandatory training outcomes set out in Appendix D; the extent to which this will require staff to receive refresher training by 31st July 2021 may take into account factors such as the scope and content of previous training packages, staff responsibilities, and existing training commitments.
d. Staff must receive refresher training within 2 years of receipt of disability awareness or disability equality training, and as a minimum every 2 years thereafter; the exact scope and format of this training will be for operators to determine, but operators will be expected to demonstrate on an ongoing basis that staff are able to deliver the mandatory training outcomes described above.
e. By 31st July 2021, operators must make reasonable efforts to ensure the lived experience and expertise of people with a range of disabilities is utilised in disability awareness or disability equality training course development and delivery. In particular:
- **Staff must** hear from disabled people about their lived experience of using the railway and be provided a safe space to explore the issues raised;
- **Course content and material must** be developed in consultation with disabled people.
f. By 31st July 2021, where reasonably practicable, agency staff and staff contracted on a temporary basis that interact directly with passengers at any time **must** receive a condensed version of the disability awareness training or disability equality training, to deliver as a minimum mandatory training outcomes 6 (Passenger Assist), 7 (Communication) and 9 (Providing safe assistance) as set out in Appendix D.
g. Where reasonably practicable, anyone employed at a contact centre who provides information or advice directly to passengers on behalf of the operator, whether directly employed by the operator or not, **must** receive a condensed version of the disability awareness training or disability equality training to deliver as a minimum mandatory training outcomes 6 (Passenger Assist) and 7 (Communication).
B6.2 By 31st July 2020, operators **must** provide a report to ORR setting out progress against delivery of these commitments.
B6.3 Operators **must** also set out what appropriate training drivers of rail replacement bus services and taxis receive to ensure they are able to provide assistance to rail passengers. Where it is not reasonably practicable for this training to be provided, the operator **must** provide an explanation.
B6.4 Operators **must** confirm to ORR at the time of submitting their Accessible Travel Policy for review that all statistics, legislation and language used in training are up to date.
B6.5 Until 31st July 2021 operators **must** continue to ensure that, as a minimum:
a. Frontline staff who may, at any time, need to assist passengers receive appropriate training in the use of equipment provided to assist people with disabilities, such as ramps, wheelchairs and induction loops.
b. Any staff who may, at any time, deal directly with passengers receive appropriate training to help them communicate with people with different disabilities.
c. Any staff who answer telephones are trained in communicating clearly with people who may have difficulty speaking, hearing or understanding.
______________________________________________________________________
29 Noting the duty of operators under the Equality Act 2010 to make reasonable adjustments
## Appendix A: Glossary
| Term | Definition | |-----------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Accessible Travel Policy | The policy all train and station operators must provide in accordance with their passenger and station licences. | | Consumer Rights Act 2015 | Legislation which provides passengers with a route to redress, or a refund, should an operator fail to provide a particular service. | | Disabled Person’s Railcard | The Disabled Person’s Railcard provides a discount on rail tickets for people with a disability that makes travelling by train difficult. It is administered by the RDG on behalf of train operators. | | Design Standards for Accessible Railway Stations: A Joint Code of Practice | Published by the Department for Transport and Transport Scotland. Sets out European and national standards to be complied with when carrying out rail infrastructure improvements at stations, alongside good practice. | | EC Rail Passenger Rights & Obligations (1371/2007) | A set of rules established by the European Commission to better protect train travellers in case of delays, cancellations or discrimination. | | Equality Act 2010 | The Act brings together nine main pieces of legislation to protect individuals from unfair treatment and promotes a fair and more equal society. | | Human Rights Act 1998 | The Act sets out the fundamental rights and freedoms that everyone in the UK is entitled to. It incorporates the rights set out in the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) into domestic British law. | | Knowledgebase | The name given to the engine that contains all the textual content provided on the National Rail Enquiries website. It holds a range of rich supplementary information, both static and real-time, about travelling by train on the GB rail network. | | National Rail Conditions of Travel | Defines the agreement that comes into effect between passengers and the Train Companies that provide rail services on the National Rail network when a rail ticket is purchased. | | **National Rail Enquiries** | A public information provider from RDG offering advice on timetables, fares and other rail queries. | |---------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | **ORR** | Office of Rail and Road: the economic regulator of Britain’s mainline railway and health and safety regulator on all Britain’s railways. It also monitors England’s Strategic Highways network | | **Passenger Assist** | The booking system that enables passengers to book assistance to travel by rail. | | **PRM-TSI** | Persons with Reduced Mobility Technical Specification for Interoperability. The PRM-TSI applies to all trains used on the interoperable rail system, which comprises the major lines of all Network Rail infrastructure. It sets standards for accessible trains, stations and other facilities. | | **Rail Ombudsman** | An independent, not-for-profit organisation that offers a free, expert service to help sort out unresolved customer complaints about service providers within the rail industry. | | **Rail Vehicles Accessibility Regulations 2010 (RVAR)** | Set out the accessibility standards to which new non-mainline (and older rail vehicles as and when they are refurbished) must comply. | | **Railways Act 1993** | An Act to provide for the appointment and functions of a Rail Regulator and a Director of Passenger Rail Franchising. | | **Railways (Interoperability) Regulations 2011** | Establish common operational standards and practices across European railways. | | **RDG** | Rail Delivery Group: Brings together the owners of Britain’s Train Operating Companies, Freight Operating Companies and Network Rail. | | **RSSB** | Railway Safety and Standards Board: an independent, industry-wide body established under the licences of Network Rail and the passenger and freight train operators | | **Train Operators** | The companies that operate passenger rail service on the GB rail network. | | **WCAG Guidelines** | Web Content Accessibility Guidelines: Set out how to make Web content more accessible to people with disabilities. | Appendix B: Station accessibility classification system
Every station must be allocated by operators to one of three categories A-C and described in public facing information provided by the operator (including station maps, timetables and posters, and the station accessibility information provided alongside the Accessible Travel Policy as described in Section 4, A2.2 of this guidance) as follows:
**Category A:** "This station has step-free access to all platforms / the platform"
**Category B:** "This station has a degree of step-free access to the platform, which may be in both directions or in one direction only - please check details."
**Category C:** "This station does not have step-free access to any platform."
Operators must apply the following definitions to determine which of these three categories a station will be allocated to:
**Category A**
The station has step-free access to and between all platforms, at all times trains are running, via level access, lifts or ramps (in accordance with new-build standards re gradient/length). Additional station entrances or walking routes not meeting the A criteria are permitted, providing the additional walking distance to avoid these is no more than 100m.
**Category B**
The station does not meet category A, but has step-free access to either all platforms or at least one platform. In some cases, the station may be usable for some disabled and older people, but in others major barriers may exist which are likely to restrict the ability of some disabled or older people to use the station. This may include long or steep ramps, access between platforms that may be via the street, and there may not be step-free access to or between all station areas.
**Category C**
The station has no step-free access to any platform.
In its station accessibility information provided alongside the Accessible Travel Policy as described in Section 4, A2.2 of this guidance, an operator may – for the benefit of passengers and staff that require further detailed information – choose to further classify stations in category B according to the following definitions, using the text in bold to describe the level of step-free access: B1. “Step-free access to all platforms - may include long or steep ramps. Access between platforms may be via the street.”
This station does not meet the A criteria, but has step-free access (to all platforms) likely to be usable by many people with reduced mobility. Access may be via ramps, up to 1:10 gradient (any length). Short end-of-platform ramps may be up to 1:7. Access between platforms may be via the street, no more than 400m. Access via level crossings is permitted (if full barrier). Access routes may be via car parks, or short access roads without pavements, but otherwise routes via the street must include a pavement. Additional entrances/ walking routes not meeting the A1 or A2 criteria are permitted, providing the additional walking distance to avoid these is no more than 400m.
B2. "Some step-free access to all platforms - please check details"
This station has step-free access to all platforms, but major barriers exist which are likely to restrict the ability of some people to use the station. Step-free routes do not meet the A or B1 criteria (e.g. long ramps steeper than 1:10, or the step-free route between platforms is greater than 400m). Any station with an ungated or half-barrier level crossing between platforms is in B2 or lower. Any station where step-free access is only available at certain times, or only to certain passengers, is in B2 or lower (e.g. because lifts are unavailable when the station is unstaffed) for example, if the step-free entrance opening times depend on staff presence at the station.
B3. "Some step-free access, may be in one direction only - please check details"
This station has step-free access to fewer than the total number of platforms Appendix C: Passenger assistance handover protocol technical guidance
The following technical requirements must be adhered to when implementing the passenger assistance handover protocol.
This technical guidance does not apply where ORR has agreed an alternative process or technology, with equivalent functionality and effectiveness, may be used by the Operator.
1. Dedicated assistance telephone number for each station; a) All stations must have a dedicated assistance number for receiving calls relating to assistance provision. b) The station’s dedicated assistance telephone number may be made available to the public or can be for operational use only. c) The dedicated assistance telephone number for a station must be made widely available to any station or on-train staff who interact with the station for assistance purposes e.g. by ensuring the number is available and accurate in relevant industry systems. d) The telephone line used for the dedicated assistance line must be capable of logging when calls are received to enable the Operator to audit communication as required e.g. can log when calls were received with precise times and dates. e) By exception, in the event no one is available to answer calls made to the dedicated assistance telephone number, the assistance number must either be: (i) temporarily diverted elsewhere or; (ii) have a recorded message in place explaining the assistance arrangements for that station at that time.
2. Responsible Person for assistance-related communications for every station; a) An operator must ensure there is a rostered Responsible Person for each of its managed stations during hours when services are operating at the station.
______________________________________________________________________
30 The dedicated assistance number can also be used for purposes other than assistance-related communication.
31 For stations that are always unstaffed, Operators are permitted to use the same dedicated assistance telephone number for more than one station. Staffed or partially staffed stations must have their own unique dedicated assistance number.
32 During periods when a station is unstaffed, Operators are permitted to use the same Responsible Person for more than one station. b) During periods when stations are **staffed** the Responsible Person for the station **must** be on-site. During periods when the station is **unstaffed** the Responsible Person **may** be in a remote location(^{33}).
c) The Responsible Person **must** have responsibility for ensuring calls to the dedicated assistance number are answered during times when trains are operating at that station. This means the Responsible Person **may**: answer calls to the dedicated assistance number themselves; delegate responsibility for this function to a colleague at that station(^{34}); or by exception invoke the arrangements in 1e).
d) The Responsible Person **may** or may not have direct responsibility for the **delivery** of assistance at the station.
3. **Handover protocol for the communication of assistance information between stations**;
a) The handover protocol (see figure 1 overleaf) applies where assistance is to be provided by station-based(^{35}) staff at the passenger’s alighting station(^{36}).
b) Where the handover protocol applies, it **must** be followed by station-based assistance staff at the passenger’s boarding station, with the information pertinent to the passenger’s assistance ‘scenario’ communicated to the passenger’s alighting station.
c) The handover protocol information **must** be communicated to the alighting station by calling its dedicated assistance telephone number.
______________________________________________________________________
(^{33}) The same individual who is the Responsible Person for a staffed station may also be the rostered Responsible Person for other station(s) during periods when they are unstaffed.
(^{34}) When the Responsible Person is off-site they can delegate to another individual who is also off-site.
(^{35}) ‘Station-based’ assistance staff includes mobile assistance staff who provide assistance at that station.
(^{36}) If staff at the passenger’s boarding station are unsure if staff will be available to assist at the passenger’s alighting station then this must be ascertained by calling the alighting station’s dedicated assistance telephone number to confirm. **Figure 1**
| Assistance Scenario | Passenger name | Assistance needed | Train headcode | Location on train | Other\* | |--------------------------------------|----------------|-------------------|----------------|-------------------|--------| | A. Booked with seat reservation | CONFIRM | CONFIRM | CONFIRM | CONFIRM | WHERE APPLICABLE | | B. Booked without seat reservation | CONFIRM | CONFIRM | CONFIRM | PROVIDE | WHERE APPLICABLE | | C. Unbooked assistance | PROVIDE (OPTIONAL FOR PASSENGER) | PROVIDE | PROVIDE | PROVIDE | WHERE APPLICABLE |
\*Rail staff have discretion over any additional information they wish to provide that would further support the delivery of assistance at the passenger's alighting station. Appendix D: Mandatory training outcomes
1. Understanding Disabled People and their everyday challenges
Staff will be introduced to the term disability and will explore how it covers a wide range of different people with different impairments, which may or may not affect the way they travel by train.
They will be able to:
a) Challenge misconceptions about disabled people and disability b) Explain the relationship between disability and age c) Discuss what is meant by physical barriers to access and inclusion d) Consider attitudinal barriers to access and inclusion e) Recognise the prevalence of different disabilities in Great Britain, using up-to-date statistics
2. Equality Legislation
Staff will explore the Equality Act 2010 and how it prohibits discrimination against people with specified protected characteristics, one of which is disability, and the Act’s requirements for ‘reasonable adjustments’.
They will be able to:
a) Describe the importance of the Equality Act 2010 and its relevance to disability b) Explain the duty to make reasonable adjustments and discuss some of the reasonable adjustments made on the railways
c) Discuss the negative impacts of discrimination on the disabled person and the rail industry d) List some of the social, economic and reputational benefits of an accessible and inclusive railway e) Recognise the implications of the Equality Act 2010 for the provision of luggage assistance
______________________________________________________________________
37 Passenger assistance is one of the ways the railway makes reasonable adjustments for disabled people but there are many other ways to make adjustments. For example: -Reading someone’s ticket aloud or helping with shopping or luggage. Offering a hand or arm to help someone who may be unsteady or just giving directions are all adjustments too. 3. Defining Disability
Staff will be introduced to various definitions of disability and appropriate terminology (including the Equality Act 2010 definition and the social model) to help them identify disabled people (and others that may need assistance) and be able to use appropriate language.
They will be able to:
a) Set out the Equality Act 2010 definition of disability, including some of the conditions that are not included
b) Explain the social model of disability and its implications for the provision of rail services
c) Use appropriate language when describing disability and talking to disabled people
4. Recognising passengers who need assistance
Staff will explore physical and non-physical impairments to enable them to assess individual needs and provide appropriate assistance.
They will be able to:
a) List a range of visible disabilities and impairments
b) List a range of disabilities and impairments that may not be visible
c) Tailor the provision of assistance and services to the needs of the following (not an exhaustive list):
i. Sensory impaired people including visually impaired and blind people and deaf and hard of hearing people
ii. People with cognitive impairments
iii. People with learning difficulties
iv. People with physical impairments
5. Railway Regulatory Framework
Staff will be introduced to the regulations that are relevant within the railway industry, and will explore some of the actions that licensees are required to take and how this may impact on their job roles.
This will include an awareness of:
______________________________________________________________________
38 Non-visible disabilities include Depression, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia and anxiety disorders, post-traumatic stress disorder, Attention Deficit-Disorder or Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADD/ADHD), Learning Disabilities (LD), Traumatic Brain Injury and Neurodiversity, Epilepsy, HIV/AIDS, Diabetes, Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, Cystic Fibrosis. etc. a) RVAR b) PRM-TSI c) The licence holder’s own Accessible Travel Policy d) The Accessible Travel Policies of other relevant operators (this may include those that operate stations on the licence holder’s network, or those operating neighbouring networks) where the service received by passengers may differ from that received from the licence holder to e.g. booking assistance notice period, include those of Network Rail, London Underground, London Overground and Heathrow Express e) General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR) and Passenger Assist
6. Passenger Assist
Staff will explore the Passenger Assist process and how it works for disabled passengers and how they play an important part in delivering the service.
They will be able to:
a) Explain the assistance that disabled passengers may require (and the sorts of reasonable adjustments staff can provide) b) Describe how Passenger Assistance works c) Where relevant to the staff role, use the relevant Passenger Assist information technology systems d) Recognise that assistance must be provided whether it has been booked or whether it has been requested on a Turn Up and Go or ‘on demand’ basis, including: i. Help with alighting and boarding ii. Help with interchanging between services iii. Help with navigation and wayfinding iv. Help with ticket purchase v. Luggage assistance vi. Sourcing alternative accessible transport vii. The importance of calling ahead and advising on-board staff and destination staff of the passenger’s impending arrival
7. Communication
Staff will explore the concept of respect and dignity and why it is important to treat disabled people with patience, optimism, and a willingness to find a way to communicate. They will be able to:
a) Identify the importance of voice tone, pace and body language
b) Describe how to communicate effectively and considerately with passengers: i. with a visual impairment ii. who are deaf or hard of hearing iii. without speech or with speech impairment iv. with physical impairments (including wheelchair users) v. who may have dementia vi. with learning difficulties vii. with other cognitive impairments or neurodiversity
8. Accessibility in stations
Staff will explore and will be able to identify the accessible features of the stations in which they work and of the key destination stations on the network, including the availability of:
a) Accessible toilets on stations (RADAR keys)
b) Seats
c) Accessible windows in ticket offices
d) Tactile Paving
e) Induction loops
f) Other general information
9. Providing safe assistance
Staff are made aware that it is their duty to ensure that both staff and passengers remain safe at all times. They are able to:
a) Identify and deploy the correct ramp safely for boarding and alighting
b) Transport a passenger safely, correctly and comfortably in the station wheelchair
c) Correctly guide a blind or visually impaired person
N.B. Operators are not obliged to give equal time and weight to each of these outcomes Appendix E: Accessible Travel Policy Approval Flowcharts Appendix F: Network Rail Station Guides for Older and Disabled Passengers
To provide assured confidence to older and disabled rail travellers, Network Rail must provide a leaflet for each of its managed stations that sets out key accessibility information. The following structure and content must be adhered to.
Each Guide must be produced as a DL-sized leaflet and made available at stations. It must also be provided in a range of alternative formats as set out in section C A2.1.
It must be written in Plain English and may achieve Crystal Mark accreditation39.
1. Introduction
Introduces in plain English the purpose of the leaflet (i.e. to inform people visiting a Network Rail managed station who require assistance or additional information to travel by rail, of the help that is available and how to obtain it, and of the accessible facilities that are provided).
Makes clear the roles and responsibilities of the various organisations that contribute to accessibility at the station. It should cover Network Rail as the station manager and all of the train operating companies who operate at the station, including any operators providing interchange opportunities.
Clearly distinguishes which operator is responsible for providing the assistance and which operator is responsible for operating and maintaining the station facilities, particularly those which may be of interest to a disabled passenger such as accessible toilets, lifts and induction loops.
Assurance that there is a close working relationship with all parties to meet the standards outlined and commits to working together to continuously improved services and facilities for older and disabled passengers.
2. Station Access and Facilities
Commits to assisting passengers irrespective of disability. This must briefly set out in general what sort of facilities are available at the station to assist passengers with both visible and non-visible disabilities and their hours of operation:
- Station operating hours
- Designated disabled parking (indicating whether designated disabled parking bays are available at the station)
39 Details on how to achieve Crystal Mark accreditation can be found here: http://www.plainenglish.co.uk/services/crystal-mark/frequently-asked-questions.html • Seating (and where this varies by platform) and heated waiting areas, indicating opening times and the level of accessibility • Toilets (indicating whether standard and/or accessible/Changing Places toilet facilities are available, their opening times and whether they are Radar Key controlled) • Ticket sales facilities (indicating whether the station has ticket machines, smart ticketing readers, and ticket office counter(s) • Passenger Assist meeting point (with information as to where it is located) • Customer information systems (indicating whether this includes visual, aural or both types of information system) • Catering (indicating the range and type of facilities available) • Location of Information Points and Induction Hearing Loops
This section must be supported by a station plan.
3. Assistance: what is available and how to get it
Sets out how assistance will be provided at the station: • Journey planning • Ticket purchase (which may include seeking help from staff at the gate line) • Boarding and alighting • Help with luggage, and • Assistance around the station and to the platform, including when connecting between different train services, or from train to public transport / taxi / car park),
Explains that passengers that require assistance have two options:
A. They can turn up at any station and request assistance on to a train from a member of staff; this may explain that where assistance has not been booked in advance it may take a period of time to be provided; or
B. Where travel is being arranged in advance, they can book assistance with a train company; until 10pm the day before travel from 1 April 2020, until 6 hours before travel from 30 March 2021, and until 2 hours before travel from 1 April 2022.
It must clearly set out in what circumstances this is possible – and how passengers can book via the train companies who operate at the station, including the operators’ relevant details for doing so online, by e-mail, over the phone, text relay, and video relay service (if applicable). It must make clear that assistance for any journey, including those with multiple connections using multiple train companies, can be booked using these channels. It must also ensure that passengers understand under what circumstances alternative accessible transport might be offered (e.g. when travelling to or from an inaccessible station).
It must explain what steps the passenger can take to make themselves known to station staff when they arrive at the station.
4. Interchange
Clearly outlines how passengers can change from one mode of transport to another, how to navigate within and around the station easily and whether the route is step-free.
Provides information on how to move around the station at the busiest periods of the day, and who to talk to about all of the services provided at and around the interchange.
Explains whether staff can provide assistance with interchanging, and whether this needs to be booked.
5. If things do not go as planned
Commits to assisting passengers at time of disruption and providing guidance on redress when assistance fails. This must briefly set out:
- what assistance will be provided when there is disruption, to include how Network Rail will work with the relevant train operators to provide alternative accessible transport where appropriate;
- how passengers will be informed at the station when there is disruption (this may include the use of social media or alerts via apps);
- how a claim for redress can be made where assistance at the station fails, providing contact details of the train operators that call at the station;
- how passengers can inform Network Rail that something has gone wrong.
6. Where to get more information and how to get in touch
Sets out where further information may be obtained and how to get in touch with Network Rail. This must include:
- how to obtain the station guide in alternative formats;
- a very brief explanation of what the policy document is and how to obtain it (including in alternative formats);
- where to obtain more detailed accessibility information for the station; • who to contact on the day of travel with any queries or issues; • the National Freephone Passenger Assist and Textphone Free SMS Passenger Assist Forwarding Service contact numbers; • how to provide feedback or make a complaint; this must set out that if the passenger is not happy with the way the complaint is dealt with, the passenger can contact the Rail Ombudsman (and provide the Rail Ombudsman’s contact details); • how to contact Network Rail via social media, including any Twitter accounts used for providing information to passengers; • how to contact the train companies operating at the station; and • how to contact Network Rail to get involved with its work with disabled people to improve accessibility.
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/0892-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 63,
"total-input-tokens": 122181,
"total-output-tokens": 28181,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
91,
1
],
[
91,
1545,
2
],
[
1545,
2163,
3
],
[
2163,
4885,
4
],
[
4885,
7823,
5
],
[
7823,
10382,
6
],
[
10382,
13122,
7
],
[
13122,
15625,
8
],
[
15625,
18510,
9
],
[
18510,
21294,
10
],
[
21294,
23232,
11
],
[
23232,
24173,
12
],
[
24173,
25582,
13
],
[
25582,
26654,
14
],
[
26654,
28558,
15
],
[
28558,
31259,
16
],
[
31259,
33851,
17
],
[
33851,
36258,
18
],
[
36258,
38210,
19
],
[
38210,
40786,
20
],
[
40786,
42876,
21
],
[
42876,
43113,
22
],
[
43113,
45906,
23
],
[
45906,
49009,
24
],
[
49009,
51445,
25
],
[
51445,
53997,
26
],
[
53997,
56642,
27
],
[
56642,
58821,
28
],
[
58821,
60716,
29
],
[
60716,
62970,
30
],
[
62970,
66068,
31
],
[
66068,
68235,
32
],
[
68235,
70778,
33
],
[
70778,
73437,
34
],
[
73437,
75961,
35
],
[
75961,
78429,
36
],
[
78429,
81351,
37
],
[
81351,
83833,
38
],
[
83833,
86614,
39
],
[
86614,
87327,
40
],
[
87327,
89432,
41
],
[
89432,
91885,
42
],
[
91885,
94617,
43
],
[
94617,
97121,
44
],
[
97121,
99619,
45
],
[
99619,
102627,
46
],
[
102627,
104851,
47
],
[
104851,
107051,
48
],
[
107051,
108765,
49
],
[
108765,
110975,
50
],
[
110975,
113078,
51
],
[
113078,
113905,
52
],
[
113905,
115697,
53
],
[
115697,
117651,
54
],
[
117651,
119385,
55
],
[
119385,
120707,
56
],
[
120707,
120764,
57
],
[
120764,
120764,
58
],
[
120764,
123040,
59
],
[
123040,
125085,
60
],
[
125085,
127175,
61
],
[
127175,
127897,
62
],
[
127897,
127897,
63
]
]
} |
b0d88a0d5a9c9e4214b0f11a5135c62f398ab1ae | | ACCESSIONS TO REPOSITORIES | 2018 | |---------------------------|------| | THE | | | NATIONAL ARCHIVES | | INTRODUCTION
The Accessions to Repositories Survey provides a unique insight into archival collecting across the UK and elsewhere.
In the latest survey, we received reports from a variety of archival institutions who responded with details of thousands of new collections acquired and accessioned in 2018. We estimate that UK repositories took in over 300,000 files and boxes. This represents millions of personal papers, letters, diaries, and even 13th-century manuscripts.
The survey also includes digital deposits such as business records, photographs and oral history projects. By combining all of this data, we can analyse variations in accessions by region and type of repository, as well as estimate the scope of digital preservation across the sector. The Accessions to Repositories Survey also provides an overview of emerging and enduring themes in new or accruing collections, from war and conflict to scientific discovery.
A variety of famous authors feature in the 2018 survey, such as Lee Child, Samuel Beckett, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle and Daphne du Maurier. Other well-known figures include poet Moniza Alvi, the rock band Super Furry Animals, and the transgender activist Alice Purnell. There are records reflecting contemporary society and attitudes towards slavery, mental health and immigrant experiences.
The details of the survey published on Discovery help researchers locate new material and, while accessions are not always immediately available for viewing, making descriptive information available can stimulate research interest and allow archives to gauge the demand for new or uncatalogued collections.
Highlights from the survey, showcased on Twitter with #NewInArchives and featured on this report’s poster, celebrate archives and the work they do and underline the way collections reflect and enrich society.
The records of Cameron Balloons Ltd, accessioned by Bristol Archives, illustrate the establishment of one of the largest manufacturers of hot-air balloons.
Image credit: Bristol Archives, ref: 46017 SCALE OF COLLECTING
We received reports from 256 archives, who described details of 15,156 new collections accessioned in 2018. 35 archive services purchased a total of 83 collections that were up for sale and 75 repositories accessioned more than 300 collections of Public Records. While the institutions participating in the survey correspond to only about 10% of repositories with entries in the ARCHON directory, it is a representative sample of institutions actively collecting new material.
| Region | Collections | |-----------------|-------------| | South West | 2225 | | South East | 1975 | | East | 1348 | | London | 1303 | | West Midlands | 1219 | | North West | 1190 | | Wales | 1157 | | Yorkshire | 1084 | | Scotland | 1079 | | East Midlands | 986 | | North East | 777 | | Ireland | 96 |
Figure 1. Number of collections accessioned by region In 2018, archives were able to provide information on 539 digital collections, constituting 6.3 terabytes in total. This represented 3.6% of all reported accessions. In comparison, the volume of this data in 2017 was 5.8 terabytes from 281 collections, which made up 1.8% of the total reported. Many digital collections remain hybrids, with a digital element listed alongside a set of physical records, but the volume accessioned has varied significantly by region and by repository type. For national and university collections in 2018, roughly 8.2% of accessioned collections were digital. For specialist repositories this was 15%, and for local archives it was 1.6%.
Although local archives took in 179 of the 539, or just over 30% of all digital collections, this is relatively small compared to the total volume of their collecting. Overall, the number of digital accessions continues to be rather low considering the growing amount of digital material being created.
The largest single digital accession was a mixed collection of tapes, cine films and unedited footage including 1534GB of digital material, collected by the Public Record Office of Northern Ireland. The next largest was Hull University Archives' accession of 1220GB of images and video files documenting events and activities from the 2017 Hull City of Culture. National and university accessions continue to focus on political and military records, but the analysis also highlights the cultural content of their collections. Overall collecting, however, is dominated by local record offices’ focus on council, church and school records.
| Type | 2018 Keywords | Count | 2017 Keywords | Count | |------------|---------------|-------|---------------|-------| | Special | nursing | 109 | watermills | 21 | | | hospital | 107 | windmills | 19 | | | digital | 76 | medicine | 13 | | | canal | 63 | childbirth | 11 | | | royal | 60 | midwifery | 11 | | | college | 54 | LGBT | 11 | | University | university | 180 | theatre | 110 | | | history | 108 | higher education | 72 | | | oral | 73 | music | 37 | | | Oman | 69 | university | 37 | | | interview | 65 | education | 36 | | | renaissance | 63 | literature | 35 | | National | war | 100 | British Army | 90 | | | royal | 79 | House of Commons | 45 | | | British | 77 | procedure | 40 | | | army service | 73 | family history | 30 | | | history | 68 | House of Lords | 28 | | | family | 66 | Royal Navy | 23 | | Local | church | 1257 | religion | 276 | | | school | 935 | education | 256 | | | parish | 835 | local government | 221 | | | council | 734 | parish | 180 | | | st (saint) | 709 | parish records | 180 | | | accounts | 693 | business | 180 | | All | church | 1312 | | | | | school | 1013 | | | | | parish | 845 | | | | | st (saint) | 804 | | | | | council | 774 | | | 21st Century Records created this century constitute a range of material, including both born-digital and more traditional archival material. They range from records relating to LGBTQ organisations to material created by community and heritage projects.
20th Century Twentieth-century records cover diverse themes and are the largest group of 2018 accessions. They shed light on lifestyles and mental health, scientific advancements, social and political movements, as well as major events that defined the century.
19th Century Records of the nineteenth century collected in 2018 are an eclectic mix, with themes ranging from health and social issues to religion and science. They also touch on more political themes including records related to colonial rule and maritime and naval endeavours.
18th Century Many of the eighteenth-century documents accessioned in 2018 relate to family and estate papers, manorial documents and maps and plans. But there are also records relating to war, maritime expansion, farming and predicting the harvest.
17th Century Few records accessioned in 2018 relate to the seventeenth-century, but several interesting examples are featured on the inside poster.
16th Century Sixteenth-century records primarily include collections of deeds, but there are also those that speak to aspects of local life and political statements.
Medieval Medieval texts collected in 2018 represent an interesting mix of the devotional and the secular. NEW IN ARCHIVES
JOURNAL OF ALICK SMITH, PATIENT AT BROOKWOOD ASYLUM
Surrey History Centre
Themes in this little volume, handwritten and illustrated between 1912 and 1922, range from the impact of the First World War, to the hospital cats and fortunes of the cricket team. Over the course of his stay, Alick's feelings about the institution changed from considering it 'a little corner of Hell' to one of tolerance and even appreciation.
Image credit: Surrey History Centre
DRAWINGS OF PARTS FOR OBERON CLASS SUBMARINES
Cumbria Archive and Local Studies Centre, Barrow
These intricate drawings were deposited with the archive service when plans to build a Submarine Heritage Centre in Barrow-in-Furness fell through. The heritage centre would have celebrated the town's illustrious submarine-building history but these records still remain to remember that heritage.
Image credit: Cumbria Archive and Local Studies Centre, Barrow
GLASS NEGATIVES OF PRISONERS FROM HM PRISON LEWES
East Sussex Record Office
These negatives, dating 1898-1916, were used for education within the prison. Some images show prisoners dressed in the typical uniform decorated with broad arrows to hinder escape and act as a badge of shame. Other images depict those who have just been arrested, still dressed in their own clothes and some looking highly respectable.
Image credit: East Sussex Record Office
More examples of accessions from 2018 can been seen on the poster... ABOUT THE SURVEY
The Accessions to Repositories Survey is conducted annually to find out what archive services have added to their collections in the previous year.
Information from the participating archives is gathered in spreadsheets. This format provides a crucial structure that allows us to pull all the data together and to analyse the information as a whole. The analysis in this publication takes into account the full set of data that archive services return for the survey.
Discovery users can view summaries of these new collections and other record creator based descriptions alongside full catalogues. This gives users an unrivalled overview of collections primarily relating to British history, but with some material of a global scope.
We publish highlights on our website at: nationalarchives.gov.uk/accessions with selections searchable via the Discovery service: nationalarchives.gov.uk/discovery
If you are interested in contributing to the next Accessions to Repositories survey, please visit our website: nationalarchives.gov.uk/archives-sector/projects-and-programmes/accessions
Thank you to all of the archives that contributed to the 2018 Accessions to Repositories Survey, including those who kindly provided images for use in this report.
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/0893-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 8,
"total-input-tokens": 13628,
"total-output-tokens": 2884,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
149,
1
],
[
149,
2196,
2
],
[
2196,
3226,
3
],
[
3226,
4563,
4
],
[
4563,
6802,
5
],
[
6802,
8273,
6
],
[
8273,
9737,
7
],
[
9737,
11008,
8
]
]
} |
dfa6dc7aefce9882261c74b90db13f91b2b8ae54 | The Accessions to Repositories programme: Guidance Notes
The programme annually surveys records received by collecting archives during the calendar year. Participating archives are asked to report all new accessions. This allows for accurate analysis of trends and collecting practices. However, please do not include any personally sensitive data. To enable more comprehensive analysis of accessions records, we ask participating repositories to use the updated template and read the guidance below. Please see the section ‘what will happen to the information you send us’ for more details on how we use accessions data.
Please do not modify the subject line when replying to the invite email as the subject allows us to identify and process returns more dynamically.
Taking Part
Invitations to participate are sent out in early December to repositories known to be actively collecting beyond their own institutional records. If you usually participate but have not received an invitation by the middle of December, please contact us.
Please use the template attached to your invitation email to aid our processing of the data.
The template is also available via http://nationalarchives.gov.uk/archives-sector/projects-and-programmes/accessions/
The deadline
Complete the updated Accessions return template and send it to [email protected] by 01 February 2021.
This deadline allows for sufficient time to process and analyse the information gathered.
What information is collected for the survey?
The survey aims to collect information on all newly accessioned material to gather a full snapshot of collecting patterns across the sector.
Please mark newly accessioned records that you believe to have the most evidential, cultural or societal impact in the ‘collections highlight’ column in the template.
The template
We ask all repositories to use the template provided. Please contact us if this is a problem. Please do not add to or change the order of columns in the template, as this will adversely affect our ability to process and analyse the data; we rely on the format being as uniform as possible.
All returns must include the following details: ARCHON number This can be found by searching Discovery, via http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/archives-home and will be included in the subject line of your email.
Creator of records As far as possible, this should include full name, dates, epithet (e.g. occupation), descriptor and/or function for any entities (corporate bodies, families or individuals) that created the records. More details will help us to disambiguate creators, add information to our resources and link between related collections. Please note the creator is not necessarily the same as the depositor.
Summary description Brief information about the records.
Covering dates The covering dates for the whole collection, preferably in the format yyyy-yyyy (e.g. 1858-1957).
ISAD (G) reference number and/or accession reference The collection reference number and/or accession reference.
Quantity The extent of the collection being accessioned in this year. Please use linear metres where possible or give a general sense of the material (e.g. “1 box”). Try not to mix units. For digital collections, please give the quantity in Mb or Gb.
Additional deposit? Is the deposit an addition to an existing collection in your repository? If yes, please provide the reference number.
Returns should include the following additional details:
Collection highlight? Let us know the highlights of your collecting over the past year. Please also use this field to flag records you would like us to highlight in our communications with researchers and the sector.
Catalogue link A permanent URL. This is a web address that will consistently point to your specific information resource such as an entry in an online catalogue.
Keywords A handful of words reflecting the main themes covered by the content of the documents comprising the collection. This will enable us to surface themes and trends when analysing the data.
Mark up For internal use only, please leave blank.
We send the same template to all contributing archives. If your archive service is not a Place of Deposit, please ignore the blue ‘Fields for public records only’ section of the template.
Please let us know as soon as possible if your archive service has not received any deposits during the past year, or does not have the capacity to complete a return.
### Example template:
**Accessions Return**
*Move the cursor over the headings in the table for more guidance.*
| ARCHON Number | Repository Name | Creator of the records including full name, dates, epithet, descriptor and/or function. | Summary description | Covering dates | ISAD(G) reference code | Quantity of accessioned collection\* | Additional deposit? (Y/N) | Collection highlight? (Y/N) | Persistent URL of catalogue entry | Keywords | Public Record? (Y/N) | Transferring body for public records only (note that the creator and transferring body may not always be the same) | Quantity in linear metres of public records dated 1994 and earlier | Quantity in Mb or Gb of born-digital public records dated 1994 and earlier | Quantity in Mb or Gb of born-digital public records dated 1995 to 2004 | Quantity in Mb or Gb of born-digital public records dated 2005 to present | Mark up (internal use) | |---------------|-----------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------|-------------------|------------------------|-------------------------------------|--------------------------|-----------------------------|---------------------------------|----------|-------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------|---------------------------------|---------------------------------|---------------------------------|-----------------------------| | 41 | EXAMPLE London Metropolitan Archives | EXAMPLE Woolwich Infirmary | theatre registers | 1970-1984 | HOB/R5 | 4 linear metres; 8.2Gb | Y | N | n/a | heart surgery, biopsy, transplant | Y | Lewisham and Greenwich NHS Trust | 4 | 0 | 3.7Gb | 4.5 | | 143 | EXAMPLE Birmingham: Archives, Heritage and Photography Service | EXAMPLE Richard Lloyd & Co Ltd, tool manufacturers, Birmingham | digital records | 1901-2000 | MS 4767 | 4.8 Gb | N | Y | n/a | drills, lawnmowers, bankruptcy | N | | | | | | | | 214 | EXAMPLE Glamorgan Archives | EXAMPLE Bridgend and Glamorgan Valleys Coroner | post mortem papers and inquest file | 1950-1999 | CORB | 1m | Y | N | n/a | | | | | | | | | | | | 14 | EXAMPLE Cambridge University: Churchill Archives Centre | EXAMPLE Sir Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill, 1874-1965, Knight, Prime Minister and Historian | personal papers with background corres and papers. Includes audio tapes of speeches. | 1945-1965 | CHUR | 20 boxes | Y | Y | | | | | | | | | | | | | 179 | EXAMPLE East Sussex Record Office | EXAMPLE Battle Magistrates' Court and Bexhill Petty Sessions | Adoption registers | 1927-2013 | 12509 | 6.5 linear metres | N | Y | n/a | maternity home, Catholic, inspections | Y | Eastbourne, Hastings and Worthing Combined Magistrates' Courts | 2 | 1 | 3.5 | | After submitting your return
What will happen to the information you send us?
- The data will primarily be used to analyse and develop a national picture of collecting patterns, and identify gaps in collecting practices. The results of this analysis will be shared with the archive sector.
- Highlights will be published in our report, with the analysis, and may also be publicised on The National Archives’ social media outlets.
- It will be used to update Discovery and will be made available for researchers online.
- Data will also be analysed to track records identified as part of our Sales Monitoring Service and monitor public records and manorial document transfers.
Please note that accessions data will be published on data.gov.uk. This will aid transparency and allow researchers access to the entire set of reported accessions.
For assistance with completing the survey, please contact Archives Sector Development at [email protected].
More information about the programme can also be found on our website: https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/archives-sector/projects-and-programmes/accessions/
For information about contributing to Discovery please visit our website: http://nationalarchives.gov.uk/archives-sector/advice-and-guidance/managing-your-collection/developing-collections/contributing-to-our-resources/.
Updated July 2020
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/0895-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 4,
"total-input-tokens": 11374,
"total-output-tokens": 2027,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
2193,
1
],
[
2193,
4498,
2
],
[
4498,
7355,
3
],
[
7355,
8729,
4
]
]
} |
9104704e01f451025c352e128450f6aa0d0a410a | Accessions to Repositories: Guidance for local authority places of deposit reporting public records
The Accessions to Repositories programme
The programme annually surveys records received by collecting archives during the calendar year. Participating archives are asked to report all new accessions. This allows for accurate assessment of eligibility for New Burdens funding as well as analysis of trends and collecting practices. However, please do not include any personally sensitive data. To enable more comprehensive analysis of accessions records we ask participating repositories to use the updated template and read the guidance below. Please see the section 'what will happen to the information you send us' for more details on how we use accessions data.
Please do not modify the subject line when replying to the invite email as the subject allows us to identify and process returns more dynamically
Taking Part
Invitations to participate are sent out in early December to repositories known to be actively collecting beyond their own institutional records. If you usually participate but have not received an invitation by the middle of December, please contact us.
Please use the template attached to your Invitation email to aid our processing of the data.
The template is also available via http://nationalarchives.gov.uk/archives-sector/projects-and-programmes/accessions/
The deadline
Complete the updated Accessions return template and send it to [email protected] by 01 February 2021.
This deadline allows for sufficient time to process and analyse the information gathered. For returns received after the deadline, payments of New Burdens funding cannot be guaranteed.
If you have accessioned eligible records, you will need to respond promptly to any request for confirmation of stated quantities and agree to the terms for payment to be authorised.
Why am I invited?
We have identified your archive as being a local authority place of deposit appointed to take in certain public records specified in secondary legislation: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2014/3249/schedule/1/made
New Burdens funding is available to cover the accelerated accessioning of certain classes of public records listed in the above Schedule. To make a claim, local authority places of deposit must highlight their public record accessions for 2020, and report the quantity of their public records accessions in linear metres, or in Mb or Gb for born-digital public records, in the relevant columns of their return.
What extra data is needed in relation to public record accessions?
In addition to the primary fields, we need archives to mark-up public records on their return, and provide the following additional data: Providing this information is essential for verifying the eligibility of your records for New Burdens funding; without it, payment cannot be made.
Please ensure you indicate which accessions are public records by putting a ‘y’ in the public record field in order to be considered for New Burdens funding. We rely on your information and cannot always check returns to look for unmarked public records.
For queries on eligibility and guidance on what to flag as ‘public record’ in your return, please see our additional New Burdens FAQs http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/archives-sector/our-archives-sector-role/legislation/20-year-rule-and-records-of-local-interest/
What information is collected for the Accessions to Repositories survey?
The survey aims to collect information on all newly accessioned material to gather a full snapshot of collecting patterns across the sector.
Please mark newly accessioned records that you believe to have the most evidential, cultural or societal impact in the ‘collections highlight’ column in the template.
The template
We ask all repositories to use the template provided. Please contact us if this is a problem. Please do not add to or change the order of columns in the template, as this will adversely affect our ability to process and analyse the data; we rely on the format being as uniform as possible.
All returns must include the following details:
**ARCHON number** This can be found by searching http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/archives-home and will be included in the subject line of your email.
**Creator of records** As far as possible, this should include full name, dates, epithet (e.g. occupation), and descriptor and/or function for any entities (corporate bodies, families or individuals) that created the records. More details will help us to disambiguate creators, add information to our resources and link between related collections. Please note the creator is not necessarily the same as the depositor.
**Summary description** Brief information about the records.
**Covering dates** The covering dates for the whole collection, preferably in the format yyyy-yyyy (e.g. 1858-1957).
**ISAD (G) reference number and/or accession reference** The collection reference number and/or accession reference.
**Quantity** The extent of the collection being accessioned in this year. Note: for public records, this total includes any 2005 and post-2005 records. When reporting public records exact dates and volumes in linear metres, and either Mb or Gb for born-digital material, are needed. Only public records formally selected for permanent preservation and accessioned should be reported.
**Additional deposit?** Whether the deposit is an addition to an existing collection in your repository. If yes, please provide the reference number. Collection highlight? Let us know the highlights of your collecting over the past year. Please also use this field to flag records you would like us to highlight in our communications with researchers and the sector.
Catalogue link A permanent URL. This is a web address that will consistently point to your specific information resource such as an entry in an online catalogue.
Keyword A handful of words reflecting the main themes covered by the content of the documents comprising the collection. This will enable us to surface themes and trends when analysing the data.
Mark up For internal use only, please leave blank.
For Public Records only:
Public record? Please indicate whether the accession is a public record, in order to be considered for New Burdens funding. A definition of a public record is available on our website: http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/archives-sector/our-archives-sector-role/legislation/approved-places-of-deposit/ Do not include here any records received as ‘presentations’ under s.3(6) of the Public Records Act - once received by you, they cease to be public records (you will have been contacted by The National Archives if this is the case)
Transferring body for public records only The organisation responsible for depositing the records. The records they transfer may have been originally created by a predecessor body or unit, and so the ‘creator’ and ‘transferring body’ may not be the same. Occasionally, records are received by an organisation or individual that may not appear to be directly involved in government business, in which case please give details. Please do not give personal data as part of your response.
Quantity in linear metres of public records dating 1996 and earlier for public records only The reporting needs to be linear metres for reporting the volume of public records.
Quantity in Mg or Gb of born-digital public records dating 1996 and earlier for public records only The reporting needs to be Mb or GB for reporting the quantity of born-digital public records.
Quantity in linear metres of public records dating 1997 to 2004 for public records only The reporting needs to be in linear metres for reporting the volume of public records.
Quantity in Mg or Gb of born-digital public records dating 1997 to 2004 for public records only The reporting needs to be Mb or GB for reporting the quantity of born-digital public records.
Reporting in linear metres or either Mb or GB For consistency with current reporting of 20-year rule transfers by government departments, the reporting unit will need to be linear metres and either Mb or Gb for born-digital public records. Repositories reporting accessions volumes in cubic metres should collect this data in the usual way, but then multiply the number of cubic metres by 12 to give a linear metre equivalent, as with CIPFA returns, rather than calculate directly on the basis of their own local shelving arrangements.
Example: 10.5 cubic metres of Bedford Hospital theatre registers = 126 linear metres | ARCHON Number | Repository Name | Creator of the records including full name, dates, epithet, descriptor and/or function. | Summary description | Covering dates | ISAD(G) reference code | Quantity of accessioned collection\* | Additional deposit? (Y/N) | Collection highlight? (Y/N) | Persistent URL of catalogue entry | Keywords | Public Record? (Y/N) | Transferring body for public records only (note that the creator and transferring body may not always be the same) | Quantity in linear metres of public records dated 1994 and earlier | Quantity in Mb or Gb of born-digital public records dated 1994 and earlier | Quantity in Mb or Gb of born-digital public records dated 1995 to 2004 | Quantity in Mb or Gb of born-digital public records dated 2005 to present | Mark up (internal use) | |---------------|----------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------|---------------|------------------------|-----------------------------------|--------------------------|--------------------------|---------------------------------|----------|----------------|-------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------|---------------------------------|---------------------------------|---------------------------------|---------------------------------|--------------------------| | 41 | EXAMPLE London Metropolitan Archives | EXAMPLE Woolwich Infirmary | theatre registers | 1970-1984 | HOBR5 | 4 linear metres; 5.200 | Y | N | nil | heart surgery, biopsy, transplant | Y | Lewisham and Greenwich NHS Trust | 4 | 0 | 3.70b | 4.5 | | 143 | EXAMPLE Birmingham Archives, Heritage and Photography Service | EXAMPLE Richard Lloyd & Co Ltd, tool manufacturers, Birmingham | digital records | 1901-2000 | MS 4767 | 4.800 | N | Y | nil | digital, laminators, banknotes | N | | | | | | | | 214 | EXAMPLE Glamorgan Archives | EXAMPLE Bridgend and Glamorgan Valleys Coroner | post modern papers and inquest file | 1900-1999 | CORB | 1.00 | Y | N | | | | | | | | | | | | | 14 | EXAMPLE Cambridge University Churchill Archives Centre | EXAMPLE Sir Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill, 1874-1965, Knight, Prime Minister and Historian | personal papers with background correas and papers including audio tapes of speeches. | 1945-1965 | CHUR | 20 boxes | Y | Y | | | | | | | | | | | | | 179 | EXAMPLE East Sussex Record Office | EXAMPLE Battle Magistrates' Court and Bexhill Petty Sessions | Adoption registers | 1927-2013 | 12509 | 6.5 linear metres | N | Y | nil | maternity home, Catholic, Inspections | V | Eastbourne, Hastings and Worthing Combined Magistrates' Courts | 2 | 1 | 3.5 | New Burdens funding
Please note that New Burdens funding is only available for the accessioning of certain classes of public record dated up to and including 2004. For more information see the bodies specified in Schedule 1 under the statutory instrument amending the Public Records Act http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2014/3249/schedule/1/made
Please let us know as soon as possible if your archive service has not received any deposits during the past year, or does not have the capacity to complete a return.
After submitting your return
If you submit information about public records that are eligible for New Burdens funding, a member of the 20-year rule team will contact you after initial processing. To be eligible for funding, please respond promptly to any request for confirmation of stated quantities and agreement to the terms.
What will happen to the information you send us?
- The data will primarily be used to analyse and develop a national picture of collecting patterns, and identify gaps in collecting practices. The results of this analysis will be shared with the archive sector.
- It will be used to update Discovery and will be made available for researchers online and may be publicised on The National Archives’ social media outlets.
- Data will also be analysed to track records identified as part of our Sales Monitoring Service and monitor public records and manorial document transfers
Please note that accessions data will be published on data.gov.uk. This will aid transparency and allow researchers access to the entire set of reported accessions.
For assistance with completing the survey, please contact Archives Sector Development at [email protected]
More information about the programme can also be found at: https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/archives-sector/projects-and-programmes/accessions/
For information about contributing to Discovery please visit our website: http://nationalarchives.gov.uk/archives-sector/advice-and-guidance/managing-your-collection/developing-collections/contributing-to-our-resources/.
Updated July 2020
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/0896-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 5,
"total-input-tokens": 12931,
"total-output-tokens": 3080,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
2760,
1
],
[
2760,
5583,
2
],
[
5583,
8618,
3
],
[
8618,
11334,
4
],
[
11334,
13442,
5
]
]
} |
5f08bab66ea2b827b5a8f96b711a93fdd866ad1c | Accessions to UK Repositories 2016 Contents
Executive Summary 3
Highlights 4
Analysis 16
Coverage and constraints 29
OGL
This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated. To view this licence visit: http://nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3 or write to: The Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or email: [email protected]
Where we have identified any third party copyright information (especially in the images used in this document) you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned.
This publication is available on our website via: http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/archives-sector
Any enquiries regarding this publication should be sent to us at: [email protected]
Cover image: Operation Telic 2007, Ian Forsyth, National Army Museum Executive summary
The National Archives and its predecessor bodies first began surveying the records collected by UK archives in 1839 and have published individual lists since 1954 for the benefit of researchers and to understand collecting patterns across the archival landscape.
We publish these details on our website at http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/accessions and they are searchable via the Discovery service (http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk). This year for the first time we have conducted statistical analysis of the full set of data we received.
- We received reports from 280 UK archives who responded with details of 16,766 new collections acquired and accessioned in 2016.
- We estimate UK repositories accessioned over three hundred thousand files and boxes. This represents millions of photographs, letters, diaries and items of digital media.
- King Charles I, Alan Turing, the writers Naomi Alderman, Sir Terry Pratchett, J.R.R. Tolkien and the transgender activist Paris Lees are among the contributors to these new or growing collections.
- Items ranged from digital deposits such as photographs taken by British officers during operations in Afghanistan in 2007 to 11th century manuscripts.
- Local archives receive new collections at approximately twice the rate of national institutions.
- However, the evidence seems to suggest that the size of individual collections is much larger in national archives than in other types of archive.
- In our preliminary examination of gender across newly accessioned collections it is Scottish repositories which achieved the most equal gender balance. Scotland and London also recorded low rates of accruing collections, reflecting dynamic collecting policies.
- Archives now receive more collections containing 21st century material than collections containing 19th century material. Highlights from 2016
Twenty-first century
Records created this century constitute a significant proportion of those accessioned in 2016, suggesting that many archives are collecting contemporary material. This includes material created by community and heritage projects as well as records of film and theatre. The theme of war is prominent, and there is a significant body of records relating to LGBTQ organisations.
Some of the items accessioned relate to projects such as the WISEArchive, an oral history group run by volunteers, dedicated to recording, transcribing and editing working-life stories. Norfolk Record Office now holds WISEArchive’s recorded interviews with people who worked at Beech House, Gressenhall. Lancashire Archives took in records of a project by Deafway, recording British Sign Language conversations held between participants on a subject of their choice. The project aims to preserve memories and culture of the deaf community. The University of Strathclyde Archives and Special Collections collected oral history interviews from the Govanhill People’s History project, which aims to record the history of migration in Govanhill, Glasgow.
Many twenty-first century records relate to war, where the theatre of conflict moves from Europe – typical of twentieth century records – to the Middle East and Central Asia. The Imperial War Museum collected records about, and created by those involved in, the conflict in Afghanistan, including digital images by Iain King, Stabilisation Advisor (civilian) and photographer in Helmand Province, from February to July 2008 and June to November 2009.
A collection of digital photographs, taken and compiled by Sgt Rupert Frere, Royal Logistic Corps, associated with Operation Herrick in Afghanistan, was accessioned by the National Army Museum. The Museum also collected digital images by army photographer Corporal Ian Forsyth, Royal Logistic Corps, related to Operation Telic in Iraq in 2006 and 2007.
Photojournalist Kate Holt’s photographs of the British Army’s deployment to Sierra Leone in response to the West Africa Ebola Crisis (2014-2015) are now also held at the museum. A number of twenty-first century records accessioned last year also relate to film and performance. The British Film Institute collected production material, storyboards, drawings and photographs relating to the work of animator Robert Morgan. The collection includes material for surreal stop motion films 'The Cat with Hands' (2001) and ‘The Separation’ (2003). Records from the Belgrade Theatre in Coventry were accessioned by Coventry History Centre. The theatre opened in 1958 and was part of the redevelopment of the city following the Second World War. Newcastle University, Special Collections, obtained Northern Stage (Theatrical Productions) Ltd.’s marketing, governance, and production material dating from 2006 to 2015.
Records reflecting LGBTQ experience, such as the oral history project focusing on the lives of members of The Pink Singers, an LGBT choir established in 1983, feature in accessions from the twenty-first century. London Metropolitan Archives took in the records of this project charting three decades of LGBT history and heritage. Looking at campaigns and activities, publications and articles by transgender rights activist Paris Lees were collected by the Bishopsgate Institute. Bishopsgate also accessioned documents on GLADD’s (the LGBT Association of Doctors and Dentists) activities and campaigns from 2005-2015, as well as papers of its predecessor organisation, the Gay Medical Association.
Twentieth century
Most of the records accessioned in 2016 are twentieth century. These records cover diverse themes including records related to music and literature as well as further material on LGBTQ campaigns and organisations. They shed light on individuals and life-styles, scientific advancements, social and political movements, as well as major events that defined the century.
Records accessioned by the Institute of Mechanical Engineering show how the circumstances of war gave rise to new inventions. Two volumes, produced by the Paravane (PV) Department of HM Dockyard, Portsmouth, give details of designs and specifications for paravanes - developed to destroy oceanic mines - and bow protection devices for mine sweepers.
In the midst of the centenary of the First World War, records relating to this conflict have been on collecting archives’ radar and feature prominently in twentieth century accessions. Among these records are some that cover less commonly presented aspects of the Great War, such as papers relating to Mark Henry Chambers Havier’s time as a conscientious objector now held at London Borough of Croydon Archives. Wigan Archives Service accessioned a plan of the Leigh Military Detention Camp, used as a Prisoner of War Camp for German prisoners during the First World War. Science and invention, without the baggage of war, is another prominent theme in accessions from the twentieth century. These include a book of observations by the physicist Reginald William James (1891-1964), held by the National Maritime Museum. The book contains scientific calculations, using the Mercer chronometer 5529, recorded during the Trans-Antarctic Expedition of 1914-1917 led by Ernest Shackleton. The Archives Centre, King's College, Cambridge accessioned letters written to the now famous mathematician and computer scientist Alan Turing (1912–1954) between 1930 and 1954. The letters were compiled by Philip Nicholas Furbank FRSL (1920-2014) English writer, scholar and critic, and Turing’s executor. There are also papers relating to genetically modified foods and crop research by Michael Wilson, Professor of Microbiology, which were purchased by the Science Museum. The museum also accessioned files of computer journalist Glyn Moody relating to the development of the World Wide Web and its early use by businesses.
Accessions from the twentieth century also take on a more artistic theme with documents on literature and music. The autograph sketches of Pomp and Circumstance March no.6 by Sir Edward Elgar (1857-1934) were obtained by the British Library. The University of East Anglia collected notebooks, manuscripts of novels and gaming scripts by novelist and game designer Naomi Alderman. In Oxford, The Bodleian Library accessioned an annotated map of Middle-earth, drawn by C.R. Tolkien in 1954, for inclusion in The Lord of the Rings. The map is annotated by Pauline Baynes and J.R.R. Tolkien in preparation for Baynes’s poster map of Middle-earth, published in 1969. The Bodleian also obtained letters and notes written by C.S. Lewis to his pupil, Thomas McAlindon. The correspondence relates primarily to McAlindon’s academic work. Senate House Library collected correspondence between Terry Pratchett and Henye Mayer on subjects including meanings of Yiddish words, Judaism, evolution and religious belief, Pratchett’s characters and plots, and his research for the Science of Discworld.
Documents on LGBTQ issues also begin to appear in archives collecting more contemporary records. Newcastle University Special Collections accessioned correspondence and campaign material created by the Tyneside Campaign for Homosexual Equality between 1970 and 1999. Founded in 1964, the Campaign for Homosexual Equality (CHE) is one of the oldest gay rights organisations in the country. A network of local groups was established in the 1970s, organising their own social and campaigning activities in the local area.
The Labour History Archive and Study Centre at the People’s History Museum collected records of Michael Steed (1940-) related to the Campaign for Homosexual Equality. Michael, British psephologist, broadcaster, activist and Liberal Democrat politician, served on the CHE’s executive committee and also as treasurer for a time.
Other recently accessioned twentieth century records of interest include material by Arthur Fenwick (1877-1957), a retailer, circus and fairground enthusiast, including magic lantern slides featuring circus images, now held by Tyne and Wear Archives. Senate House Library obtained the records of spiritualist Emmeline Vyner’s Edinburgh séances dating from the 1930s. Leicestershire, Leicester and Rutland Record Office accessioned photographs and ephemera relating to the miner’s strike in 1984-1986. The Nina Hibbin (nee Masel) Papers were accessioned by the University of Sussex Special Collections at The Keep. Nina kept a diary for Mass Observation during the Second World War. She started working for the organisation at the age of 17, and submitted regular reports about life in the East End of London, anti-Semitism and the conditions of public air raid shelters. She later joined the MO team in Luccombe (Somerset) as in investigator for Mass Observation’s 1947 book, ‘Exmoor Village’.
Nineteenth Century
Nineteenth century records accessioned in 2016 are an interesting mix covering a variety of topics. Representing around 15% of material collected in 2016, these records showcase the rich literature of the period and highlight aspects of life such as sickness and health, scientific advancement and new opportunities of travel. There are also more political themes including records related to colonial rule and maritime and naval endeavours.
A wealth of material related to nineteenth century literature was collected and accessioned in 2016, including a manuscript edition of ‘Gertrude of Wyoming’ by the poet Thomas Campbell (1777-1844), now held by Cambridge University Department of Manuscripts. The romantic epic poem describes the Battle of Wyoming during the American Revolutionary War and the massacre of American Revolutionaries at the hands of Loyalists and their allies in 1778. Kingston History Centre accessioned a letter from Charles Dickens to his uncle, written in 1839.
Letter of Charles Dickens (KX623), Kingston History Centre
There is also a very interesting script for a one-act comic play, produced in the midst of a cholera epidemic, entitled, ‘The cholera morbus, or love and fright’ performed at the Royal Coburg Theatre, London, in 1831. This document was accessioned by the Wellcome Collection and includes annotations and the names of the cast.
The theme of illness, though of a different kind, is reflected in the accession of asylum records, such as the male and female case books of the Dundee Royal Lunatic Asylum dating from 1834-35, taken in by the University of Dundee Archive Service. And a pauper dietary from Fairford Lunatic Asylum, dated 1847, was accessioned by Gloucestershire archives. Among the accessions of nineteenth century records related to science and medicine are Sorabji Pallonji Bamji’s handwritten notebooks from his time as a physician in India in the 1890s, collected by the Royal College of Physicians. The University of Exeter Library special collections accessioned the Hudson Transparencies, a collection of paper screens depicting microscopic organisms, which were designed and constructed as visual teaching aids by the microscopist, and world authority on Rotifera, Charles Thomas Hudson (1828-1903).
Hudson Transparencies (EUL MS 442/RJW15), University of Exeter, "Rotifera, Asplanchna Ebbesbornii A. Female B Male", identified and listed by R J Wootton.
Image courtesy of the Royal Albert Memorial Museum.
The Science Museum collected material related to John William Dunne (1875-1949), aeronautical engineer and philosopher, including correspondence and fan mail.
Advances in technology allowed easier and more frequent travel, a prevalent theme in accessions of nineteenth century records. There is a manuscript of 'A Trip to Paris and its Exhibition of 1889' by the station master John Dodd (1852-1899). The account, accessioned by the National Railway Museum in York, describes a voyage by rail to the 1889 Exposition Universelle. The National Museums Liverpool, Maritime Archives and Library, took in the diary of Thomas Slingsby, passenger aboard the emigrant ship Hastings, owned by Johnson and Company, describing the journey from Liverpool to Melbourne 1854-1855. National Museums Liverpool also accessioned a Grand Tour photograph album belonging to businessman Ralph Brocklebank dating from around 1870. The custom of the Grand Tour, a trip – usually around Europe – undertaken by those with means and rank, began in the late seventeenth century and provided an opportunity to gain exposure to art and culture.
Records related to voyages extend to maritime and naval activities, including Royal Navy lieutenant Orthnel Mawdesley’s journal of an unsuccessful attack on a Spanish ship at Vigo. Collected by the National Maritime Museum, the journal also describes his captivity along with other members of the crew of HMS Theseus in Galicia in 1807-1808. The increase in naval power went hand in hand with imperial ambitions and colonial occupation, clearly reflected in accessions dating from the nineteenth century. The Institute of Commonwealth Studies obtained correspondence of James Bruce (1756-1808), lieutenant governor of Dominica, on the subject of collecting debts and selling James Neave’s property on the island. Letters of Captain Henry Riversdale Elliot, Madras sappers and miners, related to the Abyssinia Campaign of 1867-1868 were collected by the National Army Museum. The campaign, led by General Sir Robert Napier against the forces of Emperor Tewodros II of Ethiopia, succeeded in its aims, rescuing hostages taken by the emperor and taking Magdala, then capital of Ethiopia. The letters give details of the campaign and describe marches and life in camp.
Eighteenth Century
Many of the eighteenth century documents accessioned in 2016 relate to family and estate papers, manorial documents and maps and plans. There are also interesting documents related to law and landholding.
An enclosure agreement (left) associated with Sunningwell common (D/WX2593/1), dated 1722, was accessioned by Berkshire Record Office.
Enclosure had a significant impact on affected communities, transforming the landscape both physically and economically. This was a legal process that usually involved consolidating small landholdings and common or communal land, with use of the enclosed land then becoming restricted to the owners. This enabled the introduction of better farming methods, leading to greater productivity, but also contributed to the loss of common rights and the rise of a landless working class.
Devon Heritage Centre collected an interesting document listing persons from five parishes in the Hundred of North Tawton qualified to serve on juries. Forming part of Quarter Session records, lists such as this were based on land and property ownership, with ownership of freehold being a requirement for a person to be considered eligible to serve on a jury.
Seventeenth Century
A relatively small percentage of records accessioned in 2016 relate to the seventeenth century. Many of these are deeds and court rolls. There are also records associated with the civil wars that dominated the 1640s, resulting in the execution of Charles I, as well as material related to the restoration and reign of Charles II. The National Army Museum obtained a collection of papers by Sir Edward Walker (1612-1677), secretary at war to Charles I. The documents, dating from 1643-1645, mostly concern the progress of war in the West Country and include minutes of meetings of the Council of War, draft proclamations and commissioning documents as well as an account of the Battle of Lostwithiel in 1644. In 1897 the Historical Manuscripts Commission recorded that the collection was “[only] of interest to the lighter students of our seventeenth century annals”, which only goes to show how historical tastes change.
Letters patent of Charles I, appointing commissioners of array for the city of Worcester in 1642, calling on men to join the king’s army, was purchased by Worcestershire Archives and Archaeology Service. The document was both signed by the king and impressed with the Great Seal, perhaps in an attempt to emphasise the legitimacy of reviving a medieval method of raising troops without the consent of Parliament. Commissions of Array were issued as a response to Parliament’s Militia Ordinance, passed without royal assent. The issue of which decree to follow became an early test of allegiance in the civil war. Throughout the first civil war Charles I had his headquarters at Oxford. An agreement between the King and the citizens and freemen of the City of Oxford and tenants of Wolvercote, regarding provision for the King’s army, was signed in 1643. This document, accessioned by the Bodleian Library, was signed by Thomas Dennis, Mayor of the City, and over sixty citizens and freemen, and states it is ‘to be left amongst the Records of the Cittie’, which the Bodleian have certainly ensured.
**Sixteenth Century**
Records from the sixteenth century comprise the fewest accessions from 2016. However, there are interesting examples of records covering the turbulent times between the reigns of Edward VI, Mary and Elizabeth I.
A deed of naturalisation for Jean Laysné, originally from Normandy, to be an English subject of Queen Elizabeth I, was accessioned by Island Archives Guernsey. The accompanying papers indicate Jean was a Huguenot escaping Catholic persecution. The document, dated 1591, is signed by Sir Thomas Leighton, who served as Governor of Guernsey from 1570 to 1609.
Deed of naturalisation, 1591 (AQ/1437/13), Island Archives Guernsey Cheshire Archives and Local Studies accessioned a charter of Edward VI, dated 1547, confirming John Percyvale’s will of 1502 endowing a chantry school in the town of Macclesfield. The school, whose survival had been threatened by the Abolition of Chantries Act 1547, was re-founded under the new charter, later becoming the free Grammar School of King Edward VI and granted former monastic lands in Chester.
During the reign of Mary I, with the country returned to Catholicism, relations with Rome were re-established. Thomas Thirlby (c.1500-1570), bishop, successively, of Westminster, Norwich and Ely, undertook a diplomatic embassy to Rome in 1555 with the aim of obtaining papal approval for Cardinal Pole’s plans to once again unite the English church with Rome. Bishop Thirlby’s journal of this mission is now in the collections of Lambeth Palace Library.
Medieval
The most commonly accessioned medieval documents are deeds and charters. Some of these charters are notable for bearing wax seals, often used as a means of authenticating documents, but could also be a way of conveying personal or institutional identity.
Trafford Local Studies, for example, accessioned the original charter for the town of Altrincham, dating from 1290. The charter, granted to the town by Baron Hamon de Massey, and set with his seal, allowed the town to become a Free Borough. The charter granted the town and its citizens certain privileges, allowing for the establishment of a weekly market and the creation of a merchants’ guild. Other accessioned records include items that reflect the devotional character of the period, such as a breviary or illuminated Books of Hours, containing prayers and psalms.
An early fourteenth century breviary from Sweetheart Abbey, a Cistercian monastery near Dumfries, was obtained by the National Library of Scotland. The breviary was listed in a private collection in the early 1700s, but all trace of it was lost for 300 years until it was recently auctioned in Vienna. A rare example of this type of liturgical text, the manuscript contains the lives of a number of Scottish saints as well as prayers written and used by the monks to assist in the recitation of the Divine Office. Continuing the religious theme, Cambridge University Department of Manuscripts accessioned a Book of Hours originating from Delft in the Netherlands dating from around 1445. And providing an example of devotional books south of the Alps, a late fifteenth century Italian Book of Hours was collected by Durham University Library. These books were designed for personal use, and while the central texts share characteristics, they demonstrate great variety, reflecting the individual preferences of their owners. Analysis
Scale of collecting
We received reports from 280 UK archives who reported details of 16,766 new collections acquired and accessioned in 2016. This represents about 10% of repositories with entries in the ARCHON directory so the true figure will be much larger.
In this analysis archives are divided into 12 regions of the UK (including a small amount of information from both sides of the border in Ireland) and into four types: local, national, special and university.
Regions
The largest number of reported collections accessioned came from the South East, followed by the South West and London.
______________________________________________________________________
- With the addition of Guernsey \*\* With the addition of the Isle of Man But there were, for instance, more than three times as many returns received from archives in London as there were archives in the West Midlands. Dividing collections recorded by the number of returning repositories suggests that it is the East Midlands region where individual repositories are collecting proportionately more than archives in other regions.
We have also attempted to calculate the extent of these collections. Archives report this extent in a range of ways. They might provide a formal measurement in cubic or linear metres or they might provide a summary such as ‘7 boxes’, ‘89 items’, ‘10 rolls’. We have added these counts to produce a total of orderable units. Since many more archives used these counts than provided measurements in metres we have produced estimated item counts from these figures.²
We estimate UK repositories accessioned over three hundred thousand (306,000) files and boxes.
² We used an estimate of 12 cubic metres to 1 linear metre, based on reports from archives. We used a conversion of 15 items to 1 linear metre based on the median results from returns from three test regions. Estimated files accessioned by region
Estimated files accessioned per repository London, the South West and Yorkshire appear to have accessioned the largest volumes of material. When averaged by repository, the South West appears to have achieved the highest accession volumes.
**Types**
It is local archives who appear to take on the burden of collecting in the UK.
Collections accessioned by repository type
If we divide the number of collections by the number of reporting repositories we find that on average, local archives received twice as many new collections as national institutions in 2016.
Collections accessioned per repository by type However these differences appear to narrow or disappear when we look at the extent of material reported rather than focusing on the number of accessions.
Estimated files accessioned by type
If we again divide the material accessioned by the number of repositories, the trend becomes even clearer: national collections report a greater extent of material than local archives.
Estimated files accessioned per repository by type
This strongly suggests that the average size of an accessioned collection in a national archive is substantially bigger than that in other types of archive. We will carry out further investigations to test this in future analyses. Digital Accessions
We did not ask archives to specifically report the extent of digital accessions. Nevertheless, this information was provided by a number of repositories giving a total of 50 digital collections. The volume of this data was 1.31 terabytes.³
Digital collections made up 0.3% of collections counted. The median size of a declared digital collection was 220MB and the largest single digital collection reported was 812 GB.
Next year we will ask archives to report more formally on such accessions and conduct a more searching analysis of what digital content archives are preserving.
Characteristics of collecting
Dates
There was very little variation in the chronological profile of collected material either regionally or by type.
³ A terabyte is 1024 gigabytes. Roughly 25% of collections include at least some 21st century material. Accessions overwhelmingly included 20th century material with documents becoming, predictably, scarcer over time. Themes
In terms of looking at what kind of material archives have been collecting, in this first data exploration we have focused on three areas: a very simple gender analysis, using instances of the word 'his' versus the word 'her' across collections; analysing accruals to look at how quickly collecting is evolving in different repositories and finally looking at top terms appearing in record descriptions.
His vs her
We see substantial regional variation in the occurrence of these words. Scotland is very close to a 1:1 ratio of collections using 'his' to collections using 'her'. Wales and the North East have ratios of 10:1 or more. London used the word 'her' most frequently but also used the word 'his' far more frequently than any other region (giving a ratio of around 5:1). No repository in the West Midlands used the word 'her' in their return.
Given the date profile of collected material some of these ratios may appear disappointing but this is a highly selective metric, acting as a surrogate for more sophisticated gender analysis of record creators which we intend for the future. Again, we see considerable variation. Special collections have a ratio of 1.25:1. Local and University collections achieve 2.7 and 3.8 to 1, respectively. National collections are at more than 7:1.
**Accruals**
Accruals represent the proportion of accessions which are additions to existing collections as opposed to completely new deposits. Based on the average performance of local archives, regions with more than 50% accruals should perhaps consider whether their current collecting is sufficiently diverse. The South West reported the highest proportion of collections which were accruals at 58%. Once again, Scotland seems to offer a model at 32%.
The University sector in general may wish to consider whether a majority of their accessions should continue to be accruals.
**Top terms**
In order to illustrate, roughly, distinctions and commonalities between collected material we have tabulated the words occurring most frequently across reporting repositories.
We have divided these words into two types: those looking at the materiality of the record (‘minutes’, ‘correspondence’, ‘notes’) and those characterising the content of the record (‘personal’, ‘regimental’, ‘church’)
Across different repository types we see common material types but some more variety in the themes or content of the material. | Type | Material | Count | Theme | Count | |----------|----------------|-------|----------|-------| | Special | photographs | 127 | nursing | 199 | | | correspondence | 96 | hospital | 106 | | | notes | 77 | royal | 89 | | | book | 74 | personal | 85 | | | minutes | 63 | college | 81 | | | certificate | 62 | council | 77 | | University| correspondence | 226 | university| 194 | | | photographs | 194 | his | 130 | | | minutes | 133 | college | 103 | | | letters | 124 | church | 87 | | | book | 116 | baptist | 80 | | | notes | 94 | research | 75 | | National | photographs | 156 | grenadier| 264 | | | correspondence | 122 | guards | 263 | | | letters | 105 | war | 216 | | | photographic | 63 | associated| 210 | | | photograph | 61 | his | 176 | | | notes | 59 | regimental| 145 | | Local | minutes | 2373 | church | 1462 | | | photographs | 1746 | school | 1359 | | | book | 1719 | st [saint]| 1165 | | | register | 1078 | parish | 877 | | | books | 947 | committee| 753 | | | registers | 919 | council | 706 |
This year, national acquisitions appear to contain a significant amount of military material and special collections collected a large tranche of medical material. There seems to be some overlap between religious material collected by local archives and the collecting practice of universities.
Looking regionally, there is considerable homogeneity among archives, particularly in England, with a strong focus on traditional institutions of church and state. A preponderance of national collections gives London and Scotland a different picture. These terms sit on top of much more diverse holdings but the question must be asked whether, fundamentally, collecting church, school and council records fully represents the lived experience of life in the UK, particularly when, as we have seen up to 25% of these records may come from the 20th century. | Type | Material | Count | Theme | Count | |--------------|--------------|-------|-----------|-------| | South East | minutes | 357 | church | 293 | | | photographs | 304 | parish | 215 | | | deeds | 177 | st [saint]| 153 | | | register | 166 | committee | 123 | | | book | 165 | council | 109 | | | correspondence | 156 | school | 104 | | South West | minutes | 449 | church | 293 | | | photographs | 308 | st [saint]| 274 | | | book | 239 | parish | 202 | | | correspondence | 232 | committee | 173 | | | register | 195 | school | 142 | | | books | 185 | family | 136 | | Scotland | photographs | 193 | nursing | 199 | | | book | 160 | school | 133 | | | minutes | 116 | council | 91 | | | correspondence | 111 | royal | 86 | | | books | 103 | hospital | 82 | | | letter | 71 | college | 76 | | Yorkshire | book | 293 | church | 125 | | | photographs | 247 | school | 122 | | | minutes | 236 | leeds | 115 | | | correspondence | 191 | committee | 90 | | | accounts | 114 | york | 85 | | | register | 101 | service | 79 | | Wales | minutes | 111 | swansea | 74 | | | photographs | 107 | school | 66 | | | books | 78 | church | 58 | | | registers | 73 | history | 40 | | | book | 73 | family | 39 | | | photograph | 56 | council | 36 | | Ireland | papers | 19 | belfast | 12 | | | letters | 12 | co | 12 | | | correspondence | 11 | his | 10 | | | printed | 11 | photographs | 8 | | | minutes | 8 | ireland | 6 | | | accounts | 6 | her | 6 | | East | minutes | 416 | church | 299 | | | correspondence | 309 | st [saint]| 295 | | | book | 263 | school | 231 | | | photographs | 189 | road | 161 | | | register | 147 | hall | 134 | | | accounts | 146 | farm | 133 | | East Midlands| minutes | 289 | church | 152 | | | book | 287 | school | 138 | | | register | 196 | committee | 115 | | | photographs | correspondence | minute | council | nottingham | meeting | |----------------------|-------------|----------------|--------|---------|------------|---------| | West Midlands | 184 | 136 | 109 | 86 | 85 | 74 | | | minutes | 158 | church | 79 | parish | 49 | | | photographs | 115 | parish | 49 | school | 88 | | | book | 93 | service| 31 | 31 | | | | correspondence | 90 | council| 31 | committee | 30 | | | registers | 87 | | | | | | | accounts | 71 | | | | | | North East | photographs | 85 | northumberland | 57 | | | minutes | 79 | durham | 54 | | | | | registers | 50 | court | 49 | | | | | books | 57 | plans | 46 | | | | | book | 53 | council| 43 | | | | | register | 50 | school | 43 | | | | North West | photographs | 278 | school | 352 | | | | | book | 251 | st [saint] | 246 | | | minutes | 249 | bees | 156 | | | | | correspondence | 193 | church | 154 | | | | | books | 135 | council| 107 | | | | | register | 133 | house | 105 | | | | London | photographs | 237 | grenadier | 264 | | | correspondence | 207 | guards | 263 | | | | | minutes | 156 | war | 237 | | | | | letters | 117 | associated | 210 | | | photograph | 109 | his | 197 | | | | | notes | 106 | world | 149 | | |
Just to clarify one point, the North West is not obsessed with beekeeping but collected a considerable quantity of records related to St Bees in Cumbria. Coverage and constraints
This was messy data which we have done our best to clean: not all archives fill in every field for every item and although returns are via a template, archives report values such as the size of a collection in many different ways which we have attempted to regularise.
There is also considerable regional variation in the coverage of the survey both in terms of representation from repositories regionally and by type.
In Wales, almost 18% of all repositories recorded in the ARCHON directory contributed data. For the East Midlands this was only 6.5%.
24% of National collections submitted returns but only around 2.5% of special collections. The latter are by far the largest type representing around half of ARCHON entries.
Returns from business archives and private archives are entirely absent, for the simple reason that we have not traditionally asked for them.
While the latter category may create considerable difficulty in collecting returns and debate over what constitutes a ‘repository’, the total exclusion of the former category, at a time when business archives are taking great strides both in their own collections knowledge and in providing public access does not seem conducive to representing the richness of UK collecting and we hope to make some progress in this area in the near future.
These results represent a snapshot of data. In the future, we will be able to look at trends over time using this same methodology. We have plans for more sophisticated analysis as our data collection and methods evolve.
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/0897-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 29,
"total-input-tokens": 55148,
"total-output-tokens": 10046,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
35,
1
],
[
35,
901,
2
],
[
901,
2770,
3
],
[
2770,
4927,
4
],
[
4927,
7671,
5
],
[
7671,
9592,
6
],
[
9592,
11841,
7
],
[
11841,
13392,
8
],
[
13392,
15791,
9
],
[
15791,
17980,
10
],
[
17980,
19185,
11
],
[
19185,
20336,
12
],
[
20336,
21863,
13
],
[
21863,
22552,
14
],
[
22552,
23063,
15
],
[
23063,
23753,
16
],
[
23753,
24883,
17
],
[
24883,
24965,
18
],
[
24965,
25538,
19
],
[
25538,
26199,
20
],
[
26199,
26986,
21
],
[
26986,
27172,
22
],
[
27172,
28277,
23
],
[
28277,
28621,
24
],
[
28621,
29598,
25
],
[
29598,
31934,
26
],
[
31934,
34756,
27
],
[
34756,
37462,
28
],
[
37462,
39025,
29
]
]
} |
918577cb21a42e6f4de37fa2a93bca8170081d9d | Proven Re-offending Statistics Quarterly Bulletin April 2010 to March 2011, England and Wales
Ministry of Justice Statistics Bulletin
31 January 2013 Contents
Introduction .................................................................................................................. 3 Executive summary ...................................................................................................... 7 List of quarterly tables .............................................................................................. 20 Annex A: Payment by results .................................................................................... 23 Annex B: How the measure of proven re-offending has changed and the effect of these changes ........................................................................................................ 26 Annex C: Glossary of terms ...................................................................................... 43 Explanatory notes ...................................................................................................... 52 Contact points .......................................................................................................... 53 Introduction
The Proven Re-offending Statistics Quarterly Bulletin provides key statistics on proven re-offending in England and Wales. It gives proven re-offending figures for offenders, who were released from custody, received a non-custodial conviction at court, received a caution, reprimand, warning or tested positive for opiates or cocaine between April 2010 and March 2011. Proven re-offending is defined as any offence committed in a one year follow-up period and receiving a court conviction, caution, reprimand or warning in the one year follow-up or within a further six month waiting period. This is referred to as a proven re-offence.
This quarterly bulletin presents the proportion of offenders who re-offend (proven re-offending rate) and the number of proven re-offences those offenders commit by age group, gender, ethnicity, criminal history and offence type. Also included are proven re-offending rates for serious proven re-offending, different types of offenders (e.g. adult, juvenile, drug-misusing and prolific and other priority offenders); different types of sentence; and for individual prisons, probation trusts and youth offending teams.
Latest figures are provided with comparisons to April 2009 to March 2010 and the year 2000 in order to highlight long-term trends; 2000 is the earliest year for which proven re-offending data exist on a comparable basis. The full set of results is provided separately in Excel tables at:
www.justice.gov.uk/statistics/reoffending/proven-re-offending
The accompanying ‘Definitions and Measurement’ document, which is available at the same link, provides more detailed information. Measuring proven re-offending
There is no agreed international standard for measuring and reporting re-offending. An offender’s journey through the criminal justice system can be a complex one; offenders can appear on numerous occasions.
Measuring true re-offending is complex. Official records are taken from either the police or courts, but they will underestimate the true level of re-offending because only a proportion of crime is reported and/or detected and not all crimes are recorded on one central system. Furthermore, other methods for measuring re-offending, such as self report studies which do not identify the offender, are likely to be unreliable. Therefore, this report aims to measure proven re-offending.
Since re-offending is now measured on a consistent basis across all groups, it is possible to tailor analysis of re-offending to meet specific requirements. This quarterly bulletin and the accompanying ‘Early estimates of proven re-offending’ present measures on four different levels to meet users’ needs:
- The headline measure – this is the main measure of re-offending and is presented for different demographic groups and by offence. To provide this overview of proven re-offending, offenders are tracked and their proven re-offending behaviour is recorded, taking the first event in the relevant period as the start point and subsequent events as proven re-offences.
- A headline measure where the first event is related to criminal justice and offender management – this provides a realistic and relevant view of proven re-offending by disposal (sentence type), prison and probation trust. Offenders are tracked and their proven re-offending behaviour is recorded within each disposal (caution, court order, discharge from prison, etc.) or operational unit (prison or probation trust) taking the first event within each as the start point and subsequent events as re-offences.
- Early estimates of proven re-offending – these use shorter follow-up and waiting periods, but otherwise measure re-offending in exactly the same way as the headline measure. This is intended to provide offender managers with an earlier indication of proven re-offending trends so they can adjust or build on offender management operational policy.
- A re-conviction measure for use by payment by results – this is the measure used in the prison pilots since court convictions are more closely associated with costs to the criminal justice system. For more details, please refer to Annex A.
1 An event is one of the following: a release from custody, convicted at court with a non-custodial sentence, received a caution, reprimand, warning or tested positive for opiates or cocaine For a more detailed explanation, please see the accompanying ‘Definitions and Measurement’ document at:
www.justice.gov.uk/statistics/reoffending/proven-re-offending
Consultation
This quarterly bulletin was developed in response to a consultation in late 2010 and early 2011 by the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) on “Improvements to Ministry of Justice Statistics”. The main points from the consultation that affect this publication can be found in Annex B.
Users
The contents of this bulletin will be of interest to Government policy makers, the agencies responsible for offender management at both national and local levels, providers, practitioners and others who want to understand more about proven re-offending.
In particular there are two MoJ impact indicators(^2) which will be monitored using results from this bulletin:
- Adult and juvenile re-offending – the percentage of adult and juvenile offenders who re-offend, measured quarterly by local authority.
- The percentage of adults released from custody who re-offend, measured annually by prison.
Government policy makers also use these statistics to develop, monitor and evaluate key elements of its policies including those on payments by results, legal aid, sentencing guidelines and drug and alcohol policies. Offender management agencies use these statistics to gain a local understanding of the criminal justice system, understand performance and to highlight best practice. Key agencies include: the National Offender Management Service, the Youth Justice Board, private and voluntary sector providers of prison and probation services and local authorities.
As proven re-offending is related to the characteristics of offenders, the actual rate of proven re-offending will depend, in part, on the characteristics of offenders coming into the system. This actual rate provides users with sufficient information on what the level of re-offending is (e.g. in their local area) and how it is changing over time. This bulletin also presents an adjusted proven re-offending rate to control for differences in the composition of the offender group which can be used by those who want to understand how changes in types of offenders coming through the justice system drives re-offending rates.
(^2) www.justice.gov.uk/publications/corporate-reports/moj/index.htm This bulletin is published alongside four inter-related bulletins:
- **Offender Management Statistics Quarterly Bulletin, July to September 2012, England and Wales**: provides key statistics relating to offenders who are in prison or under Probation Service supervision. It covers flows into these services (receptions into prison or probation starts) and flows out (discharges from prison or probation terminations) as well as the caseload of both services at specific points in time. It also includes information on returns to custody following recall.
- **Safety in Custody Statistics Quarterly update to September 2012, England and Wales**: provides statistics on death, self harm and assault incidents whilst in prison custody.
- **Youth Justice Statistics 2011/12, England and Wales**: this cross-cutting publication brings together statistics from across the Youth Justice System, many of which have already been published separately.
- **Story of the Prison Population 1993 to 2012, England and Wales**: this publication provides a summary of what has happened to the prison population since 1993 and the major factors contributing to the changes. It is an update to the previous version which covered the period 1995 to 2009. The updated period of 2009 to 2012 includes the impact of the public disorder of August 2011, and the falling prison population during 2012.
Taken together, these publications present users with a more coherent overview of offender management, re-offending among adults and young people, the youth justice system and the safety of offenders whilst in prison custody.
Additional analyses on proven re-offending that are not covered by this bulletin are presented in the ‘Compendium of re-offending statistics and analysis’. The 2012 Compendium was published by the MoJ on 12 July 2012 and includes, for example, analyses on longer-term trends in re-offending; and the relative effectiveness of different juvenile sentences in reducing re-offending.
[www.justice.gov.uk/statistics/reoffending/compendium-of-reoffending-statistics-and-analysis](http://www.justice.gov.uk/statistics/reoffending/compendium-of-reoffending-statistics-and-analysis)
If you have any feedback, questions or requests for further information about this statistical bulletin, please direct them to the appropriate contact given at the end of this report. Executive summary
This report provides key statistics on proven re-offending in England and Wales. It gives proven re-offending figures for offenders who were released from custody, received a non-custodial conviction at court, received a caution, reprimand, warning or tested positive for opiates or cocaine between April 2010 and March 2011. Proven re-offending is defined as any offence committed in a one year follow-up period and receiving a court conviction, caution, reprimand or warning in the one year follow-up. Following this one year period, a further six month waiting period is allowed for cases to progress through the courts.
Between April 2010 and March 2011, around 640,000 offenders(^3) were cautioned(^4), convicted (excluding immediate custodial sentences) or released from custody(^5). Around 170,000 of these offenders committed a proven re-offence within a year. This gives a one year proven re-offending rate of 26.8 per cent, which represents a rise of 0.5 percentage points compared to the previous 12 months and a fall of 1.1 percentage points since 2000 (Table 1).
These re-offenders committed an average of 2.88 re-offences each. In total, this represents around 500,000 re-offences of which 82 per cent were committed by adults and 18 per cent were committed by juveniles (Table 1).
- 55.9 per cent (around 280,000) were committed by re-offenders with 11 or more previous offences (Table 6c).
- 0.7 per cent (around 3,300) were serious violent/sexual proven re-offences (Table 8).
- 5.1 per cent (around 25,000) were committed by re-offenders on the Prolific and other Priority Offender Programme (PPO) (Table 16).
______________________________________________________________________
(^3) A certain proportion of offenders who could not be matched to the Police National Computer (PNC) are excluded from the offender cohort. Therefore, this number does not represent all proven offenders. Please refer to the ‘Definitions and Measurement’ document for more detail at www.justice.gov.uk/statistics/reoffending/proven-re-offending. This means that the number of offenders in this bulletin will be different from the numbers published in the Offender Management Quarterly Statistics Bulletin available at www.justice.gov.uk/statistics/prisons-and-probation/oms-quarterly and the Criminal Justice Statistics report available at www.justice.gov.uk/statistics/criminal-justice/criminal-justice-statistics
(^4) Includes reprimands and warnings for juveniles
(^5) Also includes those who tested positive for opiates or cocaine Key trends in proven re-offending
Adult offenders
Around 550,000 adult offenders(^3) were cautioned(^4), convicted or released from custody(^5) between April 2010 and March 2011. Around 140,000 of them committed a re-offence. This gives a proven re-offending rate of 25.4 per cent, which represents an increase of 0.5 percentage points compared to the previous 12 months and a fall of 0.8 percentage points since 2000 (Table 1).
However, compared to 2000, the offenders in the 12 months ending March 2011 had characteristics which meant they were more likely to re-offend. This means that, after controlling for offender characteristics, the decrease was larger at 3.1 percentage points (Table 1).
The average number of re-offences per re-offender was 2.88, a rise of 2.9 per cent compared to the previous 12 months and a fall of 15.1 per cent compared to 2000 (Table 1).
Looking at specific groups within the cohort:
- The proven re-offending rate for those released from custody was 47.2 per cent, a rise of 0.3 percentage points compared to the previous 12 months and a fall of 2.2 percentage points since 2000. The average number of re-offences committed per re-offender for this group was 4.21, an increase of 4.3 per cent compared to the previous 12 months and down 10.1 per cent since 2000 (Table 18a).
- The proven re-offending rate for those starting a court order (Community Order or Suspended Sentence Order) was 34.2 per cent, which represents no change compared to the previous 12 months and down 3.7 percentage points since 2000. The average number of re-offences per re-offender was 3.19, up 3.4 per cent compared to the previous 12 months and down 17.3 per cent since 2000 (Table 18a).
- The proven re-offending rate for drug-misusing offenders (all offenders who are given drug orders as part of their sentence or test positive for opiates upon arrest) was 57.6 per cent, up 2.5 percentage points compared to the previous 12 months (Table 15).
Juvenile offenders
Around 88,000 juvenile offenders(^3) were cautioned(^4), convicted or released from custody(^5) between April 2010 and March 2011. Around 32,000 of them committed a re-offence. This gives a proven re-offending rate of 35.8 per cent. This represents an increase in the rate of 2.5 percentage points compared to the previous 12 months and a rise of 2.1 percentage points since 2000 (Table 1). However, users should be aware that the cohort has changed considerably over the period since 2000 and is 36.6 per cent smaller than in 2000 and is comprised of offenders whose characteristics mean they are more likely to re-offend than those in the 2000 cohort. In order to account for this, we can control for changes in offender characteristics to give a more consistent view of changes over time. After controlling for these changes, the proven re-offending rate has actually decreased by 1.1 percentage points since 2000 (Table 1).
The average number of re-offences per re-offender was 2.87, an increase of 3.2 per cent compared to the previous 12 months and down 13.4 per cent since 2000 (Table 1).
Table E1: Overview – latest 12 month period compared to the previous 12 month period and 2000
| | 12 months ending March 2010 | 12 months ending March 2011 | Percentage change 2000 to 12 months ending March 2011 | Percentage change 12 months ending March 2010 to 12 months ending March 2011 | |------------------------|-----------------------------|-----------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------| | All offenders | | | | | | Proportion of offenders who re-offend (%) | 27.9 | 26.3 | 26.8 | -1.1pp ↓ | | Average number of re-offences per re-offender | 3.37 | 2.80 | 2.88 | -14.6% ↓ | | Proportion of offenders who re-offend - Adjusted to baseline2 (%) | 25.5 | 27.0 | 27.1 | - | | Average number of re-offences per offender | 0.94 | 0.73 | 0.77 | -17.9% ↓ | | Number of re-offences | 579,770 | 590,658 | 495,162 | -14.6% ↓ | | Number of re-offenders | 171,935 | 179,040 | 171,949 | -0.0% ↑ | | Number of offenders in cohort | 617,024 | 681,555 | 641,742 | -4.0% ↓ | | Adult offenders | | | | | | Proportion of offenders who re-offend (%) | 26.2 | 24.9 | 25.4 | -0.8pp ↓ | | Average number of re-offences per re-offender | 3.39 | 2.86 | 2.88 | -15.1% ↓ | | Proportion of offenders who re-offend - Adjusted to baseline2 (%) | 23.6 | 25.6 | 25.9 | - | | Average number of re-offences per offender | 0.89 | 0.70 | 0.73 | -17.9% ↓ | | Number of re-offences | 423,989 | 395,386 | 404,228 | -4.7% ↓ | | Number of re-offenders | 125,023 | 141,254 | 140,314 | -12.2% ↑ | | Number of offenders in cohort | 477,698 | 567,971 | 553,385 | -15.8% ↓ | | Juvenile offenders | | | | | | Proportion of offenders who re-offend (%) | 33.7 | 33.3 | 35.8 | 2.1pp ↑ | | Average number of re-offences per re-offender | 3.32 | 2.79 | 2.87 | -13.4% ↓ | | Proportion of offenders who re-offend - Adjusted to baseline2 (%) | 32.0 | 33.9 | 35.2 | - | | Average number of re-offences per offender | 1.12 | 0.93 | 1.03 | -8.0% ↓ | | Number of re-offences | 155,781 | 105,270 | 90,934 | -42.6% ↓ | | Number of re-offenders | 46,912 | 37,786 | 31,635 | -22.6% ↓ | | Number of offenders in cohort | 139,326 | 113,584 | 88,957 | -36.6% ↓ |
1. pp = percentage point and percentage changes may not add up due to rounding of raw figures
2. See the definitions and measurement paper for an explanation on how to use and interpret the baseline rate
Groups with the biggest changes in the proven re-offending rate since 2000
Biggest reductions:
- Adult females (a fall of 2.2 percentage points) (Table 2).
- 21 to 24 year olds (a fall of 2.6 percentage points) (Table 3).
- Adults with 7 to 10 previous offences (a fall of 3.2 percentage points) (Table 6a).
- Juveniles with 11 or more previous offences (a fall of 5.0 percentage points) (Table 6b). • Adults who received court orders (a fall 3.7 percentage points) (Table 18a).
• Juveniles who received first tier penalties (a fall of 6.2 percentage points) (Table 18b).
• Adults who received custodial sentences of 12 months to less than 4 years (a fall of 9.3 percentage points) (Table 19a).
Biggest increases:
• Juvenile females (a rise of 3.2 percentage points) (Table 2).
• 40 to 49 year olds (a rise of 4.4 percentage points) (Table 3).
• Adults who received custodial sentences of less than 12 months (a rise of 3.6 percentage points) (Table 19a).
All offenders
Proven re-offending by age
Between April 2010 and March 2011, as in previous years, 15 to 17 year olds had the highest proven re-offending rate at 36.7 per cent. The proven re-offending rate falls with increasing age (after those aged 15 to 17) as shown in Figure E1 (Table 3).
Compared to 2000, the proven re-offending rate for the 12 months ending March 2011 rose for 10 to 17 year olds and for those aged 30 and over, but fell for offenders aged 18 to 29 (Table 3).
The largest decrease in the average number of re-offences per re-offender was among those aged 21 to 24, which fell from 3.61 in 2000 to 2.74 in the 12 months ending March 2011 (a fall of 24.0 per cent) (Table 3). Proven re-offending by criminal history
Offenders with a large number of previous offences have a higher rate of proven re-offending and this is true for both adults and juveniles. The proven re-offending rates range from 11.4 per cent for offenders with no previous offences to 48.2 per cent for offenders with 11 or more previous offences. Compared to 2000, the largest decrease in the proven re-offending rate for the 12 months ending March 2011 was among offenders who had seven to 10 previous offences (a fall of 4.4 percentage points) (Table 6c).
Adult offenders with 11 or more previous offences represented 28.4 per cent of all adult offenders in the 12 months ending March 2011. Around 75,000 offenders in this group committed 64.0 per cent of all adult proven re-offences (Table 6a).
For juveniles, there were around 5,000 offenders with 11 or more previous offences and they had a proven re-offending rate of 77.2 per cent. This group make up only 5.6 per cent of juvenile offenders, but committed almost a fifth (19.7 per cent) of all juvenile proven re-offences (around 18,000) (Table 6b).
Proven re-offending by index offence
The offence that leads to an offender being included in the relevant year is called the index offence. Between April 2010 and March 2011, as in most previous years, domestic burglary had the highest proven re-offending rate at 48.9 per cent, and sexual (child) offences the lowest at 9.4 per cent. The largest decrease between 2000 and the 12 months ending March 2011 in the proven re-offending rate was for soliciting or prostitution with a decrease of 19.0 percentage points, followed by other motoring offences with a decrease of 12.2 percentage points (Table 5c).
Figure E2: Proportion of adult and juvenile offenders who commit a proven re-offence, by index offence, 12 months ending March 2011
Adult proven re-offending
Between April 2010 and March 2011, there were around 550,000 adult offenders. Around 140,000 of these offenders were proven to have committed a re-offence within a year. This gives a one year proven re-offending rate of 25.4 per cent, up slightly from the previous 12 months by 0.5 percentage points (Table 1).
These re-offenders committed an average of 2.88 re-offences, up from 2.80 in the previous 12 months (Table 1).
Overall there has been a 0.8 percentage point decrease in the proven re-offending rate since 2000 (from 26.2 to 25.4 per cent). However, compared to 2000, the offenders in 2010 had characteristics which meant they were more likely to re-offend. This means that, after controlling for offender characteristics, the decrease was larger at 3.1 percentage points (Table 1). Figure E3: Proportion of adult offenders who commit a proven re-offence, 2000, 2002 to 12 months ending March 2011
1. Data are not available for 2001 due to a problem with archived data on Court Orders
Figure E4: Average number of proven re-offences per adult re-offender, 2000, 2002 to 12 months ending March 2011
1. Data are not available for 2001 due to a problem with archived data on Court Orders Proven re-offending rates for adult offenders discharged from prison or commencing a court order
Between April 2010 and March 2011, around 190,000 adult offenders were discharged from prison or commenced a court order. Around 69,000 of these offenders were proven to have committed a re-offence within a year. This gives a one year proven re-offending rate of 36.0 per cent. The average number of proven re-offences committed by these re-offenders was 3.36.
Overall there was a 4.9 percentage point decrease (from 40.9 to 36.0 per cent) in the proven re-offending rate between 2000 and the 12 months ending March 2011 and an 18.5 per cent decrease (from 4.13 to 3.36) in the average number of proven re-offences per re-offender.
Proven re-offending rates for adult offenders discharged from prison
Between April 2010 and March 2011, around 56,000 adult offenders were discharged from prison. Around 26,000 of these (47.2 per cent) were proven to have committed a re-offence within a year. These offenders committed around 111,000 proven re-offences, an average of 4.21 each (Table 18a).
More than half (53.5 per cent) of adult offenders discharged from prison were released from a sentence of less than 12 months. These offenders had a one year proven re-offending rate of 57.8 per cent, an increase of 3.6 percentage points from 2000 (54.3 per cent) (Table 19a).
Figure E5: Proportion of adult offenders discharged from prison who commit a proven re-offence, by custodial sentence length, 2000, 2002 to 12 months ending March 2011
1. Data are not available for 2001 due to a problem with archived data on Court Orders Proven re-offending rates for adult offenders by individual prison
Among prisons which discharged 30 or more offenders between April 2010 and March 2011, proven re-offending rates varied considerably from 12.9 per cent to 77.8 per cent for offenders with a sentence of less than 12 months and from 1.8 per cent to 66.2 per cent for offenders with a sentence of 12 months or more. A large part of this variability reflects the mix of offenders who are held in different prisons and, therefore, comparisons between prisons should not be made using these raw re-offending rates (Tables 22a and 22b).
To account for this variability in the mix of prisoners, a model has been developed to help explain if re-offending rates are affected by the specific prison they are discharged from or if the rate of re-offending reflects the mix of offenders. For example, a group of prisoners with a high number of previous offences is more likely to re-offend than a group with a low number of previous offences.
Among prisons discharging offenders serving sentences of less than 12 months, three prisons (Haverigg, Stafford and Sudbury) had significantly lower proven re-offending rates than expected and two (Ashfield and Feltham) had significantly higher (Table 22a).
Among prisons discharging offenders serving sentences of 12 months or more, four prisons had significantly lower proven re-offending rates (Askham Grange, East Sutton Park, Kirklevington Grange and Maidstone) than expected and one (Werrington) had significantly higher (Table 22b).
Proven re-offending for adult offenders commencing a court order
Between April 2010 and March 2011, around 110,000 adult offenders started a community order. Around 38,000 of these (35.6 per cent) committed a proven re-offence within a year. These proven re-offenders committed around 120,000 proven re-offences, an average of 3.27 each. Similarly, of the 39,000 adult offenders starting a suspended sentence order, 30.3 per cent committed a proven re-offence within a year, with an average of 2.95 proven re-offences each (Tables 20 and 21).
Proven re-offending rates for adult offenders by probation trust
Offenders given a court order are managed by the Probation Service which comprises 35 probation trusts. Proven re-offending rates for these offenders are presented by probation trust in Table 24. This takes the first court order commencement from within each probation trust as the start point for measuring re-offending and subsequent events as proven re-offences.
Proven re-offending rates varied considerably between probation trusts from 28.0 per cent to 44.1 per cent. A large part of this variability reflects the mix of offenders who are given a court order and, therefore, comparisons between probation trusts should not be made using these raw re-offending rates (Table 24). For probation trusts an adjusted proven re-offending rate to control for differences in the composition of the offender group in each trust has been developed from the national model. Seven probation trusts showed significantly lower proven re-offending rates than expected. These were Gloucestershire, London, Northamptonshire, Staffordshire and West Midlands, Thames Valley, Warwickshire and West Yorkshire. One (Nottinghamshire) showed significantly higher proven re-offending rates than expected (Table 24).
Proven re-offending rates by index disposal (sentence type) should not be compared to assess the effectiveness of sentences, as there is no control for known differences in offender characteristics and the type of sentence given. The ‘2011 Compendium of Re-offending Statistics and Analysis’ compares like for like offenders which enables a more reliable comparison of proven re-offending rates between offenders receiving different sentences.
The key results from the Compendium were:
- Those sentenced to one to two years in custody had lower re-offending rates than those given sentences of less than 12 months – the difference was 4.4 percentage points in 2008.
- Custodial sentences of less than 12 months were less effective at reducing re-offending than both community orders and suspended sentence orders – between five and nine percentage points in 2008.
www.justice.gov.uk/statistics/reoffending/compendium-of-reoffending-statistics-and-analysis
**Juvenile proven re-offending**
Between April 2010 and March 2011, there were around 88,000 juvenile offenders. Around 32,000 of these offenders were proven to have committed a re-offence within a year. This gives a one year proven re-offending rate of 35.8 per cent, an increase of 2.5 percentage points from 33.3 per cent in the previous 12 months (Table 1).
These re-offenders committed an average of 2.87 re-offences, an increase from 2.79 in the previous 12 months (Table 1).
However, the number of juvenile proven offenders has decreased by 36.6 per cent since 2000 (Table 1). This is in line with the pattern of first time entrants to the criminal justice system where the number of young people receiving their first reprimand, warning or conviction has also decreased. More information on first time entrants for both adults and juveniles can be found in the ‘Criminal Justice Statistics Quarterly Bulletin’ at:
www.justice.gov.uk/statistics/criminal-justice/criminal-justice-statistics Overall there has been a 2.1 percentage point increase in the proven re-offending rate of juveniles since 2000 (from 33.7 to 35.8 per cent). However, compared to 2000, the characteristics of juvenile offenders in the 12 months ending March 2011 meant that they were more likely to re-offend. Therefore, after controlling for offender characteristics, the proven re-offending rate actually decreased by 1.1 percentage points (Table 1).
Among Youth Offending Teams (YOTs), proven re-offending rates varied considerably from 24.2 per cent to 52.2 per cent. A large part of this variability reflects the mix of offenders who are managed by different YOTs and, therefore, comparisons between YOTs should not be made using these raw re-offending rates (Table 17).
More information on youth criminal statistics is available at:
www.justice.gov.uk/statistics/youth-justice
**Trends in proven re-offending across the country**
Map 1 shows proven re-offending rates by upper-tier local authority. This chart is not controlled for the characteristics of offenders and is designed for users to gain an understanding of what the level of proven re-offending is within their area and how it is changing over time.
When comparing between local authorities, the differences may be due to:
- Different types of offenders; areas where the offenders have high numbers of previous offences are likely to have higher proven re-offending rates.
- Police activity; areas with high police detection rates are likely to have higher proven re-offending rates.
- Age profile of offenders in the area; areas with a younger population are likely to have higher proven re-offending rates.
When comparing proven re-offending over time within local authorities, any significant changes in these factors may affect the comparison.
Between April 2010 and March 2011, very few local authorities showed substantial change compared to the previous 12 months. For local authorities with 30 or more offenders, the largest decrease was seen in the City of London (down 9.0 percentage points) and the largest increase was in Slough (up 3.3 percentage points) (Table 13c). Map E1: Overall proven re-offending rates by upper-tier local authority for adults and juveniles, 12 months ending March 2011
Legend Re-offending Rates Rate 0 - 20% 20 - 25% 25 - 30% 30 - 35% 35% + Re-offending rate is not shown as it is based on less than 30 offenders
© Crown copyright. All rights reserved. Ministry of Justice 100037819 2013 Prolific and other priority offenders
The Prolific and other Priority Offender Programme (PPO) aims to use a multi-agency approach to focus on a very small, but hard-core group of prolific/persistent offenders who commit a disproportionate amount of crime. Please refer to the ‘Definitions and Measurement’ document for more detail:
www.justice.gov.uk/statistics/reoffending/proven-re-offending
Around 7,100 offenders(^3) (adult and juvenile) were on the PPO scheme at some point between April 2010 and March 2011. Of these, around 5,500 committed a proven re-offence within a year (76.8 per cent). These re-offenders represented 0.9 per cent of all offenders, but were responsible for 5.1 per cent of all proven re-offences committed (Table 16).
Compared to the previous 12 months, the proportion of PPO offenders who committed a proven re-offence increased by 1.9 percentage points. This compares to an overall decrease of 0.2 percentage points since the scheme began in 2005 (Table 16).
Drug-misusing offenders
The Drug Interventions Programme (DIP) was introduced in April 2003 with the aim of developing and integrating measures for directing adult drug-misusing offenders into drug treatment and reducing offending behaviour. There are a number of ways offenders can be identified as drug-misusers. Please refer to the ‘Definitions and Measurement’ document for more detail:
www.justice.gov.uk/statistics/reoffending/proven-re-offending
Around 46,000 adult offenders(^3) were identified as drug-misusers at some point between April 2010 and March 2011. Of these, around 26,000 committed a proven re-offence within a year (57.6 per cent). These re-offenders represented 4.8 percent of all adult offenders, but were responsible for 26.6 per cent of all proven re-offences committed by adult offenders (Table 15).
Compared to the previous 12 months, the proportion of drug-misusing offenders who committed a proven re-offence has increased by 2.5 percentage points. Since 2005, there has been a decrease of 7.7 percentage points, although most of this change occurred between 2005 and 2006 when there was a large expansion in the drug intervention programme (Table 15). List of quarterly tables
Proven re-offending – overview
Table 1 Summary proven re-offending data, by adults and juveniles 2000, 2002 to March 2011 Table 2 Proven re-offending data, by gender, 2000, 2002 to March 2011 Table 3 Proven re-offending data, by age, 2000, 2002 to March 2011 Table 4a Adult proven re-offending data, by ethnicity, 2000, 2002 to March 2011 Table 4b Juvenile proven re-offending data, by ethnicity, 2000, 2002 to March 2011 Table 4c Adult and juvenile proven re-offending data, by ethnicity, 2000, 2002 to March 2011 Table 5a Adult proven re-offending data, by index offence, 2000, 2002 to March 2011 Table 5b Juvenile proven re-offending data, by index offence, 2000, 2002 to March 2011 Table 5c Adult and juvenile proven re-offending data, by index offence, 2000, 2002 to March 2011 Table 6a Adult proven re-offending data, by number of previous offences, 2000, 2002 to March 2011 Table 6b Juvenile proven re-offending data, by number of previous offences, 2000, 2002 to March 2011 Table 6c Adult and juvenile proven re-offending data, by number of previous offences, 2000, 2002 to March 2011 Table 7a Adult proven re-offending data, by number of previous custodial sentences, 2000, 2002 to March 2011 Table 7b Juvenile proven re-offending data, by number of previous custodial sentences, 2000, 2002 to March 2011 Table 8 Serious proven re-offending data, 2000, 2002 to March 2011
-----------------Tables 9 to12 are published annually in October----------------- Table 13a Proven re-offending of adult offenders, by upper-tier local authority, 2005 to March 2011 rolling quarters
Table 13b Proven re-offending of juvenile offenders, by upper-tier local authority, 2005 to March 2011 rolling quarters
Table 13c Proven re-offending of adult and juvenile offenders, by upper-tier local authority, 2005 to March 2011 rolling quarters
Table 14a Proven re-offending of adult offenders, by lower-tier local authority, 2005 to March 2011 rolling quarters
Table 14b Proven re-offending of juvenile offenders, by lower-tier local authority, 2005 to March 2011 rolling quarters
Table 14c Proven re-offending of adult and juvenile offenders, by lower-tier local authority, 2005 to March 2011 rolling quarters
Table 15 Proven re-offending of adult drug-misusing offenders, by Drug Action Team, 2004 to March 2011 rolling quarters
Table 16 Proven re-offending of adult and juvenile prolific and other priority offenders, by upper-tier local authority, 2005 to March 2011 rolling quarters
Table 17 Juvenile proven re-offending data, by Youth Offending Team and upper-tier local authority, 2005 to March 2011 rolling quarters
Proven re-offending by index disposal, probation trust and prison
Table 18a Adult proven re-offending data, by index disposal, 2000, 2002 to March 2011
Table 18b Juvenile proven re-offending data, by index disposal, 2000, 2002 to March 2011
Table 19a Adult proven re-offending data, by custodial sentence length, 2000, 2002 to March 2011
Table 19b Juvenile proven re-offending data, by custodial sentence length, 2000, 2002 to March 2011
Table 20 Adult proven re-offending data, by most frequently-used combinations of requirements for offenders starting Community Orders, 2005 to March 2011
Table 21 Adult proven re-offending data, by most frequently-used combinations of requirements for offenders starting Suspended Sentence Orders, 2005 to March 2011 Table 22a Proven re-offending of adult offenders given sentences of less than 12 months, by individual prison, based on first discharge from each prison, 2007 to March 2011
Table 22b Proven re-offending of adult offenders given sentences of 12 months or more, by individual prison, based on first discharge from each prison, 2007 to March 2011
Table 23 Juvenile proven re-offending data, by individual prison or secure accommodation, based on first discharge from each prison or secure accommodation, 2007 to March 2011
Table 24 Adult proven re-offending data by probation trust based on first commencement from each trust, 2005 to March 2011
Table 25 Proven re-offending data for adult offenders released from prison on licence, by probation trust, 2008 to March 2011 Annex A
Payment by results
Background
The “Breaking the Cycle” Green Paper(^6) included a commitment for the MoJ to commission a series of initial ‘payment by results’ (PbR) pilot projects, to test the principle that PbR can result in service improvements by delivering better outcomes for the public at the same or less cost. Ten pilot projects are underway, testing a range of approaches and performance measures in different areas.
For the pilots at Peterborough and Doncaster prisons, the outcome measure is defined as a real reduction in re-convictions among offenders during the 12 months following release from prison.
The Local Justice Reinvestment PbR pilots in operation across five London boroughs and Greater Manchester use a different outcome measure, namely a reduction in demand on the Criminal Justice System. The results for the first year of this pilot have been published separately at the following link:
[www.justice.gov.uk/information-access-rights/transparency-data/justice-reinvestment-pilots-first-year-results](http://www.justice.gov.uk/information-access-rights/transparency-data/justice-reinvestment-pilots-first-year-results)
The MoJ published ‘Transforming Rehabilitation – a revolution in the way we manage offenders’ on 9 January 2013. This consultation paper proposes reforming the way in which offender services are delivered, including opening the majority of probation services to competition and the wider implementation of PbR. The pilot projects currently in operation continue to inform our plans to roll out PbR across the criminal justice system.
The ‘Transforming Rehabilitation’ consultation paper can be accessed through the link below. The deadline for consultation responses is 22 February 2013.
[consult.justice.gov.uk/digital-communications/transforming-rehabilitation](http://consult.justice.gov.uk/digital-communications/transforming-rehabilitation)
Prison results
The re-conviction measures used for the PbR pilot prisons presented below differ from the National Statistics re-offending measure. It counts offenders who are convicted at court in the 12 months following release from prison with a further six months to allow for cases to progress through the courts. It excludes those who receive an out-of-court disposal only. This is because, for PbR purposes, we want to measure a change in numbers of court convictions which are more closely associated with costs to the Criminal Justice System.
(^6) [www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/consultations/breaking-the-cycle.pdf](http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/consultations/breaking-the-cycle.pdf) Offenders are counted in the cohort if they are discharged from the prison at any time during the cohort period. The measure excludes those who serve the whole of their custodial sentence on remand as well as the usual National Statistics exclusions as explained in the ‘Definitions and Measurement’ document.
Table A1 below is included in the Proven Re-offending Quarterly Bulletin each quarter and shows, for each of the pilot prisons, the baseline and target re-conviction rate.
______________________________________________________________________
7 www.justice.gov.uk/statistics/reoffending/proven-re-offending 8 The rate at which the PbR outcome payment is first triggered at any given pilot site Table A1: Payment by results pilot prisons, baseline and target re-conviction rates
| Prison / Area | Start date of pilot | Baseline re-conviction rate (Jan to Dec 2009) | Target re-conviction rate (Oct 2011 to Sep 2012) | Outcome re-conviction rate (Oct 2011 to Sept 2012) | |---------------|---------------------|---------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------| | Peterborough Social Impact Bond (SIB)(^9) | 9 September 2010 | To be determined by comparison with control group | To be determined by comparison with control group | To be published in 2014 | | HMP Doncaster(^10) | 1 October 2011 | 58.2% | 53.2% | To be published in 2014 |
Number of eligible offenders in payment by results pilots
As part of the Department's Business Plan (2011-2015), the MoJ is committed to publishing quarterly data on the number of pilot rehabilitation schemes established and the number of participants, subject to commercial confidentiality and UK Statistics Authority guidance.
Table A2: Payment by results pilots commenced
| Prison / Area | Start date of pilot | Length of pilot | Number of eligible participants for Cohort 1 | Number of eligible participants to date for Cohort 2 | |---------------|---------------------|-----------------|---------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------| | Peterborough Social Impact Bond (SIB)(^9) | 9 September 2010 | Six years | 1,034(^{11}) | 126(^{12}) | | HMP Doncaster(^10) | 1 October 2011 | Four years | 1,503(^{13}) | N/A |
(^9) The Peterborough ‘Social Impact Bond’ uses a different outcome measure (the frequency of re-conviction events) and its success is measured against a control group. The results will be published separately.
(^10) For Doncaster prison the outcome measure is the proportion of offenders who are convicted at court in the 12 months following release from prison with a further six months to allow for cases to progress through the courts.
(^11) Eligible participants from Cohort 1 from 9 September 2010 to 1 July 2012
(^12) Eligible participants from Cohort 2 from 2 July 2012 to 30 September 2012
(^13) Eligible participants from Cohort 1 from 1 October 2011 to 30 September 2012 Annex B
How the measure of proven re-offending has changed and the effect of these changes
Background
The MoJ launched a statistical consultation on improvements to the transparency and accessibility of our information in 2010 and a response to the consultation was published in March 2011. One aspect of the consultation was the measurement of proven re-offending.
Prior to the consultation there were six different measures of proven re-offending:
- National adult proven re-offending;
- Local adult proven re-offending;
- National youth proven re-offending;
- Local youth proven re-offending;
- Prolific and other priority offending (PPO); and
- Drug-misusing proven offending.
The new approach to measuring proven re-offending integrates these approaches into a single framework. This allows users to:
- form a clear picture of proven re-offending at national and local levels;
- compare adult and youth results, and enable other work on transition between the youth and adult criminal justice systems;
- understand how results for different offender groups (such as those managed by the prison and probation services, those under the PPO schemes, drug-misusing offenders, first time entrants, etc.) fit in to the overall picture on proven re-offending; and
- continue to analyse proven re-offending behaviour for particular types of offender.
14 The response to the consultation is available here www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/consultations/improvements-moj-statistics-consultation-response.pdf Comparing trends in re-offending
Table B1 shows the proportion of offenders with a proven re-offence/re-conviction using the new measure of re-offending and the previous measures of adult re-conviction and juvenile re-offending. Comparisons we make use cohorts up to 2009.
Re-offending rates are lower using the new measure than using the previous measure. The differences are as follows:
- For adult and juvenile offenders the new measure is based on all offenders released from custody, receiving a non-custodial conviction at court, a caution, reprimand, warning or tested positive for opiates or cocaine over a 12 month period, but the previous measures only included offenders released from custody or commencing a court order in the first three months of the year. Using a three month sample over-represents prolific offenders in comparison to a full year's worth of data.
- For adults the new measure counts all offenders including those who received a caution, fine or discharge, where the previous adult measure only included those who commenced a court order or who were discharged from custody.
- For adult offenders, the new measure is a measure of proven re-offending (which counts offences proven through a court conviction or a caution) whereas the previous measure is a measure of re-conviction (which only counts offences proven through a court conviction).
As a result, re-offending rates are 14.4 percentage points lower for adults and rates for juveniles are 4.1 percentage points lower using the new measure.
However, the re-offending rates are similar for adults given a court order or who received a custodial sentence, including those given a sentence of less than 12 months. Rates are between 1.0 and 2.6 percentage points lower using the new measure.
Table B1: Re-offending using the new and previous measures, 2009
| | New measure | Previous measure(s) | |------------------------|-------------|---------------------| | Adults | 24.9 | 39.3 | | Juveniles | 32.8 | 36.9 | | Adults given a court order | 34.5 | 35.5 | | Adults given a custodial sentence | 46.8 | 48.5 | | Adults given a custodial sentence of less than 12m | 56.8 | 59.4 |
Figure B1 shows re-offending rates for adult offenders between 2000 and 2009 using the new and previous measure.
For 2009, 24.9 per cent of adult offenders have a proven re-offence within 12 months using the new measure compared to 39.3 per cent using the previous re-conviction measure. However, trends for adult offenders are similar using the two measures. The proportion of offenders with a proven re-offence/re-conviction rose between 2000 and 2002, fell between 2002 and 2006, rose between 2006 and 2008, and fell between 2008 and 2009 using both measures.
Figure B1: Adult re-conviction/re-offending, by re-offending measure, 2000, 2002 to 2009
The overall reduction in re-offending is smaller using the new measure (1.2 percentage points between 2000 and 2009 and 0.5 percentage points between 2008 and 2009) than using the previous measure (3.7 percentage points between 2000 and 2009 and 0.8 percentage points between 2008 and 2009).
Figure B2 shows re-offending rates for juvenile offenders between 2000 and 2009 using the new and previous measure.
In 2009, 32.8 per cent of young offenders re-offended within 12 months using the new measure compared to 36.9 per cent using the previous measure. The reduction in re-offending is smaller using the new measure (0.9 percentage points between 2000 and 2009 and 0.1 percentage points between 2008 and 2009) than using the previous measure (3.3 percentage points between 2000 and 2009 and 0.4 percentage points between 2008 and 2009). Overall, the trends are broadly similar. Trends in proven re-offending/re-conviction rates for adult custodial offenders are similar using the new and previous measures. The proportion of offenders given a custodial sentence of less than 12 months who re-offended rose between 2000 and 2009 using both measures (by 2.6 percentage points using the new measure and 1.4 percentage points using the previous measure). The proportion of offenders given any custodial sentence who re-offended fell between 2000 and 2009 using both measures (by 2.6 percentage points using the new measure and 2.9 percentage points using the previous measure). The change in methodology
The following sections provide detail regarding the change in methodology between the methods in measuring re-offending and how those changes impact on the data.
The table below provides a comparison of the previous methodologies with the new approach. Table B2: Re-offending using the new and previous measures
Comparison of previous and new measures of proven re-offending
| The cohort | Previous measures of re-offending | New measure of re-offending | |------------|----------------------------------|-----------------------------| | | National adult re-conviction | National youth re-offending | Prolific and other Priority Offending (PPO) | Drug-misusing offending | All offenders who received a caution/reprimand or warning, were convicted at court (other than custody), were discharged from custody, or tested positive for cocaine or opiates on arrest over a 12 month period. | | | Local adult re-offending | Local youth re-offending | All offenders identified as being on the PPO scheme as at 1 April | | The cohort | Offenders aged 18+ discharged from custody or commencing court orders under probation supervision between January to March | Offenders aged 10-17 discharged from custody, receiving a court conviction or receiving a caution/reprimand or final warning between January and March | All offenders identified as being on the PPO scheme as at 1 April | | The follow-up period to measure re-offending | 12 months for offences to occur and a further 6 months for offences to be proved | 12 months for offences to occur and a further 6 months for offences to be proved | 12 months for offences to occur and a further 6 months for offences to be proved | 12 months for offences to occur and a further 6 months for offences to be proved | 12 months for offences to occur and a further 6 months for offences to be proved | | The headline measure | Frequency of re-offending (the number of proven re-offences per 100 offenders) | Proportion of offenders re-offending, compared to the rate that would be expected based on the offender characteristics | Frequency of re-offending (the number of proven re-offences per 100 offenders) | Frequency of re-offending (the number of proven re-offences per 100 offenders) | Number of further offences compared to number in previous year, against the reduction that would be expected given time on the PPO scheme | Number of further offences compared to what would be expected based on their previous offending history | Proportion of offenders re-offending | |----------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | What counts as a proven re-offence | Offences committed within the follow-up period which were proved by a court conviction either within the follow-up period or in a further six months | Offences committed within the follow-up period which were proved by a court conviction or caution either within the follow-up period or in a further three months | Offences committed within the follow-up period which were proved by a court conviction or reprimand or final warning either within the follow-up period or in a further six months | Offences committed within the follow-up period which were proved by a court conviction or caution either within the follow-up period or in a further three months | Breach offences that lead to substantive recorded convictions are included | Breach offences that lead to substantive recorded convictions are included | We also include information on the frequency of re-offending and information on the predicted rate based on offender characteristics | Use of a predicted rate
Data source Geographic breakdown
A predicted rate of re-offending was included for the proportion of offenders expected to reoffend based on their characteristics
A predicted rate of re-offending was included for the proportion of offenders expected to reoffend based on their characteristics
A predicted rate of re-offending was included for the proportion of offenders expected to re-offend based on their characteristics
Logistic regression was used
Logistic regression was used
Logistic regression was used
Police National Computer None
Police National Computer Region, Probation area, Local Authority
Police National Computer None
No predicted rate
Evidence on the link between time on the PPO scheme and expected reductions in further offending were used to assess reductions in number of offences compared to the previous year
A predicted rate of re-offending was included for the proportion of offenders expected to reoffend based on their previous criminal history Response surface methodology was used
A predicted rate of re-offending is included for the proportion of offenders expected to re-offend based on their characteristics Logistic regression is used
Youth Offending Teams data Youth Offending Team level
Police National Computer Police Force and Local Authority level
Police National Computer Drug Action team and Local Authority level
Police National Computer Upper and lower tier local authority areas for all offenders. Other breakdowns for specific categories of offender.
33
The effect of the changes
Adults
Differences in methodology are reflected in different results. Table B3 shows the impact on reported rates of adult re-conviction/re-offending. The table breaks down the changes between the previous measure and the new measure to identify the different effects of the changes in methodology.
Table B3: Re-offending/re-convictions data for adult offenders, 2000, 2002 to 2009
| Year | Previous measure: re-convictions (prison and probation offenders only), first quarter of the year | Previous measure: re-convictions (prison and probation offenders only), whole year | New measure: re-offending (prison and probation offenders only), whole year | New measure: proven re-offending (all offenders), whole year | |------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------| | | Proportion | | | | | 2000 | 43.0 | 40.0 | 40.9 | 26.2 | | 2002 | 45.5 | 42.0 | 43.0 | 27.6 | | 2003 | 45.4 | 41.5 | 42.4 | 26.9 | | 2004 | 42.9 | 38.6 | 39.8 | 25.5 | | 2005 | 41.2 | 36.6 | 38.4 | 24.9 | | 2006 | 36.6 | 35.6 | 37.6 | 24.6 | | 2007 | 39.0 | 35.9 | 37.9 | 24.8 | | 2008 | 40.1 | 36.1 | 37.9 | 25.4 | | 2009 | 39.3 | 34.7 | 36.2 | 24.9 | | | Frequency (average per offender) | | | | | 2000 | 1.85 | 1.66 | 1.69 | 0.89 | | 2002 | 2.13 | 1.84 | 1.87 | 0.99 | | 2003 | 2.05 | 1.73 | 1.76 | 0.93 | | 2004 | 1.81 | 1.51 | 1.54 | 0.83 | | 2005 | 1.66 | 1.36 | 1.40 | 0.77 | | 2006 | 1.44 | 1.26 | 1.31 | 0.73 | | 2007 | 1.47 | 1.27 | 1.32 | 0.73 | | 2008 | 1.55 | 1.27 | 1.31 | 0.75 | | 2009 | 1.41 | 1.15 | 1.18 | 0.70 | | | Frequency of re-offenders (average per re-offender) | | | | | 2000 | 4.30 | 4.15 | 4.13 | 3.39 | | 2002 | 4.68 | 4.39 | 4.36 | 3.59 | | 2003 | 4.52 | 4.18 | 4.15 | 3.44 | | 2004 | 4.23 | 3.91 | 3.87 | 3.27 | | 2005 | 4.03 | 3.70 | 3.65 | 3.10 | | 2006 | 3.73 | 3.54 | 3.48 | 2.95 | | 2007 | 3.78 | 3.53 | 3.48 | 2.94 | | 2008 | 3.88 | 3.51 | 3.46 | 2.93 | | 2009 | 3.57 | 3.31 | 3.27 | 2.80 | | | Number of offenders | | | | | 2000 | 42,734 | 148,052 | 148,052 | 477,698 | | 2002 | 43,247 | 157,243 | 157,243 | 495,664 | | 2003 | 44,095 | 159,686 | 159,686 | 520,660 | | 2004 | 46,532 | 163,775 | 163,775 | 512,600 | | 2005 | 43,429 | 170,021 | 170,021 | 532,045 | | 2006 | 50,281 | 181,726 | 181,726 | 571,458 | | 2007 | 50,085 | 190,418 | 190,418 | 595,020 | | 2008 | 53,718 | 197,035 | 197,035 | 589,948 | | 2009 | 56,616 | 200,077 | 200,077 | 576,255 |
1. Based on the national adult re-convictions publication (March 2011)
Among adult offenders in 2009, the previous national measure (the first column) shows that 39.3 per cent of adult offenders were re-convicted within a year based on a sample of 56,616 offenders. The second column shows the re-conviction rates from the previous measure looking at offenders who were released from custody or commenced a court order, but at any point during the year. The inclusion of offenders from a full 12 month period means the results are calculated using the full proven offender population rather than a sample – this ensures we do not over-represent prolific offenders in the cohort, which is a problem in using a January to March sample as in the previous adult re-conviction measure.
This leads to a lower proportion of re-convicted offenders (between three and five percentage points, e.g. 34.7 per cent compared to 39.3 per cent in 2009). The change to a full year also increases the number of offenders, to 200,077 in 2009\\textsuperscript{15}.
The third column shows the proven re-offending rates from the new measure, but still based only on those offenders who were released from custody or commenced a court order at any point during the year. Proven re-offending includes offences which result in a caution in addition to those resulting in a conviction at court. The proportion of offenders who were proven to re-offend is between one and two percentage points higher than for those who were re-convicted (36.2 per cent compared to 34.7 per cent in 2009). There is little difference at this stage because we are still only considering offenders who already have a prison or a court order.
The fourth column shows the re-offending rates from the new measure looking at all adult offenders who received a caution, a conviction at court, discharged from custody, or tested positive for cocaine or opiates. The inclusion of these offenders increases the numbers considerably. In 2009, the previous adult measure tracks the re-offending behaviour of 56,616 offenders; the new measure tracks 576,255 offenders. The inclusion of offenders who received less severe disposals and are generally less prolific in nature reduces the proportion who re-offend by around 11 to 16 percentage points (36.2 per cent compared to 24.9 per cent in 2009).
**Change over time**
Compared to the previous measure, the reduction over time in the proportion of offenders who re-offend is much lower using the new measure. Using the previous measure, between 2000 and 2009, the proportion of offenders who were re-convicted fell 3.7 percentage points (from 43.0 to 39.3 per cent). Using the new measure, the proportion of offenders who committed a proven re-offence fell 1.2 percentage points (from 26.2 to 24.9 per cent).
\\textsuperscript{15} The previous measure includes offenders released from custody or who commenced a court order in the first three months of the year, shown in column one. Column two includes offenders released from custody or who commenced a court order in the 12 month period. The number of offenders shown in column two is less than four times as many as in column one. This is because some offenders commence a court order or are discharged from custody more than once in a year. These calculations only count each offender once e.g. offender Y is discharged from custody in the first quarter of the year, and discharged again in the second quarter, but he is only counted as a single offender. Juveniles
The only change between the previous measure and the new measure of re-offending among young people is the move from a one quarter sample to including all young offenders over the period of a year.
Table B4: Re-offending data for juvenile offenders, 2000, 2002 to 2009
| Year | Previous measure proven re-offending | New measure proven re-offending | |------|-------------------------------------|---------------------------------| | | Proportion | | | 2000 | 40.2 | 33.7 | | 2002 | 38.5 | 33.4 | | 2003 | 39.0 | 34.3 | | 2004 | 38.6 | 33.6 | | 2005 | 38.4 | 33.6 | | 2006 | 38.7 | 33.9 | | 2007 | 37.5 | 32.5 | | 2008 | 37.3 | 32.9 | | 2009 | 36.9 | 32.8 |
| Year | Frequency (average per offender) | Frequency of re-offenders (average per re-offender) | Number of offenders | |------|---------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------|---------------------| | 2000 | 1.51 | 3.77 | 41,176 | | 2002 | 1.42 | 3.69 | 40,753 | | 2003 | 1.42 | 3.63 | 40,297 | | 2004 | 1.32 | 3.43 | 44,153 | | 2005 | 1.25 | 3.26 | 45,337 | | 2006 | 1.23 | 3.18 | 48,938 | | 2007 | 1.16 | 3.08 | 52,544 | | 2008 | 1.14 | 3.06 | 44,837 | | 2009 | 1.10 | 2.99 | 37,472 |
1. Based on the national juvenile re-offending publication (March 2011) publication
As for adults, using the whole year reduces the proportion of offenders who re-offended because we do not over-represent prolific offenders in the cohort, which is a problem in using a January to March sample. Table B4 shows the reduction is between four and seven percentage points. For 2009, with the previous measure, 36.9 per cent commit a proven re-offence within one year; with the new measure, 32.8 per cent do so. The new measure, which is based on offenders from a 12 month period, includes over three times as many offenders as the existing measure.
**Change over time**
Compared to the previous measure, the reduction in the proportion of offenders who re-offend between 2000 and 2009 is much lower using the new measure.
Using the previous measure, between 2000 and 2009, the proportion of offenders who were proven to re-offend fell 3.3 percentage points (from 40.2 to 36.9 per cent). Using the new measure, the proportion of offenders who committed a proven re-offence fell 0.9 percentage points (from 33.7 to 32.8 per cent).
**Drug-misusing offenders**
Published results for drug-misusing offenders on the previous measure covered 2008 and 2009; results using the new measure cover from 2004 onwards.
The previous measure:
- Includes offenders who have been identified in the first quarter of the year, whereas the new measure includes offenders from any point during the year.
- Includes all drug-misusing offenders irrespective of the date of proven offence, whereas the new measure includes identified drug-misusing offenders who have received a caution, been convicted at court, been discharged from custody, or tested positive for cocaine or opiates on arrest during a 12 month period.
- Counts re-offences that were proven through a court conviction, whereas the new measure counts re-offences that were proven by a court conviction or caution.
As for adult and juvenile offenders, using the whole year to identify offenders reduces the proportion of offenders who re-offend, because we do not over-represent prolific offenders in the cohort, which is a problem in using a January to March sample. Table B5 shows the impact on reported rates of re-offending/re-conviction by drug-misusing offenders. Table B5: Re-offending data for drug-misusing offenders, 2004 to 2009
| Year | Previous measure proven re-conviction | New measure of proven re-offending | |------|---------------------------------------|-----------------------------------| | | Proportion | Frequency (average per offender) | | | | Frequency of re-offenders (average per re-offender) | Number of offenders | | 2004 | 67.3 | 3.20 | 20,652 | | 2005 | 65.3 | 2.94 | 29,112 | | 2006 | 58.6 | 2.37 | 44,597 | | 2007 | 57.2 | 2.34 | 54,474 | | 2008 | 61.0 | 2.29 | 20,934 | | 2009 | 57.0 | 2.10 | 20,109 |
1. Based on the national drug-misusing offenders publication (December 2010)
Table B5 shows that the proportion of offenders who commit a proven re-offence is between two and five percentage points lower using the new measure (57.0 per cent using the previous measure compared to 54.7 per cent using the new measure). The new measure, which follows offenders over a 12 month period, includes between two and three times as many offenders as the existing measure.
**Prolific and other priority offenders**
Published results for prolific and other priority offenders (PPOs) on the previous measure presented the frequency of proven re-offending for all PPOs; results using the new measure cover the proportion of offenders proven to re-offend, and the frequency of proven re-offending for all offenders and for re-offenders from 2005 onwards. The previous measure:
- Includes offenders who have been identified in the first quarter of the year, whereas the new measure includes offenders from any point during the year. However, PPOs are generally on the PPO programme for a sustained period of time so this only has a moderate impact on numbers of offenders included.
- Includes all identified PPOs, whereas the new measure includes identified PPOs who have tested positive for cocaine or opiates, received a caution, been convicted at court, or been discharged from custody during a 12 month period.
- Counts re-offences that are proven through a court conviction or caution and also includes breach offences that lead to substantive recorded convictions. The new measure only includes re-offences proven through a court conviction or caution.
Table B6 shows the impact on reported rates of proven re-offending by PPOs and on numbers of offenders included in the measure.
**Table B6: Re-offending data for Prolific and other Priority Offenders, 2005 to 2009**
| Year | Previous measure proven re-offending | New measure of proven re-offending | |------|-------------------------------------|-----------------------------------| | | Proportion | | | 2005 | 77.0 | | | 2006 | 75.7 | | | 2007 | 75.8 | | | 2008 | 77.2 | | | 2009 | 56.0 | 75.1 | | | Frequency (average per offender) | | | 2005 | 4.01 | | | 2006 | 3.83 | | | 2007 | 3.80 | | | 2008 | 2.6 | 3.80 | | 2009 | 2.4 | 3.49 | | | Frequency of re-offenders (average per re-offender) | | | 2005 | 5.21 | | | 2006 | 5.06 | | | 2007 | 5.01 | | | 2008 | 4.93 | | | 2009 | 4.3 | 4.65 | | | Number of offenders | | | 2005 | 8,555 | | | 2006 | 8,239 | | | 2007 | 8,309 | | | 2008 | 10,771 | 8,607 | | 2009 | 10,635 | 8,156 |
1. Based on the national Prolific and other Priority Offenders publication (March 2010) The average number of proven re-offences committed by PPOs in 2009 is lower for the previous measure than for the new measure in 2008 (2.4 re-offences per offender using the previous measure, but 3.49 using the new).
The previous measure includes PPOs who have not been proven guilty of an offence or been discharged from custody in the 12 month period when the re-offending cohort is formed. This type of offender is likely to have a lower level of re-offending.
These differences may help to explain:
- why the frequency of re-offending is lower for the previous measure than for the new measure in 2009 (2.4 re-offences per offender using the previous measure, but 3.49 using the new); and
- why the previous measure includes nearly 2,500 more PPOs in 2009 than does the new measure.
**Local adult re-offending**
The most similar results for the new measure of re-offending and the existing local measure of adult re-offending are the early estimates of re-offending of offenders given a court order. Like the existing measure of local adult re-offending, the early estimates of offenders given a court order:
- measure re-offending over three months;
- only measures offenders under probation supervision;
- provides results by probation trust; and
- compares actual re-offending rates with a predicted re-offending rate.
There remain significant differences between the early estimates and the existing local adult measure of re-offending, including:
- The existing local adult measure includes offenders on licence – the early estimates include offenders commencing court orders only;
- The existing local adult measure uses a ‘snapshot’ approach. This means offenders are counted if they are on the caseload at certain times in the year. Offenders who are on the caseload for a short period of time may not get counted with the existing measure. The early estimates count every offender who commences a court order;
- Because the existing local adult measure uses a ‘snapshot’ approach some offenders may get counted up to four times if they are on the caseload for over 12 months. The early estimates count every offender once; The existing local adult measure measures the re-offending of offenders at any point during the court order – the early estimates measure re-offending in the first three months after an offender commenced a court order; and
The predicted score for the existing local adult measure was derived from analysis of 2007 re-offending data and the prediction for the early estimates was derived from analysis of 2008 re-offending data.
These differences explain why the re-offending rate is higher with the early estimates of re-offending by offenders commencing a court order than with the existing measure of local adult re-offending:
- offenders on licence have lower rates of re-offending than those commencing a court order; and
- offenders serving a court order have lower rates of re-offending the longer they are on that court order.
However, the prediction for the early estimates has been tailored specifically to the relevant group of offenders.
**Local youth re-offending**
The previous measure of youth re-offending used data that Youth Offending Teams (YOT) collected themselves from their local police and courts. The measure was used as management information and was never published or put into the public domain. The new measure uses data from the Police National Computer (PNC). Internal analysis and discussion with stakeholders has highlighted a number of differences between the two data sources:
- The PNC includes a number of offenders who have received a reprimand or final warning which do not always appear on the YOT systems. As a result, there are more youth offenders and a higher overall youth re-offending rate using the new measure than using the previous local youth re-offending measure.
- The PNC includes more comprehensive data on re-offending as adults by offenders who originally offended as youths.
- Using PNC data reduces the data-collection burden on YOT and local police forces.
- PNC data measures re-offending on recordable offences and YOT data measures re-offending on all offences. Offences which are not recordable include speeding offences, parking offences and other minor motoring offences. As a result, YOT data is more comprehensive for motoring re-offences. The new measure allocates offenders to a locality using their home address data from the PNC; the previous local youth measure allocated offenders using offender management data. As a result, Looked After Children (LAC) who are in foster care, or in a children’s home, or in a boarding school or live with another adult known to children’s services, maybe allocated to a different YOT under the previous youth measure than the new measure.
For their re-offending to be included in the new measure, administrative data on young people in custody and secure accommodation has to be matched to the PNC. Some cases are not successfully matched. This process was not required for these offenders to be included in the previous local youth measure. As a result, YOT data can be more comprehensive regarding custodial offenders or those in secure accommodation.
Using PNC data provides an external measure of youth re-offending, which makes it an appropriate data-source to support any future policies which tie local funding to re-offending performance.
Using PNC data allows local youth re-offending to be measured on the same basis as national youth re-offending and adult re-offending, permitting adult and youth re-offending to be measured on a like-for-like basis and a more comprehensive picture of re-offending to be formed.
Work is underway to fully quantify the extent of these differences. Annex C
Glossary of terms
Re-offending terms
Cohort – this is the group of individuals whose re-offending is measured.
Index offence – the index offence is the proven offence that leads to an offender being included in the cohort.
Index disposal – the index disposal of the offender is the type of sentence the offender received for their index offence.
Start point (also known as the index date) – this is the set point in time from when re-offences are measured.
Follow-up period – this is the length of time proven re-offending is measured over.
Waiting period – this is the additional time beyond the follow-up period to allow for offences committed towards the end of the follow-up period to be proved by a court conviction, caution, reprimand or final warning.
Adjusted to baseline – proven re-offending is related to the characteristics of offenders which means that any overall rate of proven re-offending will depend, in part, on the characteristics of offenders coming into the system (just as the examination pass rate of a school will be related to the characteristics of its pupils). We use a modelling technique to produce a baseline figure adjusted to match the characteristics of the cohort we are comparing. Please refer to the ‘Definitions and Measurement’ document for more detail at www.justice.gov.uk/statistics/reoffending/proven-re-offending.
Re-conviction – where an offender is convicted at court for an offence committed within a set follow-up period and convicted within either the follow-up period or waiting period.
Proven re-offence – where an offender is convicted at court or receives some other form of criminal justice sanction for an offence committed within a set follow-up period and disposed of within either the follow-up period or waiting period.
Cohort used in the Proven Re-offending Statistics Quarterly Bulletin – the proven re-offending cohort consists of all offenders discharged from custody, otherwise sanctioned at court, receiving a caution, reprimand or warning or tested positive for opiates or cocaine in each year. This cohort’s criminal history is collated and criminal behaviour is tracked over the following one year. Any offence committed in this one year period which is proven by a court conviction or out-of-court disposal (either in the one year period, or in a further six months waiting period) counts as a proven re-offence.
**Cohort used in the Local Adult Re-offending Quarterly Bulletin** – the local adult re-offending measure takes a snapshot of all offenders, aged 18 or over, who are under probation supervision at the end of a quarter, and combines four such snapshots together. This cohort’s criminal history is collated and criminal behaviour is tracked over the following three months. Any offence committed in this three month period which is proven by a court conviction or out-of-court disposal (either in the three month period, or in a further three months waiting period) counts as a proven re-offence. The latest available publication is the Local Adult Re-offending: 1 July 2011 – 30 June 2012, England and Wales; Ministry of Justice, November 2012.
[www.justice.gov.uk/statistics/reoffending/local-adult-reoffending](http://www.justice.gov.uk/statistics/reoffending/local-adult-reoffending)
**Disposal (sentence type)**
**Fine** – a financial penalty imposed following conviction.
**Court orders** – court orders include community sentences, community orders and suspended sentence orders supervised by the Probation Service. They do not include any pre or post release supervision.
**Criminal Justice Act 2003 (CJA03)** – for offences committed on or after 4 April 2005, the new community order replaced all existing community sentences for adults. The Act also introduced a new suspended sentence order for offences which pass the custody threshold. It also changed the release arrangements for prisoners. See Appendix A of Offender Management Caseload Statistics 2009 for more information.
**Community order** – for offences committed on or after 4 April 2005, the new community order introduced under the CJA 2003 replaced all existing community sentences for those aged 18 years and over. This term refers to all court orders except suspended sentence orders and deferred sentences which may have a custodial component to the sentence. The court must add at least one, but could potentially add all 12 requirements depending on the offences and the offender. The requirements are:
- unpaid work (formerly community service/community punishment) – a requirement to complete between 40 and 300 hours’ unpaid work;
- activity – for example, to attend basic skills classes;
- programme – there are several designed to reduce the prospects of re-offending;
- prohibited activity – a requirement not do so something that is likely to lead to further offence or nuisance; • curfew – which is electronically monitored; • exclusion – this is not used frequently as there is no reliable electronic monitoring yet available; • residence – requirement to reside only where approved by probation officer; • mental health treatment (requires offender’s consent); • drug rehabilitation (requires offender’s consent); • alcohol treatment (requires offender’s consent); • supervision – meetings with probation officer to address needs/offending behaviour; and • attendance centre – between a minimum of 12 hours and a maximum of 36 in total which includes three hours of activity.
Typically, the more serious the offence and the more extensive the offender’s needs, the more requirements there will be. Most orders will comprise of one or two requirements, but there are packages of several requirements available where required. The court tailors the order as appropriate and is guided by the Probation Service through a pre-sentence report.
**Suspended sentence order (SSO)** – the CJA 2003 introduced a new suspended sentence order which is made up of the same requirements as a community order and, in the absence of breach is served wholly in the community supervised by the Probation Service. It consists of an ‘operational period’ (the time for which the custodial sentence is suspended) and a ‘supervision period’ (the time during which any requirements take effect). Both may be between six months and two years and the ‘supervision period’ cannot be longer than the ‘operational period’, although it may be shorter. Failure to comply with the requirements of the order or commission of another offence will almost certainly result in a custodial sentence.
**Pre CJA03 Court Orders – Community sentences**
**Community punishment order (CPO)** – the offender is required to undertake unpaid community work.
**Community rehabilitation order (CRO)** - a community sentence which may have additional requirements such as residence, probation centre attendance or treatment for drug, alcohol or mental health problems.
**Community punishment and rehabilitation order (CPRO)** – a community sentence consisting of probation supervision alongside community punishment, with additional conditions like those of a community rehabilitation order. Drug treatment and testing order (DTTO) – a community sentence targeted at offenders with drug-misuse problems.
Custody – the offender is awarded a sentence to be served in prison or a Young Offenders Institute (YOI). If the offender is given a sentence of 12 months or over, or is aged under 22 on release, the offender is supervised by the Probation Service on release. It is important to note that the sentence lengths and youth disposals awarded will be longer than the time served in custody. For more information please refer to Appendix A of Offender Management Caseload Statistics 2009.
Short sentences (under 12 months) – those sentenced to under 12 months (made under the Criminal Justice Act 1991) spend the first half of their sentence in prison and are then released and considered ‘at risk’ for the remaining period. This means they are under no positive obligations and do not report to the Probation Service, but if they commit a further imprisonable offence during the ‘at risk’ period, they can be made to serve the remainder of the sentence in addition to the punishment for the new offence. The exception to this is those aged 18 to 20 who have a minimum of three month’s supervision on release.
Sentences of 12 months or over – the CJA03 created a distinction between standard determinate sentences and public protection sentences. Offenders sentenced to a standard determinate sentence serve the first half in prison and the second half in the community on licence.
Youth disposal (sentence type)
Reprimand or warning – a reprimand is a formal verbal warning given by a police officer to a juvenile offender who admits they are guilty for a minor first offence. A final warning is similar to a reprimand, but can be used for either the first or second offence, and includes an assessment of the juvenile to determine the causes of their offending behaviour and a programme of activities is designed to address them.
First-tier penalties
Discharge – a juvenile offender is given an absolute discharge when they admit guilt, or are found guilty, with no further action taken. An offender given a conditional discharge also receives no immediate punishment, but is given a set period during which, if they commit a further offence, they can be brought back to court and re-sentenced.
Fine – the size of the fine depends on the offence committed and the offender’s financial circumstances. In the case of juveniles under 16, the fine is the responsibility of the offender’s parent or carer.
Referral order – this is given to juveniles pleading guilty and for whom it is their first time at court (unless the offence is so serious it merits a custodial sentence or it is of a relatively minor nature). The offender is required to attend a Youth Offender Panel to agree a contract, aimed to repair the harm caused by the offence and address the causes of the offending behaviour.
**Reparation order** – the offender is required to repair the harm caused by their offence either directly to the victim or indirectly to the community.
**Youth Rehabilitation Order** – a community sentence for juvenile offenders, which came into effect on 30 November 2009 as part of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008. It combines a number of sentences into one generic sentence and is the standard community sentence used for the majority of children and young people who offend. The following requirements can be attached to a Youth Rehabilitation Order (YRO):
- activity requirement
- curfew requirement
- exclusion requirement
- local authority residence requirement
- education requirement
- mental health treatment requirement
- unpaid work requirement
- drug testing requirement
- intoxicating substance misuse requirement
- supervision requirement
- electronic monitoring requirement
- prohibited activity requirement
- drug treatment requirement
- residence requirement
- programme requirement
- attendance centre requirement
- intensive supervision and surveillance
- intensive fostering The following community sentences are replaced by the YRO, but will continue to exist for those that committed an offence before 30 November 2009. The YRO is only available for those that committed an offence on or after the 30 November 2009.
- action plan order
- curfew order
- supervision order
- supervision order and conditions
- community punishment order
- community punishment and rehabilitation order
- attendance centre order
- drug treatment and testing order
- exclusion order
- community rehabilitation order
**Prison categories**
**Category B and category C prisons** hold sentenced prisoners of their respective categories, including life sentenced prisoners. The regime focuses on programmes that address offending behaviour and provide education, vocational training and purposeful work for prisoners who will normally spend several years in one prison.
**High security prisons** hold category A and B prisoners. Category A prisoners are managed by a process of dispersal, and these prisons also hold a proportion of category B prisoners for whom they provide a similar regime to a category B prison. The category B prisoners held in a High Security Prison are not necessarily any more dangerous or difficult to manage than those in category B prisons.
**Female prisons**, as the name implies, hold female prisoners. Because of the smaller numbers, they are not divided into the same number of categories although there are variations in security levels.
**Local prisons** serve the courts in the area. Historically their main function was to hold un-convicted and un-sentenced prisoners and, once a prisoner had been sentenced, to allocate them on to a category B, C or D prison as appropriate to serve their sentence. However, pressure on places means that many shorter term prisoners serve their entire sentence in a local prison, while longer term prisoners also complete some offending behaviour and training programmes there before moving on to lower security conditions. All local prisons operate to category B security standards.
**Open prisons** have much lower levels of physical security and only hold category D prisoners. Many prisoners in open prisons will be allowed to go out of the prison on a daily basis to take part in voluntary or paid work in the community in preparation for their approaching release.
**Prisoner categories**
These categories are based on a combination of the type of crime committed, the length of sentence, the likelihood of escape, and the danger to the public if they did escape. The four categories are:
**Category A** prisoners are those whose escape would be highly dangerous to the public or national security.
**Category B** prisoners are those who do not require maximum security, but for whom escape needs to be made very difficult.
**Category C** prisoners are those who cannot be trusted in open conditions, but who are unlikely to try to escape.
**Category D** prisoners are those who can be reasonably trusted not to try to escape and are given the privilege of an open prison.
**Miscellaneous terms**
**Drug-misusing offenders**
There are four ways a drug-misusing offender can be identified:
- Individuals who have tested positive for heroin or crack/cocaine following an arrest or charge for ‘trigger’ offences (largely acquisitive crime offences) as part of the Drug Interventions Programme (DIP) are included as adult proven offenders.
- Any offender that received an OASys assessment whilst on licence or on a community sentence and are either recorded as being subject to a current Drug Treatment and Testing Order (DTTO) or Drug Rehabilitation Requirement (DRR), or are assessed as having a criminogenic drug need.
- Any offender identified as requiring further drug interventions by Counselling, Assessment, Referral, Advice, Throughcare (CARAT) teams in prison, and now being released into the community. Any offender identified by local Criminal Justice Integrated Teams (CJITs) as requiring further intervention for their drug use and offending as part of DIP.
**National Probation Service** – the National Probation Service generally deals with those aged 18 years and over. (Those under 18 are mostly dealt with by Youth Offending Teams, answering to the Youth Justice Board.) They are responsible for supervising offenders who are given community sentences and suspended sentence orders by the courts, as well as offenders given custodial sentences, both pre and post their release.
**Police National Computer** – the Police National Computer (PNC) is the police’s administrative IT system used by all police forces in England and Wales and managed by the National Policing Improvement Agency. As with any large scale recording system the PNC is subject to possible errors with data entry and processing. The MoJ maintains a database based on weekly extracts of selected data from the PNC in order to compile statistics and conduct research on re-offending and criminal histories. The PNC largely covers recordable offences – these are all indictable and triable-either-way offences plus many of the more serious summary offences. All figures derived from the MoJ's PNC database, and in particular those for the most recent months, are likely to be revised as more information is recorded by the police.
**Prolific and other priority offenders** – the Prolific and other Priority Offenders Programme (PPO) aims to use a multi-agency approach to focus on a very small, but hard core group of prolific/persistent offenders who commit disproportionate amounts of crime and cause disproportionate harm to their local communities. The identification of a PPO is undertaken at a local level involving police, local authorities, prison and probation services and youth offending teams. The factors that influence the decision of whether an offender is included in the PPO programme are:
- the nature and volume of crimes they commit;
- the nature and volume of other harm they cause; and
- the detrimental impact they have on their community.
**Recordable offences** – recordable offences are those that the police are required to record on the PNC. They include all offences for which a custodial sentence can be given plus a range of other offences defined as recordable in legislation. They exclude a range of less serious summary offences, for example television licence evasion, driving without insurance, speeding and vehicle tax offences.
**Indictable and summary offences** – summary offences are triable only by a magistrates’ court. This group includes motoring offences, common assault and criminal damage up to £5,000. More serious offences are classed either as triable-either-way (these can be tried either at the Crown Court or at a magistrates’ court and include criminal damage where the value is £5,000 or greater, theft and burglary) or indictable-only (the most serious offences that must be tried at the Crown Court; these 'indictable-only' offences include murder, manslaughter, rape and robbery). The term indictable offences is used to refer to all triable-either-way and 'indictable-only' offences.
**Offence group** – a split of offences into 21 separate groups. A more detailed split of the 10 indictable offence groups (violence against the person, sexual offences, burglary, robbery, theft and handling and stolen goods, fraud and forgery, criminal damage, drug offences, other indictable offences (excluding motoring), indictable motoring) and the two summary offence groups (summary non-motoring and summary motoring offence types). Explanatory notes
The United Kingdom Statistics Authority has designated these statistics as National Statistics, in accordance with the Statistics and Registration Service Act 2007 and signifying compliance with the Code of Practice for Official Statistics.
Designation can be broadly interpreted to mean that the statistics:
- meet identified user needs;
- are well explained and readily accessible;
- are produced according to sound methods; and
- are managed impartially and objectively in the public interest.
Once statistics have been designated as National Statistics it is a statutory requirement that the Code of Practice shall continue to be observed.
Symbols used
| Symbol | Description | |--------|--------------------------------------------------| | .. | Not available | | 0 | Nil or less than half the final digit shown | | - | Not applicable | | * | One or both of the comparison figures are less than 30 | | (p) | Provisional data | Contact points
Press enquiries should be directed to the Ministry of Justice press office:
Tel: 020 3334 3536
Other enquiries about these statistics should be directed to:
Mike Elkins Ministry of Justice Justice Statistics Analytical Services 7th Floor 102 Petty France London SW1H 9AJ Tel: 020 3334 2946
General enquiries about the statistical work of the Ministry of Justice can be e-mailed to: [email protected]
General information about the official statistics system of the United Kingdom is available from www.statistics.gov.uk
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/4798-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 53,
"total-input-tokens": 100768,
"total-output-tokens": 25960,
"total-fallback-pages": 1
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
152,
1
],
[
152,
1220,
2
],
[
1220,
2872,
3
],
[
2872,
5571,
4
],
[
5571,
7906,
5
],
[
7906,
10275,
6
],
[
10275,
12780,
7
],
[
12780,
15173,
8
],
[
15173,
22608,
9
],
[
22608,
23872,
10
],
[
23872,
25471,
11
],
[
25471,
26540,
12
],
[
26540,
26945,
13
],
[
26945,
28571,
14
],
[
28571,
31409,
15
],
[
31409,
33884,
16
],
[
33884,
36026,
17
],
[
36026,
36373,
18
],
[
36373,
38559,
19
],
[
38559,
40054,
20
],
[
40054,
41986,
21
],
[
41986,
42764,
22
],
[
42764,
45379,
23
],
[
45379,
46019,
24
],
[
46019,
48339,
25
],
[
48339,
49846,
26
],
[
49846,
52448,
27
],
[
52448,
53719,
28
],
[
53719,
54315,
29
],
[
54315,
54596,
30
],
[
54596,
56219,
31
],
[
56219,
58606,
32
],
[
58606,
60152,
33
],
[
60152,
74195,
34
],
[
74195,
77436,
35
],
[
77436,
80351,
36
],
[
80351,
82298,
37
],
[
82298,
84244,
38
],
[
84244,
87502,
39
],
[
87502,
89647,
40
],
[
89647,
91862,
41
],
[
91862,
93260,
42
],
[
93260,
95437,
43
],
[
95437,
98135,
44
],
[
98135,
100405,
45
],
[
100405,
103133,
46
],
[
103133,
104424,
47
],
[
104424,
106167,
48
],
[
106167,
108330,
49
],
[
108330,
111253,
50
],
[
111253,
111994,
51
],
[
111994,
113114,
52
],
[
113114,
113675,
53
]
]
} |
c2785c63f6f7c912a778c14f2c9e2e1c6dc2e9e7 | Proven Re-offending Statistics Quarterly Bulletin April 2011 to March 2012, England and Wales
Ministry of Justice Statistics Bulletin
30 January 2014 Contents
Introduction ......................................................................................................3 Executive summary..........................................................................................7 Adult and juvenile offenders...........................................................................10 Gender ...........................................................................................................12 Age ................................................................................................................13 Disposal (sentence) type ...............................................................................14 Adult offenders discharged from prison or commencing a court order ......14 Adult offenders discharged from prison......................................................14 Juvenile offenders released from custody ..................................................15 Adult offenders commencing a court order.................................................15 Comparing the effectiveness of sentences ....................................................15 Adult offenders by individual prison ...............................................................17 Adult offenders by probation trust .................................................................17 Index offence .................................................................................................18 Previous offences ..........................................................................................19 List of quarterly tables....................................................................................20 Annex A Interim re-conviction figures for Peterborough and Doncaster Payment by Results pilots..............................................................................22 Annex B Glossary of terms ............................................................................32 Explanatory notes ..........................................................................................41 Contact points ...............................................................................................42 Introduction
The Proven Re-offending Statistics Quarterly Bulletin provides key statistics on proven re-offending in England and Wales. It gives proven re-offending figures for adult and juvenile offenders, who were released from custody, received a non-custodial conviction at court, received a caution, reprimand or warning, or tested positive for opiates or cocaine between April 2011 and March 2012. A proven re-offence is defined as any offence committed in a one year follow-up period that leads to a court conviction, caution, reprimand or warning in the one year follow-up or within a further six month waiting period to allow the offence to be proven in court.
This quarterly bulletin presents the proportion of offenders who re-offend (proven re-offending rate) and the number of proven re-offences those offenders commit by age group, gender, criminal history and offence type. Also included are proven re-offending rates for serious proven re-offending, different types of sentence, and for individual prisons and probation trusts. Other breakdowns that were previously available in the quarterly bulletin, such as proven re-offending for local authorities, youth offending teams, drug-misusing offenders and prolific and other priority offenders, will be now available only for the calendar year based cohort (January to December) which is published in October. Further information on this change is available in Annex C of the Proven Re-offending Statistics Bulletin, January to December 2011, at the link below:
www.gov.uk/government/publications/proven-re-offending-quarterly-january-to-december-2011
Latest figures are provided with comparisons to April 2010 to March 2011 and the year 2000 in order to highlight long-term trends; 2000 is the earliest year for which proven re-offending data exist on a comparable basis. The full set of results is provided separately in Excel tables at:
www.gov.uk/government/collections/proven-reoffending-statistics
The accompanying ‘Definitions and Measurement’ document, which is available at the same link, provides more detailed information.
Users interested in the latest findings from the Peterborough and Doncaster Payment by Results pilots can find the latest interim re-conviction figures in Annex A. Measuring proven re-offending
There is no agreed international standard for measuring and reporting re-offending. An offender’s journey through the criminal justice system can be a complex one; offenders can appear on numerous occasions.
Measuring true re-offending is complex. Official records are taken from either the police or courts, but they will underestimate the true level of re-offending because only a proportion of crime is reported and/or detected and not all crimes are recorded on one central system. Furthermore, other methods for measuring re-offending, such as self-report studies, which do not identify the offender, are likely to be unreliable. Therefore, this report aims to estimate proven re-offending for a specified group of offenders using data mainly from the Police National Computer.
Since this report measures re-offending on a consistent basis across all groups, it is possible to tailor analysis of re-offending to meet specific requirements. This quarterly bulletin and the accompanying ‘Early estimates of proven re-offending’ present measures on four different levels to meet users’ needs:
- The headline measure – this is the overall measure of re-offending and is presented for different demographic groups and by offence. To provide this overview of proven re-offending, offenders are tracked and their proven re-offending behaviour is recorded, taking the first event in the relevant period as the start point and subsequent events as proven re-offences. Users should refer to tables 1 to 11 and 13 to 17 for the headline measure.
- A headline measure where the first event is related to criminal justice and offender management – this provides a realistic and relevant view of proven re-offending by disposal (sentence type), prison and probation trust. Offenders are tracked and their proven re-offending behaviour is recorded within each disposal (caution, court order, discharge from prison, etc.) or operational unit (prison or probation trust) taking the first event within each as the start point and subsequent events as re-offences. Users should refer to tables 12 and 18 to 25 for this headline measure.
- Early estimates of proven re-offending – these use shorter follow-up and waiting periods, but otherwise measure re-offending in exactly the same way as the headline measure. This provides an earlier indication of proven re-offending trends so offender managers can adjust or build on offender management operational policy. This table is published as management information for probation trusts alongside the accompanying proven re-offending tables.
______________________________________________________________________
1 An event is one of the following: a release from custody, convicted at court with a non-custodial sentence, received a caution, reprimand, warning or tested positive for opiates or cocaine.
2 Tables 4, 7, 9 to 17, 20, 21 and 25 are published annually in October. • A re-conviction measure for use by payment by results – this is the measure used in the prison pilots where court convictions are more closely associated with costs to the criminal justice system. For more details, please refer to Annex A.
For a more detailed explanation, please see the accompanying ‘Definitions and Measurement’ document at:
www.gov.uk/government/collections/proven-reoffending-statistics
Consultation
This quarterly bulletin was developed in response to a consultation in late 2010 and early 2011 by the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) on “Improvements to Ministry of Justice Statistics”.
Users
The contents of this bulletin will be of interest to Government policy makers, the agencies responsible for offender management at both national and local levels, providers, practitioners and others who want to understand more about proven re-offending.
In particular there are two MoJ impact indicators which will be monitored using results from this bulletin:
• Adult and juvenile re-offending – the percentage of adult and juvenile offenders who re-offend.
• The percentage of adults released from custody who re-offend.
Government policy makers also use these statistics to develop, monitor and evaluate key elements of its policies including those on payments by results, legal aid, sentencing guidelines and drug and alcohol policies. Offender management agencies use these statistics to gain a local understanding of the criminal justice system, understand performance and to highlight best practice. Key agencies include: the National Offender Management Service, the Youth Justice Board, private and voluntary sector providers of prison and probation services and local authorities.
As proven re-offending is related to the characteristics of offenders, the actual rate of proven re-offending will depend, in part, on the characteristics of offenders coming into the system. This actual rate provides users with sufficient information on what the level of re-offending is (e.g. in their local area) and how it is changing over time. Some of the tables in this bulletin also present an adjusted proven re-offending rate to control for differences in the composition of the offender group which can be used by those who want to
3 www.gov.uk/government/publications?departments%5B%5D=ministry-of-justice understand how changes in types of offenders coming through the justice system drive re-offending rates.
This bulletin is published alongside four inter-related bulletins:
- **Offender Management Statistics Quarterly Bulletin, July to September 2013, England and Wales**: provides key statistics relating to offenders who are in prison or under Probation Service supervision. It covers flows into these services (receptions into prison or probation starts) and flows out (discharges from prison or probation terminations) as well as the caseload of both services at specific points in time. It also includes information on returns to custody following recall.
- **Safety in Custody Statistics Quarterly update to September 2013, England and Wales**: provides statistics on death, self harm and assault incidents whilst in prison custody.
- **Youth Justice Statistics 2012/13, England and Wales**: this cross-cutting publication brings together statistics from across the Youth Justice System, many of which have already been published separately.
- **Experimental statistics from the 2013 MoJ/DWP/HMRC data share**: Linking data on offenders from MoJ with benefit, employment and income data from DWP and HMRC.
Taken together, these publications present users with a more coherent overview of offender management, re-offending among adults and young people, the youth justice system and the safety of offenders whilst in prison custody.
Additional analyses on proven re-offending that are not covered by this bulletin are presented in the ‘Compendium of re-offending statistics and analysis’. The 2013 edition of this publication, which was published by the MoJ on 11 July 2013, includes a comprehensive analysis on the impact of sentencing on proven re-offending for adult offenders.
[www.gov.uk/government/publications/2013-compendium-of-re-offending-statistics-and-analysis](http://www.gov.uk/government/publications/2013-compendium-of-re-offending-statistics-and-analysis)
If you have any feedback, questions or requests for further information about this statistical bulletin, please direct them to the appropriate contact given at the end of this report. Executive summary
This report provides key statistics on proven re-offending in England and Wales. It gives proven re-offending figures for adult and juvenile offenders who were released from custody, received a non-custodial conviction at court, received a caution, reprimand or warning, or tested positive for opiates or cocaine between April 2011 and March 2012. A proven re-offence is defined as any offence committed in a one year follow-up period that leads to a court conviction, caution, reprimand or warning in the one year follow-up. Following this one year follow-up, a further six month waiting period is allowed for the offence to be proven in court.
Overall - adult and juvenile offenders Between April 2011 and March 2012, around 600,000 adult and juvenile offenders were cautioned, convicted (excluding immediate custodial sentences) or released from custody. Around 160,000 of these offenders committed a proven re-offence within a year. This gives an overall proven re-offending rate of 26.5%, representing a small drop of 0.3 percentage points compared to the previous 12 months and a slight fall of 1.4 percentage points since 2000. Since 2000, the overall proven re-offending rate for adult and juvenile offenders has remained fairly stable, fluctuating between around 26% and 29% (Table 1).
In total, around 460,000 proven re-offences were committed over the one year follow-up period, with those that re-offended committing, on average, 2.9 re-offences each (both adults and juveniles) (Table 1).
Unsurprisingly, offenders with 11 or more previous offences have a higher re-offending rate than those with no previous offences – 47.5% compared to 10.8% in the most recent figures and the same pattern can be seen for previous years (Table 6c).
Serious re-offences: less than 1% of all proven re-offences committed over the one year follow-up period were serious violent or sexual offences with very little change since 2000 (Table 8).
______________________________________________________________________
4 A certain proportion of offenders who could not be matched to the Police National Computer (PNC) are excluded from the offender cohort. Therefore, this number does not represent all proven offenders. Please refer to the ‘Definitions and Measurement’ document for more detail at www.gov.uk/government/collections/proven-reoffending-statistics. This means that the number of offenders in this bulletin will be different from the numbers published in the Offender Management Quarterly Statistics Bulletin available at www.gov.uk/government/collections/offender-management-statistics-quarterly and the Criminal Justice Statistics report available at www.gov.uk/government/collections/criminal-justice-statistics-quarterly.
5 Includes reprimands and warnings for juveniles.
6 Also includes those who tested positive for opiates or cocaine. Adult offenders Around 530,000 adult offenders were cautioned, convicted or released from custody between April 2011 and March 2012 and around 130,000 of them committed a re-offence. This gives a proven re-offending rate of 25.3%. Compared to the previous 12 months, the rate has not changed, but, since 2000, it has seen a slight fall of 0.9 percentage points. Proven re-offending rates for adult offenders have remained fairly flat since 2000 fluctuating between around 25% and 28% (Table 1).
Adult offenders released from custody The proven re-offending rate for adult offenders released from custody between April 2011 and March 2012 was 45.8%, a fall of 1.5 percentage points compared to the previous 12 months and a fall of 3.6 percentage points since 2000. Adults who served sentences of less than 12 months, re-offended at a rate of 57.7% compared to 34.4% for those who served sentences of 12 months or more. Since 2005, the overall rate for those released from custody has remained relatively stable at around 46% to 49%. The trends for those released from short and long sentences have both also remained broadly flat since 2005 and are consistent with the overall trend. The rate for those released from short sentences has been consistently higher compared to those released from longer sentences (Table 19a).
Adult offenders starting a court order The proven re-offending rate for adult offenders starting a court order (Community Order or Suspended Sentence Order) was 34.0%, a small drop of 0.2 percentage points compared to the previous 12 months and down 3.9 percentage points since 2000 (Table 18a).
Juvenile offenders Around 71,000 juvenile offenders were cautioned, convicted or released from custody between April 2011 and March 2012 and around 25,000 of them committed a re-offence. This gives a proven re-offending rate of 35.5%, down 0.3 percentage points from the previous 12 months. While the rate has seen an overall increase of 1.8 percentage points since 2000, the cohort has changed considerably over this time; it has almost halved in size due to a substantial decrease in the number of first time entrants to the criminal justice system and, as such, is comprised of offenders whose characteristics mean that they are more likely to re-offend than those in the 2000 cohort. A first time entrant is an offender who has received their first reprimand, warning, caution or conviction for an offence (Table 1).
Juvenile offenders released from custody The proven re-offending rate for juvenile offenders released from custody between April 2011 and March 2012 was 69.3%. This represents a fall of 3.3 percentage points compared to the previous 12 months and a fall of 7.5 percentage points since 2000 (Table 19b).
______________________________________________________________________
1 Excludes indeterminate sentences for public protection and life sentence prisoners. Table E1: Overview – latest 12 month period compared to the previous 12 month period and 2000
| | 2000 | 12 months ending March 2011 | 12 months ending March 2012 | Percentage change 2000 to 12 months ending March 2012 | Percentage change 12 months ending March 2011 to 12 months ending March 2012 | |----------------------|-------|----------------------------|----------------------------|------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------| | **All offenders** | | | | | | | Proportion of offenders who re-offend (%) | 27.9 | 26.8 | 26.5 | -1.4pp ↓ | -0.2pp ↓ | | Average number of re-offences per re-offender | 3.37 | 2.88 | 2.90 | -13.9% ↓ | 0.8% ↑ | | Proportion of offenders who re-offend - Adjusted to baseline (%) | 25.5 | 27.1 | 27.4 | -28.1% ↓ | -0.2% ↓ | | Average number of re-offences per offender | 0.94 | 0.77 | 0.77 | -30.1% ↓ | -6.5% ↓ | | Number of re-offences | 579,775 | 495,162 | 485,083 | -20.1% ↓ | -6.5% ↓ | | Number of re-offenders | 171,935 | 171,949 | 159,528 | -7.2% ↓ | -7.2% ↓ | | Number of offenders in cohort | 611,024 | 641,742 | 605,624 | -3.4% ↓ | -6.2% ↓ | | **Adult offenders** | | | | | | | Proportion of offenders who re-offend (%) | 26.2 | 25.4 | 25.3 | -0.9pp ↓ | 0.0pp ↔ | | Average number of re-offences per re-offender | 3.39 | 2.88 | 2.91 | -14.3% ↓ | 0.9% ↑ | | Proportion of offenders who re-offend - Adjusted to baseline (%) | 23.6 | 25.9 | 26.3 | -27.1% ↓ | -0.7% ↑ | | Average number of re-offences per offender | 0.86 | 0.73 | 0.74 | -27.1% ↓ | -0.7% ↑ | | Number of re-offences | 423,992 | 404,228 | 390,946 | -7.9% ↓ | -3.3% ↓ | | Number of re-offenders | 125,023 | 140,314 | 134,519 | -7.6% ↓ | -4.1% ↓ | | Number of offenders in cohort | 477,698 | 553,385 | 531,420 | 22.2% ↑ | -4.0% ↓ | | **Juvenile offenders** | | | | | | | Proportion of offenders who re-offend (%) | 33.7 | 35.8 | 35.5 | 1.8pp ↑ | -0.3pp ↓ | | Average number of re-offences per re-offender | 3.32 | 2.87 | 2.88 | -13.1% ↓ | 0.4% ↑ | | Proportion of offenders who re-offend - Adjusted to baseline (%) | 32.0 | 36.2 | 36.5 | -8.5% ↓ | -0.6% ↓ | | Average number of re-offences per offender | 1.12 | 1.03 | 1.02 | -8.5% ↓ | -0.6% ↓ | | Number of re-offences | 155,781 | 90,934 | 72,147 | -53.7% ↓ | -20.7% ↓ | | Number of re-offenders | 46,912 | 31,635 | 25,009 | -46.7% ↓ | -20.9% ↓ | | Number of offenders in cohort | 129,326 | 86,567 | 77,144 | -48.4% ↓ | -20.2% ↓ |
1. pp = percentage point and percentage changes may not add up due to rounding of raw figures
2. See the definitions and measurement paper for an explanation on how to use and interpret the baseline rate Overall - adult and juvenile offenders (Table 1)
Adult offenders accounted for 88% (around 530,000) of the April 2011 to March 2012 offender cohort, and juvenile offenders, 12% (around 71,000).
Around 130,000 of all adult offenders were proven to have committed a re-offence within a year. This gives a proven re-offending rate of 25.3% which represents no change compared to the previous 12 months. Since 2000, there has been little change in this rate, as illustrated in Figure 1. Over this time it has ranged from 25% to 28%.
The proven re-offending rate for juvenile offenders is higher, but in the last 12 months it has decreased slightly from 35.8% in the 12 months ending March 2011 to 35.5% in the 12 months ending March 2012, a drop mainly driven by a decrease in the rate for 15 to 17 year olds. Since 2000, the rate has remained fairly flat at around 32% to 36%.
While the rate has seen an increase since 2000, the total number of juvenile offenders in the cohort has fallen by 49%. This is in line with the pattern of first time entrants to the criminal justice system where the number of young people receiving their first reprimand, warning or conviction has also decreased thus leaving behind a more prolific group of offenders who are more likely to re-offend. More information on first time entrants for both adults and juveniles can be found in the ‘Criminal Justice Statistics Quarterly Bulletin’ at:
www.gov.uk/government/collections/criminal-justice-statistics-quarterly Figure 1: Proportion of adult and juvenile offenders in England and Wales who commit a proven re-offence, 2000, 2002 to 12 months ending March 2012\\textsuperscript{1,2}
1. Data are not available for 2001 due to a problem with archived data on Court Orders
2. For 2006 to 2012, data are for the 12 months ending March Gender (Table 2)
In the April 2011 to March 2012 cohort, 81% were male and 19% were female – a gender split that has changed little over the years since 2000. Male offenders from the April 2011 to March 2012 cohort, re-offended at a higher rate of 28.3% compared to female offenders who re-offended at a rate of 18.7%, and, as shown in Figure 2, both rates have remained broadly stable since 2000. Between 2000 and the 12 months ending March 2012, the proven re-offending rate for male offenders decreased by 1.2 percentage points, and, over the same period, the rate for female offenders saw a slightly larger decrease of 1.7 percentage points.
Figure 2: Proportion of adult and juvenile offenders in England and Wales who commit a proven re-offence, by gender, 2000, 2002 to 12 months ending March 2012
1. Data are not available for 2001 due to a problem with archived data on Court Orders
2. For 2006 to 2012, data are for the 12 months ending March Age (Table 3)
Since 2000, the proven re-offending rate for offenders aged 15 to 17 has been consistently higher than the rates for offenders in other age groups. In the 12 months ending March 2012, the rate for offenders in this age group decreased for the first time in four years – it fell from 36.7% (the highest level since 2000) in the previous 12 months to 35.8%. At 34.5%, rates for 10 to 14 year olds from the April 2011 to March 2012 cohort are the second highest and, along with the rates for those aged 35 and over, have reached their highest levels since 2000.
Compared to 2000, the proven re-offending rate for offenders in the cohort for April 2011 to March 2012 rose for 10 to 14 year olds and for those aged 30 and over, but fell for offenders aged 15 to 29.
Figure 3 shows that the proven re-offending rate for those aged 18 and over generally falls with increasing age.
Figure 3: Proportion of adult and juvenile offenders in England and Wales who commit a proven re-offence, by age, 2000, 2010 and 12 months ending March 2012
1. For 2011 and 2012, data are for the 12 months ending March Disposal (sentence) type
Adult offenders discharged from prison or commencing a court order (Table 18a)
Between April 2011 and March 2012, around 190,000 adult offenders were discharged from prison or commenced a court order. Around 67,000 of these offenders were proven to have committed a re-offence within a year. This gives a proven re-offending rate of 35.6%.
Since 2005, the rate has remained fairly flat at around 36% to 38%.
Adult offenders discharged from prison (Table 19a)
Between April 2011 and March 2012, around 60,000 adult offenders were discharged from prison and around 28,000 of these (45.8%) were proven to have committed a re-offence within a year. While the rate has decreased by 3.6 percentage points since 2000, it has remained fairly stable since 2005.
Around half of the adult offenders discharged from prison between April 2011 and March 2012 were released from a custodial sentence of less than 12 months. These offenders had a proven re-offending rate of 57.7% compared to 34.4% for those who served sentences of 12 months or more.
Since 2005, the overall rate for those released from custody has remained broadly stable and the rate for those released from short sentences has been consistently higher compared to those released from long sentences, as shown in Figure 4. Figure 4: Proportion of adult offenders discharged from prison who commit a proven re-offence, by custodial sentence length, 2000, 2002 to 12 months ending March 2012\\textsuperscript{1,2}
Juvenile offenders released from custody (Table 19b)
Between April 2011 and March 2012, around 2,000 juvenile offenders were released from custody and around 1,400 of these (69.3%) were proven to have committed a re-offence within a year. This represents a fall of 3.3 percentage points compared to the previous 12 months and fall of 7.5 percentage points since 2000.
Adult offenders commencing a court order (Table 18a)
Between April 2011 and March 2012, around 140,000 adult offenders started a court order and around 47,000 of these (34.0%) committed a proven re-offence within a year.
Comparing the effectiveness of sentences
Proven re-offending rates by index disposal (sentence type) should not be compared to assess the effectiveness of sentences, as there is no control for known differences in offender characteristics and the type of sentence given. The ‘2013 Compendium of Re-offending Statistics and Analysis’ compares like for like offenders which enables a more reliable comparison of proven re-offending rates between offenders receiving different sentences. The findings from the Compendium show that offenders sentenced to less than 12 months in custody had a higher proven re-offending rate than similar, matched offenders receiving:
- a community order - 6.4 percentage points for 2010;
- a suspended sentence order - 8.6 percentage points for 2010;
- a ‘court order’ (either a community order or a suspended order) - 6.8 percentage points for 2010.
Non-custodial sentences were also compared:
- Suspended sentence orders had a lower re-offending rate than community orders (3.2 percentage points for 2010);
- Community orders had a higher re-offending rate than fines, though the difference was small (0.9 percentage points in 2010);
- Conditional discharges had a lower re-offending rate than: Community orders (5.1 percentage points for 2010); and Fines (5.5 percentage points for 2010).
www.gov.uk/government/publications/2013-compendium-of-re-offending-statistics-and-analysis Adult offenders by individual prison (Tables 22a and b)
Among prisons which discharged 30 or more offenders between April 2011 and March 2012, proven re-offending rates varied considerably from 12.1% to 80.0% for offenders with a sentence of less than 12 months and from 3.4% to 64.9% for offenders with a sentence of 12 months or more. A large part of this variability reflects the mix of offenders who are held in different prisons and, therefore, comparisons between prisons should not be made using these raw re-offending rates.
To account for this variability in the mix of prisoners, a model has been developed to help explain if re-offending rates are affected by the specific prison they are discharged from or if the rate of re-offending reflects the mix of offenders. For example, a group of prisoners with a high number of previous offences is more likely to re-offend than a group with a low number of previous offences.
Less than 12 month sentences Among prisons discharging offenders serving sentences of less than 12 months, four prisons (Ford, Leyhill, Standford Hill and Usk/Prescoed) had significantly lower proven re-offending rates than expected and two (Hindley and Wetherby) had significantly higher.
12 month or more sentences Among prisons discharging offenders serving sentences of 12 months or more, four prisons had significantly lower proven re-offending rates (Canterbury, East Sutton Park, Grendon/Spring Hill and Latchmere House) than expected and none had significantly higher.
Adult offenders by probation trust (Table 24)
Offenders given a court order are managed by the Probation Service which comprises 35 probation trusts. Proven re-offending rates for these offenders are presented by probation trust in Table 24. This takes the first court order commencement from within each probation trust as the start point for measuring re-offending and subsequent events as proven re-offences.
Proven re-offending rates varied considerably between probation trusts from 26.7% to 43.1%. A large part of this variability reflects the mix of offenders who are given a court order and, therefore, comparisons between probation trusts should not be made using these raw re-offending rates.
For probation trusts an adjusted proven re-offending rate to control for differences in the composition of the offender group in each trust has been developed from the national model. Seven probation trusts showed significantly lower proven re-offending rates than expected. These were Gloucestershire, Hampshire, London, Northamptonshire, South Yorkshire, Staffordshire and West Midlands and York and North Yorkshire. None showed significantly higher proven re-offending rates than expected.
**Index offence (Table 5c)**
The offence that leads to an offender being included in the offender cohort is called the index offence. In the April 2011 to March 2012 cohort, offenders with an index offence of ‘Theft’ had the highest proven re-offending rate of 40.0%. This was closely followed by those with an index offence of ‘Robbery’ with a rate of 37.5%. Those with the lowest rate (excluding the ‘Other’ category) had an index offence of ‘Fraud’ and re-offended at a rate of 11.4%. Additionally, with a fall of 10.3 percentage points, the ‘Fraud’ index offence category saw the largest decrease between 2000 and the 12 months ending March 2012. In contrast, the largest increase over the same period occurred for those with an index offence of ‘Public Order’.
**Figure 5: Proportion of adult and juvenile offenders in England and Wales who commit a proven re-offence, by index offence, 12 months ending March 2012** Previous offences (Table 6a, b and c)
Generally, offenders with a large number of previous offences have a higher rate of proven re-offending and this is true for both adults and juveniles. In the April 2011 to March 2012 cohort, the proven re-offending rates ranged from 10.8% for offenders with no previous offences to 47.5% for offenders with 11 or more previous offences. Between 2000 and the 12 months ending March 2012, the largest decrease in the proven re-offending rate was among offenders with one or two previous offences.
Adult offenders with 11 or more previous offences represented just under a third of all adult offenders in the April 2011 to March 2012 cohort, but committed two thirds of all adult proven re-offences. Juvenile offenders with 11 or more previous offences had a proven re-offending rate of 76.1%. This group make up only 6% of all juvenile offenders, but committed a fifth (20%) of all juvenile proven re-offences.
Figure 6: Proportion of adult and juvenile offenders in England and Wales who commit a proven re-offence, by previous offence band, 12 months ending March 2012 List of quarterly tables
Proven re-offending – overview
Table 1 Summary proven re-offending data, by adults and juveniles 2000, 2002 to March 2012 Table 2 Proven re-offending data, by gender, 2000, 2002 to March 2012 Table 3 Proven re-offending data, by age, 2000, 2002 to March 2012
-----------------------Table 4 is published annually in October-----------------------
Table 5a Adult proven re-offending data, by index offence (based on new ONS crime classifications), 2000, 2002 to March 2012 Table 5b Juvenile proven re-offending data, by index offence (based on new ONS crime classifications), 2000, 2002 to March 2012 Table 5c Adult and juvenile proven re-offending data, by index offence (based on new ONS crime classifications), 2000, 2002 to March 2012
Table 6a Adult proven re-offending data, by number of previous offences, 2000, 2002 to March 2012 Table 6b Juvenile proven re-offending data, by number of previous offences, 2000, 2002 to March 2012 Table 6c Adult and juvenile proven re-offending data, by number of previous offences, 2000, 2002 to March 2012
-----------------------Table 7 is published annually in October-----------------------
Table 8 Serious proven re-offending data, 2000, 2002 to March 2012
-----------------Tables 9 to17 are published annually in October-----------------
Proven re-offending by index disposal, probation trust and prison
Table 18a Adult proven re-offending data, by index disposal, 2000, 2002 to March 2012 Table 18b Juvenile proven re-offending data, by index disposal, 2000, 2002 to March 2012 Table 19a Adult proven re-offending data, by custodial sentence length, 2000, 2002 to March 2012 Table 19b Juvenile proven re-offending data, by custodial sentence length, 2000, 2002 to March 2012
---------------Tables 20 and 21 are published annually in October---------------
Table 22a Proven re-offending of adult offenders given sentences of less than 12 months, by individual prison, based on first discharge from each prison, 2007 to March 2012
Table 22b Proven re-offending of adult offenders given sentences of 12 months or more, by individual prison, based on first discharge from each prison, 2007 to March 2012
Table 23 Juvenile proven re-offending data, by individual prison or secure accommodation, based on first discharge from each prison or secure accommodation, 2007 to March 2012
Table 24 Adult proven re-offending data by probation trust based on first commencement from each trust, 2005 to March 2012
---------------Table 25 is published annually in October--------------- Annex A
Interim re-conviction figures for Peterborough and Doncaster Payment by Results pilots
Background
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) published “Breaking the Cycle: Effective Punishment, Rehabilitation and Sentencing of Offenders” in December 2010. This Green Paper included a commitment for the MoJ to commission a series of initial ‘payment by results’ (PbR) pilot projects to test the principle that PbR can result in service improvements by delivering better outcomes for the public at the same or less cost.
The MoJ currently has two prison based PbR pilots operating in HMP Peterborough and HMP Doncaster. The Peterborough pilot began on 9 September 2010 and the Doncaster pilot on 1 October 2011.
There are a number of differences in the design of the two pilots to enable different PbR approaches to be tested. These differences (as set out below in the methodology section and also in Table A1 of the Appendix) mean that the interim figures for the two pilots cannot be directly compared.
The final results for both pilots will be based on a 12 month re-conviction measure which counts offences committed in the 12 months following release from prison, and resulting in conviction at court either in those 12 months or in a further 6 month period (allowing time for cases to progress through the courts). As a consequence of this necessary time lag, final results will not be available until summer 2014 (for cohort 8 of both pilots, with final results for subsequent cohorts to follow in later years).
However, given the high level of public interest in relation to the reforms set out in the MoJ publication “Transforming Rehabilitation – a strategy for reform”, the MoJ began publishing interim re-conviction figures for both of these pilots from June 2013. This was the earliest opportunity after MoJ statisticians judged the number of offenders being reported on to be large enough to provide robust interim figures.
These figures are updated in this dedicated annex to each edition of the MoJ’s quarterly Proven Re-offending Statistics bulletin.
______________________________________________________________________
8 A cohort is the group of offenders included in the pilot, and for whom the reduction in re-convictions will be measured. See Table A1 in the Appendix for more details on which offenders are included in the cohorts. Methodology
Offenders enter the PbR pilots after their first eligible release from the prison within the cohort period. For Peterborough, cohort 1 closed at the end of the month in which the 1000th eligible offender was released. For the purposes of this statistical bulletin, cohort 1 is all eligible offenders released between 9 September 2010 and 1 July 2012. For Doncaster, cohort 1 includes all eligible offenders released from 1 October 2011 to 30 September 2012.
Both PbR prison pilots use a 12 month re-conviction measure which differs from the National Statistics proven re-offending measure. The key difference is that re-convictions only count offences for which the offender was convicted at court, whereas the National Statistics proven re-offending measure also includes out of court disposals (cautions). However, the time periods used for both measures are the same – offences committed within 12 months of release from prison and convicted at court (or cautioned for the proven re-offending measure) either in those 12 months, or in a further 6 month period (allowing time for cases to progress through the courts).
There are a number of differences in the design of the two pilots to enable different PbR approaches to be tested. The Peterborough pilot includes offenders released from custodial sentences of less than 12 months, whereas the Doncaster pilot includes all offenders released from custody regardless of sentence length. Although both pilots will be assessed using a 12 month re-conviction measure, the exact measures used are different in the two pilots (see the next section, Final re-conviction measures, for more details).
Additionally, there are a number of other differences between the pilots and the National Statistics proven re-offending measure in terms of which offenders are counted within the cohort. These differences were set out in the PbR contracts; see Table A1 in the Appendix for more details.
Final (outcome) re-conviction measures for the prison pilots
For Peterborough prison the outcome measure is the frequency of re-conviction events9 (based on offences committed within 12 months of release from prison and convicted at court within those 12 months or a further 6 month period). This is often referred to as a frequency measure. Success of each Peterborough cohort will be determined by comparison with a control group (of comparable offenders from across the country), and the results will be published separately.
For Doncaster prison the outcome measure is the proportion of offenders who commit one or more offences in the 12 months following release from prison and are convicted at court in those 12 months or in a further 6 months.
9 If an offender is re-convicted of multiple offences on one sentencing occasion, this counts as one re-conviction event. This is often referred to as a binary measure. Success will be determined by comparison with the re-conviction rate in the baseline year of 2009.
**Interim re-conviction measures for the prison pilots**
In publishing these interim figures MoJ aims to give the most useful figures for as much of each cohort as possible at each point in time.
Initially, this is done by providing figures based on periods half the length of those that will be used for the final results, for an increasing proportion of each cohort. These cover offences committed in the 6 months following release from prison, and resulting in conviction at court either in those 6 months or in a further 3 month period (allowing time for cases to progress through the courts).
Subsequently, when the data become available, we provide figures based on the full period used for the final results: covering offences committed in the 12 months following release from prison, and resulting in conviction at court either in those 12 months or in a further 6 month period, again for an increasing proportion of the cohort.
These figures are updated on a quarterly basis. See Table A3 in the Appendix for a timeline of the publication of these results.
The figures for Peterborough in this bulletin are 12 month re-conviction figures. They cover offenders released in the first 19 months of the cohort 1 period (the full cohort comprises 22 months).
For Doncaster, the figures presented here show 12 month re-conviction rates for the first time. They cover offenders released in the first 6 months of the cohort 1 period (the full cohort comprises 12 months).
**Interpreting interim re-conviction figures**
The interim re-conviction figures presented in this statistical bulletin give an indication of progress in the pilots to date. However, care should be taken when interpreting these interim figures for the following reasons:
- Figures for both pilots are based on incomplete cohorts;
- For the Peterborough pilot, success will be determined based on comparison with a control group of comparable offenders from across the country, which is not available for these interim results;
Users should therefore be aware that the figures presented provide our best assessment of change at this point in time. The final results will be available in summer 2014. Results
Peterborough
The interim figures presented in this statistical bulletin are 12 month re-conviction figures for offenders released from Peterborough in the first 19 months of the cohort 1 period (the full cohort comprises 22 months). For comparison, we have provided equivalent figures for the five years prior to the pilots.10
Success of the Peterborough pilot will be measured against a control group of similar offenders released from other prisons, with the target met if the frequency of re-conviction events is 10% lower for the Peterborough cohort than for the control group. It is not possible to replicate that comparison for these interim figures. Instead, in order to provide some context for the Peterborough figures, we have provided equivalent national figures for the same periods. The national figures are based on other local11 prisons which exclude Peterborough and Doncaster.
______________________________________________________________________
10 Figures for Sep09-Jun11 overlap with the pilot cohort 1 period itself; therefore they should not be used as a baseline for comparison. They have been included in the published figures for transparency. 11 Since HMP Peterborough is a local prison, the underlying characteristics of the prison and its offenders will be more similar to those of local prisons. See Annex D for a definition of local prison. Table 1 and Figure 1: Peterborough (and national equivalent) interim re-conviction figures using a partial (19 month) cohort and a 12 month re-conviction period
| Discharge Period | No. of offenders | Re-conviction Rate | Frequency of re-conviction events per 100 offenders | No. of offenders | Re-conviction Rate | Frequency of re-conviction events per 100 offenders | |------------------|------------------|--------------------|---------------------------------------------------|------------------|--------------------|---------------------------------------------------| | Sep05-Mar07 | 724 | 56.2% | 143 | 29,358 | 56.5% | 137 | | Sep06-Mar08 | 868 | 56.6% | 154 | 29,373 | 57.0% | 142 | | Sep07-Mar09 | 1,030 | 55.9% | 153 | 32,329 | 56.9% | 146 | | Sep08-Mar10 | 980 | 54.8% | 163 | 32,756 | 55.3% | 146 | | Sep09-Mar11 | 845 | 52.9% | 151 | 30,525 | 55.8% | 155 | | Sep10-Mar12 | 844 | 53.1% | 148 | 29,798 | 55.7% | 160 |
Table 1 above shows that for offenders released from Peterborough between 9 September 2010 and 31 March 2012 (the first 19 months of cohort 1), there were an average of 148 re-conviction events per 100 offenders. This compares to an average of 163 re-conviction events per 100 offenders released from Peterborough between September 2008 and March 2010; a fall of 9%.
Nationally, the equivalent figures show a rise of 10% from 146 to 160 re-conviction events per 100 offenders.
These interim figures show a fall in the frequency of re-conviction events at Peterborough while nationally there has been a substantial rise which is our best assessment of change at this point in time (see the section Interpreting interim re-conviction figures). The final results will be available in summer 2014. Doncaster
The interim figures presented in this statistical bulletin are 12 month re-conviction figures for offenders released from Doncaster in the first 6 months of the cohort 1 period (the full cohort comprises 12 months). For comparison, we have provided equivalent figures for the five years prior to the pilot and equivalent national figures for the same periods. The national figures are based on other local\\textsuperscript{12} prisons which exclude Peterborough and Doncaster.
Success of the Doncaster pilot will be measured against a baseline of calendar year 2009, with the target met if the re-conviction rate for cohort 1 is 5 percentage points lower than it was in 2009.
Table 2 and Figure 2: Doncaster (and national equivalent) interim 12-month re-conviction figures for offenders released in the first 6 months of the cohort 1 period
| Discharge Period | Doncaster | National | |------------------|-----------|----------| | | No. of offenders | Re-conviction Rate | No. of offenders | Re-conviction Rate | | Oct06-Mar07 | 739 | 59.7% | 12,585 | 56.9% | | Oct07-Mar08 | 636 | 63.7% | 13,868 | 58.0% | | Oct08-Mar09 | 669 | 60.1% | 14,324 | 57.0% | | Oct09-Mar10 | 718 | 57.7% | 14,184 | 55.6% | | Oct10-Mar11 | 675 | 53.8% | 13,712 | 56.1% | | Oct11-Mar12 | 719 | 53.8% | 13,903 | 54.1% |
\\textsuperscript{12} Since HMP Doncaster is a local prison, the underlying characteristics of the prison and its offenders will be more similar to those of local prisons. See Annex D for a definition of local prison. Table 2 above shows a 12 month re-conviction rate of 53.8% for offenders released from Doncaster between October 2011 and March 2012 (the first 6 months of cohort 1).
This compares to 60.1% for offenders released between October 2008 and March 2009 (a fall of 6.3 percentage points), and 57.7% for those released between October 2009 and March 2010 (a fall of 3.8 percentage points). We have compared to these figures as they are the closest comparable periods to the baseline period of calendar year 2009.
Nationally the equivalent figures show a re-conviction rate of 54.1% for offenders released between October 2011 and March 2012. This represents a fall of 2.9 percentage points compared with offenders released between October 2008 and March 2009 (57.0%) and a fall of 1.5 percentage points compared with those released from October 2009 to March 2010 (55.6%).
These interim figures show our best assessment of change at this point in time (see the section Interpreting interim re-conviction figures). The final results will be available in summer 2014.
## Appendix
### Table A1: Comparison of PbR re-conviction and National Statistics proven re-offending measures
| National Statistics measure of proven re-offending (for any prison) | PbR prison pilot re-conviction measures | Doncaster (cohort 1) | |---|---|---| | **The cohort** | Male offenders aged 18 or over discharged from Peterborough prison between 9 September 2010 and 1 July 2012 after serving sentences of less than 12 months. Differences from National Statistics:
- Excludes those who serve the whole of their custodial sentence on remand
- Excludes foreign national offenders recorded as having been deported on release from prison
- Includes those in prison for breach | Male offenders aged 18 or over discharged from Doncaster prison between 1 October 2011 and 30 September 2012 regardless of sentence length. Differences from National Statistics:
- Excludes those who serve the whole of their custodial sentence on remand
- Excludes foreign national offenders recorded as having been deported on release from prison | | **The period to measure re-convictions/re-offending** | 12 months for offences to occur and a further 6 months for offences to be proven (through conviction at court or a caution) | 12 months for offences to occur and a further 6 months for offences to be re-convicted\
Note: excludes cautions | | **The headline measure** | Frequency of re-conviction events | Proportion of offenders re-convicted of one or more offences | | **What counts** | Offences committed in the 12 months following release from prison, and proven by conviction at court or a caution either in those 12 months or in a further 6 months | Any re-conviction event (sentencing occasion) relating to offences committed in the 12 months following release from prison, and resulting in conviction at court either in those 12 months or in a further 6 months\
Note: excludes cautions |
Note: excludes cautions OGRS score data
Re-offending is related to the characteristics of offenders, for example offenders with a large number of previous convictions are more likely to re-offend than those with fewer previous convictions, and changes in re-conviction rates over time can be related to changes in the mix of offenders being worked with rather than a real change in the level of their re-offending.
The Offender Group Reconviction Scale (OGRS)(^{13}) is a predictor of re-offending based on age, gender and criminal history, which are risk factors known to be associated with the likelihood of re-offending. OGRS scores range from 0 to 1, with a lower score representing a lower likelihood of re-offending. The scores can be used to compare the relative likelihood of re-offending either over time or between different groups of offenders, with a higher/lower rate meaning a group of offenders who are more/less likely to re-offend. For example if Offender Group A have an average OGRS score of 0.44, and Offender Group B have an average OGRS score of 0.58, this means that Offender Group A are less likely to re-offend.
Tables A2a and A2b show the average OGRS scores for each of the offender groups that are measured in the tables above. These include offenders released from Peterborough and Doncaster prisons as well as those for the equivalent national groups of offenders. The figures are approximate because a small minority of offenders from each group are not included due to some data being unavailable.
Table A2a: Peterborough (and national equivalent) OGRS scores for offenders released in the first 19 months of the cohort 1 period
| Discharge Period | Average OGRS score | |------------------|--------------------| | | Peterborough | National | | Sep05-Mar07 | 0.50 | 0.53 | | Sep06-Mar08 | 0.50 | 0.53 | | Sep07-Mar09 | 0.50 | 0.52 | | Sep08-Mar10 | 0.50 | 0.52 | | Sep09-Mar11 | 0.48 | 0.52 | | Sep10-Mar12 | 0.49 | 0.52 |
(^{13}) For more details on OGRS see Ministry of Justice Research Summary 7/09 OGRS 3: the revised Offender Group Reconviction Scale at: webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110201125714/http://www.justice.gov.uk/publications/offender-assessment-system.htm Table A2b: Doncaster (and national equivalent) OGRS scores for offenders released in the first 6 months of the cohort 1 period
| Discharge Period | Doncaster | National | |------------------|-----------|----------| | Oct06-Mar07 | 0.56 | 0.54 | | Oct07-Mar08 | 0.59 | 0.53 | | Oct08-Mar09 | 0.58 | 0.53 | | Oct09-Mar10 | 0.56 | 0.52 | | Oct10-Mar11 | 0.57 | 0.52 | | Oct11-Mar12 | 0.54 | 0.52 |
Table A3: Timeline for publication of interim re-conviction figures
| | April 2014 | |------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Peterborough | 12 month re-conviction figures for entire cohort 1 (a 22 month cohort) | | Doncaster | 12 month re-conviction figures for 9 months of cohort 1 | | | 12 month re-conviction results for entire cohort 1 (a 12 month cohort) |
Table A4: Other information on the pilots
| Prison / Area | Start date of pilot | Length of pilot | Number of eligible participants for Cohort 1 | Number of eligible participants to date for Cohort 2 | |------------------------------|---------------------|-----------------|---------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------| | Peterborough Social Impact Bond (SIB) | 9 September 2010 | Six years | 1,034<sup>14</sup> | 660<sup>15</sup> | | HMP Doncaster | 1 October 2011 | Four years | 1,472<sup>16</sup> | 1,230<sup>17</sup> |
<sup>14</sup> Eligible participants from Cohort 1 from 9 September 2010 to 1 July 2012. <sup>15</sup> Eligible participants from Cohort 2 from 2 July 2012 to 30 September 2013. <sup>16</sup> Eligible participants from Cohort 1 from 1 October 2011 to 30 September 2012. <sup>17</sup> Eligible participants from Cohort 2 from 1 October 2012 to 30 September 2013. This is the entire Doncaster pilot cohort 2 period, but the figure is provisional at this stage and subject to revision. Annex B
Glossary of terms
Re-offending terms
Cohort – this is the group of individuals whose re-offending is measured.
Index offence – the index offence is the proven offence that leads to an offender being included in the cohort.
Index disposal – the index disposal of the offender is the type of sentence the offender received for their index offence.
Start point (also known as the index date) – this is the set point in time from when re-offences are measured.
Follow-up period – this is the length of time proven re-offending is measured over.
Waiting period – this is the additional time beyond the follow-up period to allow for offences committed towards the end of the follow-up period to be proved by a court conviction, caution, reprimand or final warning.
Adjusted to baseline – proven re-offending is related to the characteristics of offenders which means that any overall rate of proven re-offending will depend, in part, on the characteristics of offenders coming into the system (just as the examination pass rate of a school will be related to the characteristics of its pupils). We use a modelling technique to produce a baseline figure adjusted to match the characteristics of the cohort we are comparing. Please refer to the ‘Definitions and Measurement’ document for more detail at: www.gov.uk/government/collections/proven-reoffending-statistics.
Re-conviction – where an offender is convicted at court for an offence committed within a set follow-up period and convicted within either the follow-up period or waiting period.
Proven re-offence – where an offender is convicted at court or receives some other form of criminal justice sanction for an offence committed within a set follow-up period and disposed of within either the follow-up period or waiting period.
Cohort used in the Proven Re-offending Statistics Quarterly Bulletin – the proven re-offending cohort consists of all offenders discharged from custody, otherwise sanctioned at court, receiving a caution, reprimand or warning or tested positive for opiates or cocaine in each year. This cohort’s criminal history is collated and criminal behaviour is tracked over the following one year. Any offence committed in this one year period which is proven by a court conviction or out-of-court disposal (either in the one year period, or in a further six months waiting period) counts as a proven re-offence.
**Cohort used in the Local Adult Re-offending Quarterly Bulletin** – the local adult re-offending measure takes a snapshot of all offenders, aged 18 or over, who are under probation supervision at the end of a quarter, and combines four such snapshots together. This cohort’s criminal history is collated and criminal behaviour is tracked over the following three months. Any offence committed in this three month period which is proven by a court conviction or out-of-court disposal (either in the three month period, or in a further three months waiting period) counts as a proven re-offence. The latest available publication is the Local Adult Re-offending: 1 July 2012 – 30 June 2013, England and Wales; Ministry of Justice, November 2013.
[www.gov.uk/government/collections/local-adult-reoffending](http://www.gov.uk/government/collections/local-adult-reoffending)
**Disposal (sentence type)**
**Fine** – a financial penalty imposed following conviction.
**Court orders** – court orders include community sentences, community orders and suspended sentence orders supervised by the Probation Service. They do not include any pre or post release supervision.
**Criminal Justice Act 2003 (CJA03)** – for offences committed on or after 4 April 2005, the new community order replaced all existing community sentences for adults. The Act also introduced a new suspended sentence order for offences which pass the custody threshold. It also changed the release arrangements for prisoners. See Appendix A of Offender Management Caseload Statistics 2009 for more information.
**Community order** – for offences committed on or after 4 April 2005, the new community order introduced under the CJA 2003 replaced all existing community sentences for those aged 18 years and over. This term refers to all court orders except suspended sentence orders and deferred sentences which may have a custodial component to the sentence. The court must add at least one, but could potentially add all 12 requirements depending on the offences and the offender. The requirements are:
- unpaid work (formerly community service/community punishment) – a requirement to complete between 40 and 300 hours’ unpaid work;
- activity – for example, to attend basic skills classes;
- programme – there are several designed to reduce the prospects of re-offending; • prohibited activity – a requirement not do so something that is likely to lead to further offence or nuisance; • curfew – which is electronically monitored; • exclusion – this is not used frequently as there is no reliable electronic monitoring yet available; • residence – requirement to reside only where approved by probation officer; • mental health treatment (requires offender’s consent); • drug rehabilitation (requires offender’s consent); • alcohol treatment (requires offender’s consent); • supervision – meetings with probation officer to address needs/offending behaviour; and • attendance centre – between a minimum of 12 hours and a maximum of 36 in total which includes three hours of activity.
Typically, the more serious the offence and the more extensive the offender’s needs, the more requirements there will be. Most orders will comprise of one or two requirements, but there are packages of several requirements available where required. The court tailors the order as appropriate and is guided by the Probation Service through a pre-sentence report.
**Suspended sentence order (SSO)** – the CJA 2003 introduced a new suspended sentence order which is made up of the same requirements as a community order and, in the absence of breach is served wholly in the community supervised by the Probation Service. It consists of an ‘operational period’ (the time for which the custodial sentence is suspended) and a ‘supervision period’ (the time during which any requirements take effect). Both may be between six months and two years and the ‘supervision period’ cannot be longer than the ‘operational period’, although it may be shorter. Failure to comply with the requirements of the order or commission of another offence will almost certainly result in a custodial sentence.
**Pre CJA03 Court Orders – Community sentences**
**Community punishment order (CPO)** – the offender is required to undertake unpaid community work.
**Community rehabilitation order (CRO)** - a community sentence which may have additional requirements such as residence, probation centre attendance or treatment for drug, alcohol or mental health problems. Community punishment and rehabilitation order (CPR0) – a community sentence consisting of probation supervision alongside community punishment, with additional conditions like those of a community rehabilitation order.
Drug treatment and testing order (DTTO) – a community sentence targeted at offenders with drug-misuse problems.
Custody – the offender is awarded a sentence to be served in prison or a Young Offenders Institute (YOI). If the offender is given a sentence of 12 months or over, or is aged under 22 on release, the offender is supervised by the Probation Service on release. It is important to note that the sentence lengths and youth disposals awarded will be longer than the time served in custody. For more information please refer to Appendix A of Offender Management Caseload Statistics 2009.
Short sentences (under 12 months) – those sentenced to under 12 months (made under the Criminal Justice Act 1991) spend the first half of their sentence in prison and are then released and considered ‘at risk’ for the remaining period. This means they are under no positive obligations and do not report to the Probation Service, but if they commit a further imprisonable offence during the ‘at risk’ period, they can be made to serve the remainder of the sentence in addition to the punishment for the new offence. The exception to this is those aged 18 to 20 who have a minimum of three month’s supervision on release.
Sentences of 12 months or over – the CJA03 created a distinction between standard determinate sentences and public protection sentences. Offenders sentenced to a standard determinate sentence serve the first half in prison and the second half in the community on licence.
Youth disposal (sentence type)
Reprimand or warning – a reprimand is a formal verbal warning given by a police officer to a juvenile offender who admits they are guilty for a minor first offence. A final warning is similar to a reprimand, but can be used for either the first or second offence, and includes an assessment of the juvenile to determine the causes of their offending behaviour and a programme of activities is designed to address them.
First-tier penalties
Discharge – a juvenile offender is given an absolute discharge when they admit guilt, or are found guilty, with no further action taken. An offender given a conditional discharge also receives no immediate punishment, but is given a set period during which, if they commit a further offence, they can be brought back to court and re-sentenced. Fine – the size of the fine depends on the offence committed and the offender’s financial circumstances. In the case of juveniles under 16, the fine is the responsibility of the offender’s parent or carer.
Referral order – this is given to juveniles pleading guilty and for whom it is their first time at court (unless the offence is so serious it merits a custodial sentence or it is of a relatively minor nature). The offender is required to attend a Youth Offender Panel to agree a contract, aimed to repair the harm caused by the offence and address the causes of the offending behaviour.
Reparation order – the offender is required to repair the harm caused by their offence either directly to the victim or indirectly to the community.
Youth Rehabilitation Order – a community sentence for juvenile offenders, which came into effect on 30 November 2009 as part of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008. It combines a number of sentences into one generic sentence and is the standard community sentence used for the majority of children and young people who offend. The following requirements can be attached to a Youth Rehabilitation Order (YRO):
- activity requirement
- curfew requirement
- exclusion requirement
- local authority residence requirement
- education requirement
- mental health treatment requirement
- unpaid work requirement
- drug testing requirement
- intoxicating substance misuse requirement
- supervision requirement
- electronic monitoring requirement
- prohibited activity requirement
- drug treatment requirement
- residence requirement • programme requirement • attendance centre requirement • intensive supervision and surveillance • intensive fostering
The following community sentences are replaced by the YRO, but will continue to exist for those that committed an offence before 30 November 2009. The YRO is only available for those that committed an offence on or after the 30 November 2009.
• action plan order • curfew order • supervision order • supervision order and conditions • community punishment order • community punishment and rehabilitation order • attendance centre order • drug treatment and testing order • exclusion order • community rehabilitation order
Prison categories
Category B and category C prisons hold sentenced prisoners of their respective categories, including life sentenced prisoners. The regime focuses on programmes that address offending behaviour and provide education, vocational training and purposeful work for prisoners who will normally spend several years in one prison.
High security prisons hold category A and B prisoners. Category A prisoners are managed by a process of dispersal, and these prisons also hold a proportion of category B prisoners for whom they provide a similar regime to a category B prison. The category B prisoners held in a High Security Prison are not necessarily any more dangerous or difficult to manage than those in category B prisons. Female prisons, as the name implies, hold female prisoners. Because of the smaller numbers, they are not divided into the same number of categories although there are variations in security levels.
Local prisons serve the courts in the area. Historically their main function was to hold un-convicted and un-sentenced prisoners and, once a prisoner had been sentenced, to allocate them on to a category B, C or D prison as appropriate to serve their sentence.
However, pressure on places means that many shorter term prisoners serve their entire sentence in a local prison, while longer term prisoners also complete some offending behaviour and training programmes there before moving on to lower security conditions. All local prisons operate to category B security standards.
Open prisons have much lower levels of physical security and only hold category D prisoners. Many prisoners in open prisons will be allowed to go out of the prison on a daily basis to take part in voluntary or paid work in the community in preparation for their approaching release.
Prisoner categories
These categories are based on a combination of the type of crime committed, the length of sentence, the likelihood of escape, and the danger to the public if they did escape. The four categories are:
Category A prisoners are those whose escape would be highly dangerous to the public or national security.
Category B prisoners are those who do not require maximum security, but for whom escape needs to be made very difficult.
Category C prisoners are those who cannot be trusted in open conditions, but who are unlikely to try to escape.
Category D prisoners are those who can be reasonably trusted not to try to escape and are given the privilege of an open prison.
Miscellaneous terms
Drug-misusing offenders
There are four ways a drug-misusing offender can be identified:
- Individuals who have tested positive for heroin or crack/cocaine following an arrest or charge for ‘trigger’ offences (largely acquisitive crime offences) as part of the Drug Interventions Programme (DIP) are included as adult proven offenders. • Any offender that received an OASys assessment whilst on licence or on a community sentence and are either recorded as being subject to a current Drug Treatment and Testing Order (DTTO) or Drug Rehabilitation Requirement (DRR), or are assessed as having a criminogenic drug need.
• Any offender identified as requiring further drug interventions by Counselling, Assessment, Referral, Advice, Throughcare (CARAT) teams in prison, and now being released into the community.
• Any offender identified by local Criminal Justice Integrated Teams (CJITs) as requiring further intervention for their drug use and offending as part of DIP.
**National Probation Service** – the National Probation Service generally deals with those aged 18 years and over. (Those under 18 are mostly dealt with by Youth Offending Teams, answering to the Youth Justice Board.) They are responsible for supervising offenders who are given community sentences and suspended sentence orders by the courts, as well as offenders given custodial sentences, both pre and post their release.
**Police National Computer** – the Police National Computer (PNC) is the police’s administrative IT system used by all police forces in England and Wales and managed by the National Policing Improvement Agency. As with any large scale recording system the PNC is subject to possible errors with data entry and processing. The MoJ maintains a database based on weekly extracts of selected data from the PNC in order to compile statistics and conduct research on re-offending and criminal histories. The PNC largely covers recordable offences – these are all indictable and triable-either-way offences plus many of the more serious summary offences. All figures derived from the MoJ’s PNC database, and in particular those for the most recent months, are likely to be revised as more information is recorded by the police.
**Prolific and other priority offenders** – the Prolific and other Priority Offenders Programme (PPO) aims to use a multi-agency approach to focus on a very small, but hard core group of prolific/persistent offenders who commit disproportionate amounts of crime and cause disproportionate harm to their local communities. The identification of a PPO is undertaken at a local level involving police, local authorities, prison and probation services and youth offending teams. The factors that influence the decision of whether an offender is included in the PPO programme are:
• the nature and volume of crimes they commit;
• the nature and volume of other harm they cause; and
• the detrimental impact they have on their community. Recordable offences – recordable offences are those that the police are required to record on the PNC. They include all offences for which a custodial sentence can be given plus a range of other offences defined as recordable in legislation. They exclude a range of less serious summary offences, for example television licence evasion, driving without insurance, speeding and vehicle tax offences.
Indictable and summary offences – summary offences are triable only by a magistrates’ court. This group includes motoring offences, common assault and criminal damage up to £5,000. More serious offences are classed either as triable-either-way (these can be tried either at the Crown Court or at a magistrates’ court and include criminal damage where the value is £5,000 or greater, theft and burglary) or indictable-only (the most serious offences that must be tried at the Crown Court; these ‘indictable-only’ offences include murder, manslaughter, rape and robbery). The term indictable offences is used to refer to all triable-either-way and ‘indictable-only’ offences.
Offence group (based on new ONS crime classifications) – offences classified into 13 separate offence categories using the new Office for National Statistics (ONS) crime classifications. For further information on the new classification, please refer to: www.ons.gov.uk/ons/guide-method/method-quality/specific/crime-statistics-methodology/presentational-changes-on-police-recorded-crime-in-england-and-wales.pdf. Explanatory notes
The United Kingdom Statistics Authority has designated these statistics as National Statistics, in accordance with the Statistics and Registration Service Act 2007 and signifying compliance with the Code of Practice for Official Statistics.
Designation can be broadly interpreted to mean that the statistics:
- meet identified user needs;
- are well explained and readily accessible;
- are produced according to sound methods; and
- are managed impartially and objectively in the public interest.
Once statistics have been designated as National Statistics it is a statutory requirement that the Code of Practice shall continue to be observed.
Symbols used
| Symbol | Description | |--------|--------------------------------------------------| | . | Not available | | 0 | Nil or less than half the final digit shown | | - | Not applicable | | * | One or both of the comparison figures are less than 30 | | (p) | Provisional data | Contact points
Press enquiries should be directed to the Ministry of Justice press office:
Tel: 020 3334 3536 Email: [email protected]
Other enquiries about these statistics should be directed to:
Mike Elkins Ministry of Justice Justice Statistics Analytical Services 7th Floor 102 Petty France London SW1H 9AJ Tel: 020 3334 2946
General enquiries about the statistical work of the Ministry of Justice can be e-mailed to: [email protected]
General information about the official statistics system of the United Kingdom is available from www.statistics.gov.uk.
© Crown copyright Produced by the Ministry of Justice
Alternative formats are available on request from [email protected]
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/4799-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 42,
"total-input-tokens": 79861,
"total-output-tokens": 19764,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
152,
1
],
[
152,
2346,
2
],
[
2346,
4616,
3
],
[
4616,
7499,
4
],
[
7499,
9832,
5
],
[
9832,
12002,
6
],
[
12002,
14809,
7
],
[
14809,
17648,
8
],
[
17648,
23597,
9
],
[
23597,
25094,
10
],
[
25094,
25412,
11
],
[
25412,
26368,
12
],
[
26368,
27480,
13
],
[
27480,
28789,
14
],
[
28789,
30057,
15
],
[
30057,
30988,
16
],
[
30988,
33566,
17
],
[
33566,
34627,
18
],
[
34627,
35738,
19
],
[
35738,
37407,
20
],
[
37407,
38314,
21
],
[
38314,
40608,
22
],
[
40608,
43436,
23
],
[
43436,
45765,
24
],
[
45765,
47083,
25
],
[
47083,
49686,
26
],
[
49686,
51385,
27
],
[
51385,
52448,
28
],
[
52448,
54373,
29
],
[
54373,
56690,
30
],
[
56690,
58959,
31
],
[
58959,
61057,
32
],
[
61057,
63708,
33
],
[
63708,
65867,
34
],
[
65867,
68397,
35
],
[
68397,
69978,
36
],
[
69978,
71360,
37
],
[
71360,
73476,
38
],
[
73476,
76096,
39
],
[
76096,
77585,
40
],
[
77585,
78706,
41
],
[
78706,
79449,
42
]
]
} |
9935687ec8420b033e2c756b7ab3dddd594ff5c1 | Proven Reoffending Statistics Quarterly Bulletin, January 2016 to March 2016
Main points
This bulletin provides key statistics on Proven Reoffending for adult and juvenile offenders who were released from custody, received a non-custodial conviction at court, or received a caution in the period January to March 2016. The proven reoffending methodology changed in October 2017. For more information about the changes see the October 2017 publication.
The overall proven reoffending rate was 29.6%
The overall proven reoffending rate has remained unchanged from the previous quarter (a 0.02 percentage point increase) and has decreased by around 2 percentage points since 2005. Over time the rate has fluctuated around 29% to 32%.
Adult offenders had a proven reoffending rate of 28.7%
The adult proven reoffending rate has remained unchanged from the previous quarter (a 0.01 percentage change increase) and has decreased by up to 1 percentage point since 2005. The rate has remained broadly flat over time, fluctuating between 28% and 31%.
Juvenile offenders had a proven reoffending rate of 42.3%
The juvenile reoffending rate has increased by 0.5 percentage points from the previous quarter and around 4-5 percentage points since 2005. However, the size of the cohort has fallen by around 80% since 2005.
Adults released from custody or court orders had a proven reoffending rate of 37.4%
The proven reoffending rate for adult offenders released from custody or court orders was 37.4%, a decrease of 0.6 percentage points compared to the previous quarter and around 4-5 percentage points from 2005.
This bulletin, associated tables and data tools present the proportion of offenders who reoffend (proven reoffending rate) and the number of proven reoffences by offender history, demographics, individual prisons, probation area, local authorities and youth offending teams. For technical details please refer to the accompanying guide to proven reoffending statistics.
For any feedback related to the content of this publication, please let us know at [email protected] How is proven reoffending measured?
An offender enters the cohort if they were released from custody, received a non-custodial conviction at court or received a reprimand or warning in a three month period: January to March 2016. It is important to note that this is not comparable to proven reoffending publications prior to October 2017, which reported on a 12 month cohort.
A proven reoffence is defined as any offence committed in a one year follow-up period that leads to a court conviction, caution, reprimand or warning in the one year follow-up or within a further six month waiting period to allow the offence to be proven in court as shown in the diagram below.
Users should be cautious when making any comparison between cohorts before and after October 2015. This is because there is a change in data source from October 2015 onwards. In addition, users should be cautious when comparing the 3 monthly cohorts to one another (e.g. January to March 2016 to October to December 2015) – as due to the smaller cohort size, the measure is likely to be more variable than the previous 12 month cohort measure of reoffending.
For further details on this, and how proven reoffending is measured, please see the guide to proven reoffending statistics and ‘How the measure of proven reoffending has changed and the effect of these changes’.
1. Overall – adult and juvenile offenders
29.6% of offenders in the January to March 2016 cohort reoffended within a year
In January to March 2016 around 128,000 adult and juvenile offenders were cautioned(^1), received a non-custodial conviction at court or were released from custody. Around 38,000 of these offenders committed a proven reoffence within a year. This gives an overall proven reoffending rate of 29.6%, unchanged from the previous quarter.
Over time the overall proven reoffending rate has fluctuated between 29% to 32%.
Figure 1: Proportion of adult and juvenile offenders in England and Wales who commit a proven reoffence, April 2005 to March 2016(^2) (Source: Table A1)
The proven reoffending rate for the 2015/16 annual cohort was 29.5%, slightly down from 2014/15.(^3)
Around 146,000 proven reoffences were committed over the one year follow-up period, with those that reoffended committing, on average, 3.87 reoffences each. The average number of reoffences per reoffender has gradually increased since 2009 and is the highest since 2005.
In the January to March 2016 cohort, 83% were male and 17% were female, with the proportion of males in the cohort slightly higher than in 2005. Male offenders reoffended at a higher rate of 30.8% compared to female offenders who reoffended at a rate of 23.7%. Both rates have remained broadly stable since 2005.
(^1) Includes reprimands and warnings for juveniles.
(^2) Data in the chart is based on financial years, therefore Q1= April-June, Q2 = July-September, Q3 = October-December and Q4 = January-March.
(^3) The 2015/16 annual cohort is based on two different data sources. Users should be careful when comparing to previous years. 2. Adult offenders
28.7% of adult offenders in the January to March 2016 cohort reoffended within a year
Adult offenders accounted for 93% (around 119,000) of the January to March 2016 cohort and juvenile offenders accounted for 7% (around 9,000). Around 34,000 of all adult offenders were proven to have committed a reoffence within a year, giving a proven reoffending rate of 28.7%. This is unchanged since last quarter.
Figure 2: Proportion of adult offenders in England and Wales who commit a proven reoffence, by number of previous offences, January to March 2016 (Source: Table A5a)
The change in data source in October 2015 means users should remain cautious when comparing the latest quarter with results from quarters before October 2015. However, the adult reoffending rate has remained broadly flat since 2005, fluctuating between 28% and 31%. The proven reoffending rate for the 2016/16 annual adult cohort was 28.5%, down slightly from the previous year.
Around 132,000 proven reoffences were committed by adults over the one year follow-up period. Those that reoffended in the January to March 2016 cohort committed on average 3.87 reoffences each. This has been increasing since July to September 2009.
Offenders with a large number of previous offences have a higher rate of proven reoffending than those with fewer previous offences. In the cohort, the proven reoffending rates for adults ranged from 7.3% for offenders with no previous offences to 49.9% for offenders with 11 or more previous offences. Adult offenders with 11 or more previous offences made up 38% of all adult offenders in the cohort, but committed over 75% of all adult proven reoffences.
______________________________________________________________________
4 A certain proportion of offenders who could not be matched to the Police National Computer (PNC) are excluded from the offender cohort. Therefore, this number does not represent all proven offenders. This means that the number of offenders in this bulletin will be different from the numbers published in Offender Management Statistics Quarterly and Criminal Justice Statistics. Please refer to the guide to proven reoffending statistics for further information. 3. Adjusted reoffending rates
When controlling for offender characteristics 28.4% of adult offenders in the January to March 2016 cohort reoffended within a year
Adjusted proven reoffending rates for adults are calculated using the Offender Group Reconviction Scale (OGRS4/G). OGRS4 is based on a well-established, peer reviewed methodology for assessing and representing reoffending risk. The raw rates have been adjusted to the 2011 calendar year, in line with the Payment by Result statistics.
Figure 3: The average OGRS scores (2011 adjusted) and the adjusted proven reoffending rate for adults, April 2005 to March 2016 (Source: Table A1)
Between 2005 and 2011 the average OGRS score increased, but since 2011 it has remained broadly flat. This indicates that between 2005 and 2011 the cohort had an increasing propensity to reoffend, but since 2011 this has since levelled off. As a result the raw reoffending rate for adults are adjusted upwards between 2005 and 2010 reflecting the cohort having a greater propensity to reoffend.
Following 2011 the raw rates and the adjusted rates have tracked each other more closely. For example, the raw reoffending rate for adults for the January to March 2016 period was 28.7%, but the adjusted rate was 28.4%.
This suggests that while raw reoffending rates have remained broadly flat since 2005 the adjusted rates have shown a decreasing trend to reflect the greater propensity to reoffend of cohorts over this time.
______________________________________________________________________
*www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/449357/research-analysis-offender-assessment-system.pdf* 4. Juvenile offenders
42.3% of juvenile offenders in the January to March 2016 cohort reoffended within one year
Around 9,000 juvenile offenders were cautioned, convicted or released from custody in the January to March 2016 cohort and around 4,000 of them committed a reoffence. This gives a proven reoffending rate of 42.3%. While this is up 0.5 percentage points since last quarter, the new reoffending measure is likely to be more variable from quarter to quarter due to the smaller size of the cohorts.
Since 2005, the reoffending rate has increased by around 4-5 percentage points, but the size of the cohort has fallen by around 80% over the same period.
Figure 4: Proportion of adult and juvenile offenders in England and Wales who commit a proven reoffence, by age, January to March 2016 (Source: Table A3)
The proven reoffending rate for the 2015/16 annual cohort for juveniles was 42.2%, down by 0.5 percentage points from 2014/15.
Around 15,000 proven reoffences were committed by juveniles over the one year follow-up period. Those that reoffended committed on average 3.86 reoffences each. Juvenile offenders with 11 or more previous offences had a higher reoffending rate than those with no previous offences – 76.7% compared to 23.6%.
Offenders aged 10 to 14 had the highest reoffending rate of any age group, with a reoffending rate of 43.1%. However, the number of offenders in this age group has fallen by around 87% since 2005. The reoffending rate for this age group overtook offenders aged 15 to 17 in 2013/14, who previously had a consistently higher reoffending rate but are now second highest. Figure 4 shows that the proven reoffending rate generally falls with increasing age.
______________________________________________________________________
6 Juveniles are defined as those aged 10 to 17 years old.
7 The Youth Justice Board statistical publication uses the annual cohort data to report on juvenile offending. 5. Index disposal(^a) - adults
Adults released from custody or starting court orders had a proven reoffending rate of 37.4%.
The index disposal of the offender is the type of sentence the offender received for their index offence. For Proven Reoffending Statistics this is defined as caution, court order, custody, or other disposal resulting from a conviction at court, such as a fine or discharge.
Figure 5: Proportion of adult offenders released from custody who commit a proven reoffence, by custodial sentence length, April 2005 to March 2016 (Source: Table C2a)
For adult offenders starting a court order (Community sentence or Suspended Sentence Order) the proven reoffending rate was 33.4%. The rate for this group has declined since 2005 by around 4-5 percentage points.
The proven reoffending rate for adult offenders released from custody was 48.7%. The effect of changing data source in October 2015 is particularly noticeable among offenders discharged from custodial sentences of less than 12 months. This might be connected to the introduction of statutory supervision for this group. Investigation is ongoing, as more data becomes available.
The rate for those released from short sentences (less than 12 months) has been consistently higher compared to those released from longer sentences. Adults who served sentences of less than 12 months reoffended at a rate of 64.6%, compared to 29.9% for those who served determinate sentences of 12 months or more. The proven reoffending rate trend for adults released from custodial sentences of 12 months or more has been decreasing since 2010.
(^a) Proven reoffending rates by index disposal should not be compared to assess the effectiveness of sentences, as there is no control for known differences in offender characteristics and the type of sentence given. For further information see Annex D of the October 2016 publication (page 41) and the guide to proven reoffending statistics. 6. Index disposal – juveniles
Juvenile offenders given youth cautions had a proven reoffending rate of 29.8%
The reoffending rate for juvenile offenders given a youth caution was 29.8%. This has remained broadly flat since 2013, but has increased by around 2-3 percentage points since 2005. Reprimands and warnings for youths were abolished under Legal Aid Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 with effect from 8 April 2013 and replaced with youth cautions.
Youth cautions are a formal out-of-court disposal that can be used as an alternative to prosecution for juvenile offenders in certain circumstances. A Youth Caution may be given for any offence where the young offender admits an offence, there is sufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction but it is not in the public interest to prosecute.
Figure 6: Proportion of juvenile offenders released from custody or given a reprimand, warning or caution who commit a proven reoffence, April 2005 to March 2016 (Source: Table C1b)
Between January and March 2016, 194 juvenile offenders were released from custody and 136 of these (70.1%) were proven to have committed a reoffence within a year. This represents a fall of approximately 4-6 percentage points since 2005 and an increase of 5 percentage points compared to the previous quarter. However, as previously noted, there is likely to be more variation with the new reoffending measure, from one quarter to another, due to the reduced size of the cohort. 7. Index offences
In the January to March 2016 cohort, adult offenders with an index offence of ‘Theft’ had the highest reoffending rate at 50.8%.
The offence that leads to an offender being included in the offender cohort is called the index offence. In the January to March 2016 adult cohort, offenders with an index offence of ‘Theft’ had the highest proven reoffending rate of 50.8%. The second highest reoffending rate for adult offenders was for those with an index offence of ‘Public Order’ with a rate of 36.2%.
Figure 7: Proportion of adult and juvenile offenders in England and Wales who commit a proven reoffence, by index offence, January to March 2016 (Source: Table A4a/b)
With the exception of index offences recorded as ‘Other’, those with the lowest rate of reoffending in the adult cohort had an index offence of ‘Fraud’ – reoffending at a rate of 11.4%. Additionally, the ‘Fraud’ index offence category saw the largest decrease and those with an index offence of ‘Violence against the Person’ saw the biggest increase since 2005.
In the juvenile cohort those with an index offence of ‘Public Order’ had the highest proven reoffending rate at 51.9%, closely followed by those with an index offence of ‘Robbery’ at 49.3%. Those with the lowest rate had a ‘Sexual’ index offence (with the exception of the ‘Other’ index offence category) and reoffended at a rate of 14.6%. Further information
Accompanying files As well as this bulletin, the following products are published as part of this release:
- A technical guide to proven reoffending statistics providing information on how proven reoffending is measured, and the data sources used.
- A set of overview tables, covering each section of this bulletin.
- A number of data tools which provide proven reoffending data by demographics, offender history, individual prisons (available from January 2005 – September 2015) and probation area and geography.
National Statistics status National Statistics status means that official statistics meet the highest standards of trustworthiness, quality and public value.
All official statistics should comply with all aspects of the Code of Practice for Official Statistics. They are awarded National Statistics status following an assessment by the Authority’s regulatory arm. The Authority considers whether the statistics meet the highest standards of Code compliance, including the value they add to public decisions and debate.
It is the Ministry of Justice’s responsibility to maintain compliance with the standards expected for National Statistics. If we become concerned about whether these statistics are still meeting the appropriate standards, we will discuss any concerns with the Authority promptly. National Statistics status can be removed at any point when the highest standards are not maintained, and reinstated when standards are restored.
Contact Press enquiries should be directed to the Ministry of Justice press office:
Tel: 020 3334 3536 Email: [email protected]
Other enquiries about these statistics should be directed to the Justice Statistics Analytical Services division of the Ministry of Justice:
Nick Mavron, Head of Prison, Probation, Reoffending and PbR Statistics Ministry of Justice, 7th Floor, 102 Petty France, London, SW1H 9AJ Email: [email protected]
Next update: April 2018 URL: www.gov.uk/government/collections/proven-reoffending-statistics
© Crown copyright Produced by the Ministry of Justice
Alternative formats are available on request from [email protected]
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/4800-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 10,
"total-input-tokens": 27095,
"total-output-tokens": 4786,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
2104,
1
],
[
2104,
3451,
2
],
[
3451,
5176,
3
],
[
5176,
7329,
4
],
[
7329,
8930,
5
],
[
8930,
10817,
6
],
[
10817,
12777,
7
],
[
12777,
14269,
8
],
[
14269,
15663,
9
],
[
15663,
17843,
10
]
]
} |
cae9fc2c71e4054677d110fc0a063db9fff13892 | Proven Reoffending Statistics Quarterly Bulletin, October 2015 to December 2015
Main points This bulletin provides key statistics on Proven Reoffending for adult and juvenile offenders who were released from custody, received a non-custodial conviction at court, or received a caution in the period October to December 2015. This is the first publication of proven reoffending statistics based on the new methodology, as announced in ‘Response to consultation on changes to proven reoffending statistics’ in April 2016 and previous publications. The main changes to the methodology are:
- **Changing to a three month cohort** instead of the previous 12 month cohort. The publication reports on offenders who are released from custody, received a non-custodial conviction at court, or received a caution within a three month period, for all measures of reoffending, including for juveniles.
- Production of **adjusted reoffending rates** for adults (alongside the raw rates), using the Offender Group Reconviction Scale (OGRS4/G) to take account of the influence that differences in offender mix can have on the binary reoffending rates.
- A change from **calendar year to financial year for annual figures**. Annual figures are formed by taking a weighted average of the four preceding 3 month offender cohorts. Figures for the 2015/16 financial year will be published in January 2018.
In addition the **data source** used to compile the statistics has changed from October 2015 following probation services reforms. For more information on the impact of these changes please see ‘How the measure of proven reoffending has changed and the effect of these changes’.
This bulletin, associated tables and data tools present the proportion of offenders who reoffend (proven reoffending rate) and the number of proven reoffences by offender history, demographics, individual prisons, probation area, local authorities and youth offending teams. For technical details and more information on how the measurement of proven reoffending has changed please refer to the accompanying guide to proven reoffending statistics. This bulletin also contains the number of Serious Further offences (Annex A).
For any feedback related to the content of this publication, please let us know at [email protected] How is proven reoffending measured?
An offender enters the cohort if they are released from custody, received a non-custodial conviction at court or received a reprimand or warning in a three month period: **October 2015 to December 2015**. It is important to note that this is not comparable to previous proven reoffending publications which reported on a 12 month cohort.
A proven reoffence is defined as any offence committed in a one year follow-up period that leads to a court conviction, caution, reprimand or warning in the one year follow-up or within a further six month waiting period to allow the offence to be proven in court as shown in the diagram below.
The change from 12 month offender cohorts to 3 month offender cohorts' results in a greater proportion of prolific offenders and therefore an increase in the reoffending rate of around 4-5 percentage points for both adults and juveniles. The change in data source in October 2015 also introduces potential variability. Therefore users should be cautious when making any comparison between the October to December 2015 cohort and earlier cohorts. For further details on this, and how proven reoffending is measured, please see the guide to proven reoffending statistics and ‘How the measure of proven reoffending has changed and the effect of these changes’.
1. Overall – adult and juvenile offenders
29.6% of offenders in the October to December 2015 cohort reoffended within a year
In October to December 2015 around 130,000 adult and juvenile offenders were cautioned(^1), received a non-custodial conviction at court or released from custody. Around 39,000 of these offenders committed a proven re-offence within a year. This gives an overall proven reoffending rate of 29.6%.
Over time the overall proven reoffending rate has fluctuated around 29% to 32%.
Figure 1: Proportion of adult and juvenile offenders in England and Wales who commit a proven re-offence, April 2005 to December 2015(^2) (Source: Table A1)
Around 148,000 proven reoffences were committed over the one year follow-up period, with those that reoffended committing, on average, 3.83 reoffences each. The average number of reoffences per reoffender has gradually increased since 2009 and is the highest since 2005.
In the October to December 2015 cohort, 83% were male and 17% were female, a split that has changed little since 2005. Male offenders reoffended at a higher rate of 30.9% compared to female offenders who reoffended at a rate of 23.4%. Both rates have remained broadly stable since 2005.
______________________________________________________________________
(^1) Includes reprimands and warnings for juveniles.
(^2) Data in the chart is based on financial years, therefore Q1= April-June, Q2 = July-September, Q3 = October-December and Q4 = January-March. 2. Adult offenders
28.7% of adult offenders in the October to December 2015 cohort reoffended within a year
Adult offenders accounted for 93% (around 121,000) of the October to December 2015 cohort and juvenile offenders accounted for 7% (around 9,000). Around 35,000 of all adult offenders were proven to have committed a reoffence within a year, giving a proven reoffending rate of 28.7%.
Figure 2: Proportion of adult offenders in England and Wales who commit a proven reoffence, by number of previous offences, October to December 2015 (Source: Table A5a)
As noted previously there is a change in data source in October 2015 and therefore users should remain cautious when comparing the latest quarter with results from previous quarters. However, the adult reoffending rate has remained broadly flat since 2005 fluctuating between 28% and 31%.
Around 132,000 proven reoffences were committed by adults over the one year follow-up period. Those that reoffended committed on average 3.82 reoffences each.
Generally, offenders with a large number of previous offences have a higher rate of proven reoffending than those with fewer previous offences. In the cohort, the proven reoffending rates for adults ranged from 7.3% for offenders with no previous offences to 50.0% for offenders with 11 or more previous offences. Adult offenders with 11 or more previous offences made up 38% of all adult offenders in the cohort, but committed over 75% of all adult proven reoffences.
______________________________________________________________________
3 A certain proportion of offenders who could not be matched to the Police National Computer (PNC) are excluded from the offender cohort. Therefore, this number does not represent all proven offenders. This means that the number of offenders in this bulletin will be different from the numbers published in Offender Management Statistics Quarterly and Criminal Justice Statistics. Please refer to the guide to proven reoffending statistics for further information. 3. Adjusted reoffending rates
When controlling for offender characteristics 28.4% of adult offenders in the October to December 2015 cohort reoffended within a year
For the first time adjusted proven reoffending rates for adults are published, using the Offender Group Reconviction Scale (OGRS4/G). OGRS4 is based on a well-established, peer reviewed methodology for assessing and representing reoffending risk. The raw rates have been adjusted to the 2011 calendar year, in line with the Payment by Result statistics.
Figure 3: The average OGRS scores (2011 adjusted) and the adjusted proven reoffending rate for adults, April 2005 to December 2015 (Source: Table A1)
Between 2005 and 2011 the average OGRS score increased, but since 2011 it has remained broadly flat. This indicates that between 2005 and 2011 the cohort had an increasing propensity to reoffend, but since 2011 this has since levelled off. As a result the raw reoffending rate for adults are adjusted upwards between 2005 and 2011 reflecting the cohort having a greater propensity to reoffend.
Since 2011 the raw rates and the adjusted rates have tracked each other more closely. For example, the raw reoffending rate for adults for the October to December 2015 period was 28.7%, but the adjusted rate was 28.4%.
This suggests that while raw reoffending rates have remained broadly flat since 2005 the adjusted rates have shown a decreasing trend to reflect the greater propensity to reoffend of cohorts over this time.
______________________________________________________________________
4 www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/449357/research-analysis-offender-assessment-system.pdf 4. Juvenile offenders
41.8% of juvenile offenders in the October to December 2015 cohort reoffended within one year
Around 9,000 juvenile offenders were cautioned, convicted or released from custody in the October to December 2015 cohort and around 4,000 of them committed a reoffence. This gives a proven reoffending rate of 41.8%.
Since 2005, the reoffending rate has increased by around 3-4 percentage points, but the size of the cohort has fallen by around 80% over the same period.
Figure 4: Proportion of adult and juvenile offenders in England and Wales who commit a proven reoffence, by age, October to December 2015 (Source: Table A3)
Around 15,000 proven reoffences were committed by juveniles over the one year follow-up period. Those that reoffended committed on average 3.88 reoffences each, the highest rate since 2005. Juvenile offenders with 11 or more previous offences had a higher reoffending rate than those with no previous offences –77.1% compared to 24.1%.
Offenders aged 10 to 14 had the highest reoffending rate of any age group, with a reoffending rate of 42.3%. However, the number of offenders in this age group has fallen by around 85% since 2005. The reoffending rate for this age group overtook offenders aged 15 to 17 in 2013/14, who previously had a consistently higher reoffending rate but are now second highest. Figure 4 shows that the proven reoffending rate generally falls with increasing age.
______________________________________________________________________
5 Juveniles are defined as those aged 10 to 17 years old. 5. Index disposal(^6) - adults
Adults released from custody or starting court orders had a proven reoffending rate of 38.1%.
The index disposal of the offender is the type of sentence the offender received for their index offence. For Proven Reoffending Statistics this is defined as custody, court order, or other disposal resulting from a conviction at court, such as a fine or discharge, or caution.
Figure 5: Proportion of adult offenders released from custody who commit a proven reoffence, by custodial sentence length, April 2005 to December 2015 (Source: Table C2a)
For adult offenders starting a court order (Community sentence or Suspended Sentence Order) the proven reoffending rate was 33.9%. The rate for this group has declined since 2005 by around 3-5 percentage points.
The proven reoffending rate for adult offenders released from custody was 49.2%. The effect of changing data source in October 2015 is concentrated among offenders discharged from custody, particularly among the less than 12 months custodial sentence length group. This might be connected to the introduction of statutory supervision for this group and further investigation is ongoing.
The rate for those released from short sentences has been consistently higher compared to those released from longer sentences. Adults who served sentences of less than 12 months reoffended at a rate of 65.5%, compared to 29.9% for those who served determinate sentences of 12 months or more. The trend for adults released from custodial sentences of 12 months or more has been decreasing since 2010.
______________________________________________________________________
(^6) Proven reoffending rates by index disposal should not be compared to assess the effectiveness of sentences, as there is no control for known differences in offender characteristics and the type of sentence given. For further information see Annex D of the October 2016 publication (page 41) and the guide to proven reoffending statistics. 6. Index disposal – juveniles
Juvenile offenders given youth caution had a proven reoffending rate of 30.4%
The reoffending rate for juvenile offenders given a youth caution was 30.4%. This has remained broadly flat since 2013, but has increased by around 3-4 percentage points since 2005. Reprimands and warnings for youths were abolished under Legal Aid Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 with effect from 8 April 2013 and replaced with youth cautions.
Youth cautions are a formal out-of-court disposal that can be used as an alternative to prosecution for juvenile offenders in certain circumstances. A Youth Caution may be given for any offence where the young offender admits an offence, there is sufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction but it is not in the public interest to prosecute.
Figure 6: Proportion of juvenile offenders released from custody or given a reprimand, warning or caution who commit a proven reoffence, April 2005 to December 2015 (Source: Table C1b)
Between October and December 2015, 231 juvenile offenders were released from custody and 150 of these (64.9%) were proven to have committed a reoffence within a year. This represents a fall of approximately 9-11 percentage points since 2005. 7. Index offences
In the October to December 2015 cohort, adult offenders with an index offence of ‘Theft’ had the highest reoffending rate at 50.8%
The offence that leads to an offender being included in the offender cohort is called the index offence. In the October to December 2015 cohort, adult offenders with an index offence of ‘Theft’ had the highest proven reoffending rate of 50.8%. The second highest reoffending rate for adult offenders was for those with an index offence of ‘Public Order’ with a rate of 36.2%.
Figure 7: Proportion of adult and juvenile offenders in England and Wales who commit a proven reoffence, by index offence, October 2015 to December 2015 (Source: Table A4a/b)
With the exception of index offences recorded as ‘Other’, those with the lowest rate of reoffending in the adult cohort had an index offence of ‘Fraud’ – reoffending at a rate of 11.4%. Additionally, the ‘Fraud’ index offence category saw the largest decrease and those with an index offence of ‘Violence against the Person’ saw the biggest increase since 2005.
In the juvenile cohort those with an index offence of ‘Miscellaneous Crimes Against Society’ had the highest proven reoffending rate at 54.2%, closely followed by those with an index offence of ‘Public Order’ at 50.0%. Those with the lowest rate had a ‘Sexual’ index offence and reoffended at a rate of 11.5%. 8. Annex A: Serious Further Offences
This section provides management information on the total number of Serious Further Offences (SFOs) as collected from the SFO Review Process. This is an update to the information that was published in the annual proven reoffending publication, which was published on 27 October 2016 and covered the period 2014/15.
Since 1 December 2008, an SFO review will be triggered when an offender is charged with an offence listed in Schedule 15a to the Criminal Justice Act 2003, alleged to have been committed within the probation supervision period or within 28 working days of the supervision period terminating.
Mandatory SFO reviews are triggered in the following circumstances:
- any eligible offender who has been charged with one of the most serious SFOs – murder, manslaughter, other offence causing death, rape, assault by penetration or a sexual offence against a child under 13 years (including attempted offences); and,
- any eligible offender who has been charged with another offence on the SFO list and is or has been assessed as high/very high risk of serious harm during their current supervision period or has not been subject to a risk assessment during that period.
A review may be carried out on a discretionary basis in the following circumstances:
- Any eligible offender who has been charged with an offence, irrespective of whether that offence is a qualifying offence, and the National Offender Management Service (NOMS) and the supervising probation provider have identified public-interest reasons for conducting a review.
Users should refer to the ‘2012 Compendium of Reoffending Statistics and Analysis’ for further definitions of the terms used in this notice, and for commentary to help interpret these.
Care must be taken when interpreting the figures in 2015/16, as a number of cases where offenders have been charged with a qualifying SFO have not concluded their course through the judicial system.
The table in this statistical notice provides the numbers of SFO notifications under the Probation SFO Review Process which resulted in a conviction for a serious further offence between 2010/11 and 2015/16. The table reflects the number of offenders who received an SFO notification up to 2015/16 and who were subsequently convicted of an SFO, up to 15 September 2017. Some offenders are eventually convicted of offences lesser than the offences with which they were charged and which triggered the SFO notification. Table 1: SFO notifications received under the HMPPS SFO Review Process which resulted in a conviction for England and Wales, 2010/11 to 2015/16.
| Type of Offence | 2010/11 | 2011/12 | 2012/13 | 2013/14 | 2014/15 | 2015/2016 | |-----------------------------------------------------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|-----------| | Murder | 50 | 67 | 50 | 59 | 43 | 36 | | Attempted Murder | 12 | 13 | 16 | 15 | 14 | 20 | | Manslaughter | 18 | 15 | 16 | 23 | 12 | 15 | | Rape/assault by penetration | 103 | 76 | 90 | 80 | 89 | 88 | | Arson with Intent to endanger life | 8 | 8 | 7 | 10 | 9 | 9 | | Kidnapping/Abduction/False imprisonment | 2 | 14 | 16 | 19 | 21 | 7 | | Attempted Kidnapping/Abduction | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Other serious sexual or violent offences(^8) | 67 | 60 | 74 | 69 | 65 | 69 | | **All SFO convictions** | 260 | 253 | 269 | 275 | 253 | 244 | | Offences which did not meet the SFO criteria(^9) | 66 | 55 | 65 | 71 | 84 | 67 | | **All Convictions** | 326 | 308 | 334 | 346 | 337 | 311 |
(^7) Provisional figures subject to change as outstanding cases are completed.
(^8) Any other serious violent or sexual offence which carries a maximum custodial penalty of more than 10 years.
(^9) Offenders who had been charged with an offence which met the SFO criteria, but were convicted of a less serious offence. Further information
Accompanying files As well as this bulletin, the following products are published as part of this release:
- A technical guide to proven reoffending statistics providing information on how proven reoffending is measured, and the data sources used.
- A set of overview tables, covering each section of this bulletin.
- A number of data tools which provide proven reoffending data by demographics, offender history, individual prisons (available from January 2005 – September 2015) and probation area and geography.
The impact of community-based drug and alcohol treatment on re-offending This experimental statistical report contains initial findings from a project that has linked data from the National Drug Treatment Monitoring System (NDTMS) held by Public Health England (PHE) with data on offenders held by the Ministry of Justice (MoJ).
The aim of this report is to improve the evidence base of the links between community-based treatment for substance misuse and changes in reoffending. This report contains initial findings from analysing the final matched dataset to support policy development and is intended to demonstrate the potential utility in linking treatment and offending data.
This is joint publication from Public Health England (PHE) and the Ministry of Justice (MoJ).
National Statistics status National Statistics status means that official statistics meet the highest standards of trustworthiness, quality and public value.
All official statistics should comply with all aspects of the Code of Practice for Official Statistics. They are awarded National Statistics status following an assessment by the Authority’s regulatory arm. The Authority considers whether the statistics meet the highest standards of Code compliance, including the value they add to public decisions and debate.
It is the Ministry of Justice’s responsibility to maintain compliance with the standards expected for National Statistics. If we become concerned about whether these statistics are still meeting the appropriate standards, we will discuss any concerns with the Authority promptly. National Statistics status can be removed at any point when the highest standards are not maintained, and reinstated when standards are restored. Contact Press enquiries should be directed to the Ministry of Justice press office:
Tel: 020 3334 3536 Email: [email protected]
Other enquiries about these statistics should be directed to the Justice Statistics Analytical Services division of the Ministry of Justice:
Nick Mavron, Head of Prison, Probation, Reoffending and PbR Statistics Ministry of Justice, 7th Floor, 102 Petty France, London, SW1H 9AJ Email: [email protected]
Next update: January 2018 URL: www.gov.uk/government/collections/proven-reoffending-statistics
© Crown copyright Produced by the Ministry of Justice Alternative formats are available on request from [email protected]
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/4801-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 13,
"total-input-tokens": 25057,
"total-output-tokens": 5887,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
2321,
1
],
[
2321,
3651,
2
],
[
3651,
5087,
3
],
[
5087,
7041,
4
],
[
7041,
8666,
5
],
[
8666,
10169,
6
],
[
10169,
12103,
7
],
[
12103,
13360,
8
],
[
13360,
14737,
9
],
[
14737,
17229,
10
],
[
17229,
19239,
11
],
[
19239,
21504,
12
],
[
21504,
22211,
13
]
]
} |
1e73a3044d560e048b0fa2b6afa448684d4ac849 | Response to consultation on changes to proven reoffending statistics England and Wales
Ministry of Justice
28 April 2016 Contents
1. Introduction .................................................................................................................. 3
2. Summary of changes ...................................................................................................... 4
3. Summary of responses ................................................................................................... 5
4. Changes to proven reoffending measure ....................................................................... 7 4.1 Measuring proven reoffending .................................................................................. 7 4.2 Payment by results and National Probation Service proven reoffending performance measure .................................................................................................................. 8 4.3 Offender cohort breakdowns .................................................................................. 9 4.4 Three month offender cohorts .............................................................................. 9 4.5 Historical data and geographical breakdowns ...................................................... 10 4.6 OGRS4/G and YOGRS – adult and juvenile likelihood of reoffending .............. 11 4.7 Interim results ....................................................................................................... 12 4.8 Publication outline ................................................................................................. 13 4.9 Publication timetable ............................................................................................. 14 Annex A: List of respondents .......................................................................................... 15 Contact points .................................................................................................................. 16
5. Introduction
In “Transforming Rehabilitation: A Strategy for Reform”, published in 2013, plans were set out to introduce a new system for the management and rehabilitation of offenders in the community across England and Wales.
The programme, which was fully implemented in February 2015 aims to bring down reoffending rates while continuing to protect the public.
From 30 July 2015 to 30 October 2015, the Ministry of Justice ran a consultation on changes to the proven reoffending statistical publication.
The key change that was proposed was to align the existing reoffending measure with those measures necessary for assessing progress against the rehabilitation reforms.
The consultation set out the following key proposals:
1. To extend the existing reoffending quarterly publication of headline statistical information on adult and juvenile reoffending with one that will include
- reoffending outcomes for the payment by results (PbR) element of the reforms, split by relevant cohorts and Community Rehabilitation Companies (CRCs); and
- reoffending outcomes for the National Probation Service (NPS), split by relevant cohorts and the seven NPS divisions;
2. Three month cohorts for all measures of reoffending including for juveniles, which will then align with the adult PbR element of the reforms.
3. To replace the ‘adjusted to baseline’ reoffending rates previously available in the proven reoffending bulletin with OGRS4/G (Offender Group Reconviction Scale); and
4. To produce interim PbR figures, this will help to address the information gap created by switching to three month cohorts for reporting reoffending and will allow CRCs’ progress to be assessed at the earliest opportunity.
Users’ views were invited on these proposed changes and 19 responses to the consultation were received.
This document provides feedback on the comments received and clarifies the changes to future publications of proven reoffending statistics that are planned in response to those comments.
If you have any feedback, questions or requests for further information about this statistical consultation response, please direct them to [email protected]. 2. Summary of changes
The key change that was proposed was to align the existing reoffending measure with those measures necessary for assessing progress against the rehabilitation reforms. Other proposals were around how this change would be supported.
| Proposal | Post consultation position | |----------|-----------------------------| | 1 | To change to three month cohorts to measure all reoffending and the creation of annual cohorts, combining the preceding quarterly cohorts, to permit geographical breakdowns at LA level. | Proven reoffending measures will be published using the proposed 3 month cohorts. In response to user feedback we will also publish average reoffending rates which will be formed by taking a weighted average of the four preceding 3 month offender cohorts on a quarterly basis. This will enable local rates to be monitored on a quarterly basis. | | 2 | To use OGRS4/G for all offender groups for assessing the likelihood of reoffending including juvenile offenders. | Respondents were concerned about the suitability of using OGRS4/G for juveniles. As a result OGRS4/G will be used for adult cohorts only; for juvenile cohorts the Youth Offender Group Reconviction Scale (YOGRS) will be used. | | 3 | To provide ‘interim estimates’ for publication as management information until headline results become available. | We will provide ‘interim estimates’ by counting any proven reoffending to date as recorded on MoJ’s PNC data extract. | | 4 | A new outline structure for the bulletin including reoffending splits by CRCs and the NPS divisions. | The new outline structure will be adopted. In addition to this we will publish average reoffending rates to enable local rates to be monitored on a quarterly basis (see proposal 1). | | 5 | To remove existing tables and increase the use of pivot tables and CSV files (with appropriate disclosure measures) for additional breakdowns of reoffending data. | Some tables will be replaced by pivot tables and CSV files. We have made some of these changes with the existing reoffending publication from October 2015. | | 6 | To include some statistics which show little quarterly change, for example long term reoffending rates, in an annual publication? | We will publish some additional analysis on proven reoffending in the annual publication. In addition to this we will publish average reoffending rates to enable local rates to be monitored on a quarterly basis (see proposal 1). | 3. Summary of responses
19 responses were received in response to the consultation and there was a wide range of respondents. These included Police, Charities, NPS, CRCs, Youth Offender Teams (YOTs), Local Authorities, Youth Justice Board, internal Ministry of Justice, Mayor of London, Office for Policing and Crime and HMI Probation. A full list of those that responded can be found at Annex A.
The majority of respondents used the questionnaire but a few respondents preferred the format of a free letter. Of those who responded to the consultation, the vast majority supported the proposals.
Below is a summary of the main comments received.
Proposal 1: Do users agree with changing to three month cohorts to measure all reoffending (not just PbR outcomes) and the creation of annual cohorts, combining the preceding quarterly cohorts, to permit geographical breakdowns at LA level including those used by the Youth Justice Board (YJB) for Youth Offending Teams (YOTs)
From the comments provided there was general agreement with changing to a three month cohort.
Some respondents expressed concerns at the loss of geographical information on a quarterly basis as this was vital to manage reoffending at a local level. There was some concern that there would also be a loss of comparability as there would be a break in the series where the measure changed.
One respondent was concerned that the measure would be to bias towards prolific offenders. Another respondent expressed concerns that measures such as previous offences per offender and serious reoffending may be lost; proposing that two different sets of reoffending measures should be produced for adults and young people.
Respondents expressed interest on longer term reoffending rates (for example 2, 5 and 9 year proven reoffending rates). It is foreseen that these will be published on an ad-hoc basis.
Proposal 2: Are users content with the use of OGRS4 for all offender groups for assessing the likelihood of reoffending?
The majority of respondents welcomed the inclusion of the use of OGRS4 but there would need to be appropriate explanation of the measure and its comparison to OGRS3 at the time of introduction.
There was concern of the suitability of using OGRS4 for juveniles. Respondents suggested alternative measures such as YOGRS or asset plus as more appropriate measures for assessing the likelihood of youth reoffending. One user opposed as they wanted to use OGRS3.
**Proposal 3: Does the proposal for providing ‘interim estimates’ for publication as management information until headline results become available, cover users’ needs?**
Users supported the proposed move to provide ‘interim estimates’ by counting any proven reoffending to date as recorded on MoJ’s PNC data extract.
Respondents also expressed interest in receiving these estimates for different follow-up periods, an estimate of the accuracy of these results and inclusion of different breakdowns, such as by local authority area and CRC owner.
A few respondents requested offender level data for offenders they manage.
One respondent objected to providing ‘interim estimates’ as had concerns that the information would be misleading.
**Proposal 4: Do users support the outline structure for the bulletin including reoffending splits by CRCs and the NPS divisions?**
Users supported the outline structure.
However, over half of the respondents were concerned about the loss of geographical information on a quarterly basis as these data are used to manage reoffending at a local level. They would require reoffending information broken down by local authority area and youth offending team on a quarterly basis as well.
Other geographical breakdowns were also requested; one respondent requested the data be broken down by Community Safety Partnerships and another requested that the information be broken down by Crime and Disorder Partnership level, ward and police beat level.
A few respondents requested information for all prisons and not just for ‘resettlement’ prisons.
Two respondents were concerned over the counting of offenders managed by NPS or CRCs.
**Proposal 5: Are users content with the proposed removal of existing tables and the use of pivot tables and CSV files (with appropriate disclosure measures) for additional breakdowns of reoffending data?**
Users supported the proposed move to CSVs and pivot tables with several commenting that they required offender level detail for management of offenders.
**Proposal 6: Are users content with including certain statistics which show little quarterly change, for example long term reoffending rates for inclusion in an annual publication?**
Generally respondents agreed with this proposal. One respondent did express concerns as even if trends show little change, this information will still help inform them about their activities and what they should or should not be doing. There was also concern that, if only high level data were reported on, too much detail would be lost as although national statistics may not show any change, locally they may.
Respondents requested quarterly geographical information be available. 4. Changes to proven reoffending measure
The quarterly publication from October 2017 onwards will provide proven reoffending statistics for adult and juvenile offenders who were released from custody, received a non-custodial conviction at court, or received a caution within a three month period (e.g. 1 October 2015 to 31 December 2015). All statistics will be provided for both adult and juvenile (under 18) offenders.
4.1 Measuring proven reoffending
A proven reoffence, for all offenders, is defined as any offence committed in a one year follow-up period that leads to a court conviction or caution in the one year follow-up or within a further six month waiting period to allow the offence to be proven in court as shown in the diagram below.
An offender enters the cohort if they are released from custody, received a non-custodial conviction at court, or received a caution in the period October 2015 to December 2015.
Information regarding the proven reoffending behaviour of offenders will be compiled using the Ministry of Justice’s extract from the Police National Computer (PNC), probation data from the nDelius system managed by the National Offender Management Service (NOMS) and data from the eAsset system managed by the Youth Justice Board (YJB).
The definitions and measurements document that is published alongside proven reoffending quarterly statistics provides further information about the data sources mentioned above and it will be updated when interim results are published in October 2016 and the new publication is implemented in October 2017 to reflect any changes in methodology. 4.2 Payment by results and National Probation Service proven reoffending performance measure
The Transforming Rehabilitation reforms included opening up the probation service to a diverse range of rehabilitation providers from the private, voluntary and social sectors through 21 Community Rehabilitation Companies (CRCs) and creating a new public sector National Probation Service (NPS), to manage high risk offenders.
A Payment by Results (PbR) approach was adopted for the 21 CRCs to develop and implement effective ways of rehabilitating offenders and rewarding providers that devise and deliver the most effective rehabilitation programmes.
Offenders are only included in a CRC’s PbR cohort the first time they commence an eligible sentence (see below for exclusions) in the three month period. The same methodology will be used for each NPS division’s proven reoffending performance measure.
Payment by Results for the binary rate (proportion of offenders who reoffend) and frequency rate (average number of reoffences per reoffender) will be assessed for each CRC against a baseline year of 2011. Using the same methodology as the 2011 baselines, 2012 and 2013 binary and frequency rate estimates will be produced. A time series of PbR binary and frequency rates estimates from 2005 to 2013 will be published prior to the October 2017 publication.
______________________________________________________________________
1 PbR is paid for the achievement of statistically significant reductions in reoffending against the baseline year of 2011 as set out in Transforming Rehabilitation Contracts with CRCs. 4.3 Offender cohort breakdowns
As well as PbR and the National Probation Service reoffending performance measure, key statistics will be provided for the following measures:
**The headline measure** - An offender is included in the cohort the first time they are released from custody, convicted at court with a non-custodial sentence or receive a caution within the three month period.
**Index disposal (sentence type)** - An offender is included in an index disposal cohort (e.g. custody, caution, court order etc.) the first time they receive that disposal within the three month period.
**National Probation Service (NPS)/Community Rehabilitation Companies (CRC)** - An offender is included in an NPS division or a CRC’s offender cohort the first time they are managed by that entity within the three month period.
**Prison** - An offender is included in a prison’s offender cohort the first time they are released from that prison within the three month period.
4.4 Three month offender cohorts
The current proven reoffending statistics publication reports on offenders who are released from custody, received a non-custodial conviction at court, or received a caution within a 12 month period. The new proven reoffending statistics publication will report on adult and juvenile offenders who are released from custody, received a non-custodial conviction at court, or received a caution within a 3 month period, which will then align with the adult Payment by Results element of the transforming rehabilitation reforms.
A proven reoffence, for all offenders, will continue to be defined as any offence committed in a one year follow-up period that leads to a court conviction or caution in the one year follow-up or within a further six month waiting period to allow the offence to be proven in court.
The impact of changing from 12 month offender cohorts to 3 month offender cohorts is that there will be a greater proportion of prolific offenders and hence higher reoffending rates when compared to the current measure of reoffending. On a financial year basis, annual average reoffending rates will be formed by taking a weighted average of the four preceding 3 month offender cohorts.
A comparison of the current measure and the new measure for April 2013 to March 2014 is presented below. It has been included to provide an indication of the impact of changing the cohort, and the figures presented may not exactly match those in any future publication. The new reoffending rate is around 4-5 percentage points higher for both adult and juvenile offenders than the current proven reoffending rate. Proportion of adult and juvenile offenders who reoffend in the current measure and new measure: April 2013 to March 2014 quarterly and annual data
| | New: 3 month cohort | New: Annual average cohort | Current: 12 month cohort | |----------------------|---------------------|-----------------------------|--------------------------| | | Apr-Jun 2013 | Jul-Sep 2013 | Oct-Dec 2013 | Jan-Mar 2014 | Apr 2013- Mar 2014 | Apr 2013- Mar 2014 | | **Adult offenders** | | | | | | | | Proportion of offenders who reoffend (%) | 30.6 | 30.4 | 29.5 | 29.4 | 30.0 | 25.2 | | Average number of reoffences per reoffender | 3.58 | 3.54 | 3.57 | 3.62 | 3.58 | 3.12 | | Number of reoffences | 148,522 | 149,562 | 143,403 | 145,224 | 586,711 | 367,605 | | Number of reoffenders | 41,489 | 42,216 | 40,114 | 40,143 | 163,962 | 117,864 | | Number of offenders in cohort | 135,480 | 138,676 | 135,827 | 136,558 | 546,541 | 468,134 | | **Juvenile offenders** | | | | | | | | Proportion of offenders who reoffend (%) | 42.9 | 42.6 | 42.6 | 42.5 | 42.9 | 38.0 | | Average number of reoffences per reoffender | 3.36 | 3.37 | 3.46 | 3.46 | 3.41 | 3.12 | | Number of reoffences | 19,380 | 19,514 | 19,093 | 18,568 | 76,555 | 50,184 | | Number of reoffenders | 5,772 | 5,790 | 5,518 | 5,364 | 22,444 | 16,083 | | Number of offenders in cohort | 13,443 | 13,600 | 12,943 | 12,321 | 52,307 | 42,299 | | **All offenders** | | | | | | | | Proportion of offenders who reoffend (%) | 31.7 | 31.5 | 30.7 | 30.6 | 31.1 | 26.2 | | Average number of reoffences per reoffender | 3.55 | 3.52 | 3.56 | 3.60 | 3.56 | 3.12 | | Number of reoffences | 167,902 | 169,076 | 162,496 | 163,792 | 663,266 | 417,789 | | Number of reoffenders | 47,261 | 48,006 | 45,632 | 45,507 | 186,406 | 133,947 | | Number of offenders in cohort | 148,923 | 152,276 | 148,770 | 148,879 | 598,848 | 510,433 |
Users should refer to supporting consultation Excel tables to see a time series of the 3 month cohorts.
4.5 Historical data and geographical breakdowns
Proven reoffending rates for the annual and quarterly cohorts will be provided at the national level back to 2000 to ensure trends are available on the same time series as the current measure, and since this is the earliest date from which the data can be reliably produced. Data are not available for 2001 due to a problem with archived data on Court Orders.
The three month cohorts limit the scope for geographical breakdowns owing to the smaller number of offenders. We had originally proposed only providing geographical breakdowns on an annual basis. There was, however, high user demand for these statistics on a quarterly basis. Therefore, on a quarterly basis we will publish average reoffending rates which will be formed by taking a weighted average of the four preceding 3 month offender cohorts. This will enable local rates to be monitored on a quarterly basis.
We will provide local-level breakdowns of this data back to 2005 to provide a trend for local areas. Data will not be provided at local level further back than 2005, reflecting both concerns over quality of postcode information and the resources required to produce this additional data. 4.6 OGRS4/G and YOGRS – adult and juvenile likelihood of reoffending
As proven reoffending is related to the characteristics of offenders, the actual rate of proven reoffending will depend, in part, on the characteristics of offenders coming into the system. This actual rate provides users with sufficient information on what the level of reoffending is (e.g. in their local area) and how it is changing over time.
In addition to the actual rate, we will use the OGRS4/G (Offender Group Reconviction Scale) score to control for some differences in offender characteristics across different offender groups. OGRS4/G is based on a well-established, peer-reviewed methodology for assessing and representing reoffending risk.
OGRS4/G uses age, gender and criminal history to assess the reoffending risk of a given group of offenders by producing a score between 0 and 1. These scores can be used to compare the relative likelihood of reoffending either over time or between different groups of offenders, with a higher rate meaning a group of offenders who are more likely to reoffend. Reoffending rates (excluding frequency measures) will be adjusted by using OGRS4/G, to take account of the influence that differences in offender mix can have on binary reoffending rates. OGRS4/G adjusted rates will be used to determine PbR outcomes.
The OGRS4/G adjusted reoffending rate for a given CRC cohort will be calculated as the observed reoffending rate for that cohort plus any difference between the OGRS4/G score in that cohort and the 2011 CRC baseline cohort. This calculation standardises the mix of offenders in each cohort of a given CRC to the 2011 mix for that same CRC. A similar approach will be used for other offender groups (for example, Local Authority).
OGRS4/G is a model specifically developed for adult offenders and after consideration of responses to this consultation, OGRS4/G will not be provided for juvenile offenders. We will instead use the Youth Offender Group Reconviction Scale (YOGRS) to produce an adjusted reoffending rate for juveniles. YOGRS is based on a similar methodology to OGRS4/G but has some adjustments for younger age groups, its application to our data is in development. Any substantial changes to OGRS4/G or YOGRS will be published in the accompanying measurements and definitions document.
How to interpret OGRS4/G and YOGRS In the example below we would say that the proven reoffending rate in CPA A has increased by 1 percentage point from 2011. However, when controlling for changes in offender characteristics, the proven reoffending rate fell by 1 percentage point since 2011.
OGRS4/G adjusted binary rate example
| CPA A | Baseline 2011 | Cohort period (e.g. Oct-Dec 2015) | Difference | |-------|---------------|----------------------------------|------------| | OGRS4/G | 53% | 55% | 2pp | | Proportion of offenders who reoffend (%) | 56% | 57% | 1pp | | OGRS4/G adjusted reoffending rate | 56% | 55% | -1pp | 4.7 Interim results
One year proven reoffending statistics for PbR will not be available until October 2017; we will produce interim PbR figures from October 2016. This will help to address the information gap created by switching to three month cohorts for reporting reoffending and allows CRCs’ progress to be assessed at the earliest opportunity. We will also produce the equivalent interim figures for the NPS divisions.
Users supported the proposed move to provide ‘interim estimates’ by counting any proven reoffending to date as recorded on MoJ’s PNC data extract instead of measuring reoffending with a defined follow-up and waiting period. Some offenders in the three month cohort will have a longer follow-up period in which to reoffend. Despite this difference, its key advantage is to provide users with a more accurate picture of reoffending to date.
For this very reason we will use the ‘reoffending to date’ measure to produce interim reoffending information. While this does not represent real time management information, which CRCs might be able to procure themselves through local police force arrangements, it will provide our best indication of progress to date for both CRCs and NPS divisions. We will publish this as management information.
This addresses the desire of users, including the CRCs and the NPS divisions, to have early indicators of progress in an accessible format. CRC’s are not obliged to share the real time reoffending information they collect so this management information will address this information gap until headline results are published. These estimates, however, will only give an indication of progress and, therefore, care should be taken when interpreting them.
Alongside the current proven reoffending tables, early estimates of proven reoffending for young offenders by Youth Offending Teams (YOTs) are published as management information. This provides an earlier indication of proven reoffending trends for young offenders. Following the publication of this consultation response they will be discontinued, but will be replaced by interim results as described above by YOTs in the future. 4.8 Publication outline
The existing adult and juvenile reoffending statistics will continue in their current form until the reoffending outcomes for the first Payment by Results cohort become available in October 2017.
The proven reoffending publication from October 2017 will provide proven reoffending statistics by:
- offender characteristics (e.g. gender, age group, ethnic group, index offence)
- type of reoffence (e.g. Violence Against Person, Burglary)
- index disposal (sentence type)
- individual prisons
- local authority
- Community Safety Partnerships
- Youth Offending Teams
The publication will include an additional chapter on CRC Payment by Results and NPS division proven reoffending performance measure.
For all offender cohorts the following reoffending measures will be published:
- The proportion of offenders who reoffend
- The average number of reoffences per reoffender
- Average OGRS4/G score for adults and average YOGRS for juveniles
- OGRS4/G adjusted reoffending rate for adults and YOGRS adjusted reoffending rate for juveniles
These will be published alongside these supporting values:
- Number of offenders
- Number of reoffenders
- Number of reoffences
The number of reoffenders, reoffences and previous offences based on less than five offenders will be suppressed. This is to prevent the disclosure of individual information.
From October 2016 interim results as described in section 2.7 will form part of the quarterly statistics. The October 2017 publication will include a summary on the differences in methodology from those presented in the previous publication.
Proven reoffending statistics will be published in a set of Excel tables which provide key statistics, and data tools (pivot tables and CSVs) which provide more detailed breakdowns. We have made these changes with the existing reoffending publication from October 2015 onwards so users will be familiar with this format.
On an annual basis from January 2018, further analysis on proven reoffending statistics in emerging areas of interest will be published, for example, long term reoffending rates as described below and additional analysis on Serious Further Offences (SFOs). This will provide users with the opportunity to comment on plans for future reoffending analysis. In the headline measure a proven reoffence is defined as any offence committed in a one year follow-up period that leads to a court conviction or caution in the one year follow-up or within a further six month waiting period to allow the offence to be proven in court. Long term reoffending rates would be where reoffending is measured over a longer follow-up period (e.g. two years, five years).
4.9 Publication timetable
| Publication date | One year reoffending rate Quarterly cohort | One year reoffending rate Annual average | Interim reoffending rate Quarterly cohort | |------------------|------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------|----------------------------------------| | Oct-16 | - | - | Oct15-Dec15 | | Jan-17 | - | - | Jan16-Mar16 | | Apr-17 | - | - | Apr16-Jun16 | | Jul-17 | - | - | Jul16-Sep16 | | Oct-17 | Oct15-Dec15 | - | Oct16-Dec16 | | Jan-18 | Jan16-Mar16 | Apr15-Mar16 | Jan17-Mar17 | | Apr-18 | Apr16-Jun16 | - | Apr16-Jun17 | | Jul-18 | Jul16-Sep16 | - | Jul16-Sep17 | | Oct-18 | Oct16-Dec16 | - | Oct16-Dec17 | Annex A: List of respondents
The list of respondents who gave details consisted of the following organisations:
- South Yorkshire Police
- Merseyside Criminal Justice Board (MCJB)
- Prison Reform Trust
- Barnsley Council
- Youth Justice Board
- Wales CRC
- Midlands NPS
- Kent, Surrey and Sussex CRC
- Reducing Reoffending Partnership (Derbyshire, Nottinghamshire, Leicestershire and Rutland Community Rehabilitation Company and Staffordshire and West Midlands Community Rehabilitation Company).
- Interserve Justice / Purple Futures
- False Allegation Support Organisation
- The Bristol, Gloucestershire, Somerset and Wiltshire CRC
- Dudley’s Community Safety Partnership – on behalf of Safe & Sound (Dudley’s Community Safety Partnership). Members includes West Midlands Police, West Midlands Fire and Rescue Service, Dudley CCG, Staffordshire and West Midlands CRC, Staffordshire and West Midlands NPS, Dudley MBC and a number of partners from the Community and Voluntary Sector.
- NPS Development and Business Change, Performance and Quality team
- MoJ Reducing Reoffending Analytical Programme
- County Durham Youth Offending Service
- The Solihull Partnership
- MOPAC – Mayor of London, Office for Policing and Crime
- HMI Probation Contact points
Press enquiries should be directed to the Ministry of Justice press office:
Tel: 020 3334 3536
Email: [email protected]
Other enquiries about these statistics should be directed to:
**Nick Mavron** Ministry of Justice Justice Statistics Analytical Services 7th Floor 102 Petty France London SW1H 9AJ
General enquiries about the statistical work of the Ministry of Justice can be e-mailed to: [email protected]
General information about the official statistics system of the United Kingdom is available from http://statisticsauthority.gov.uk/about-the-authority/uk-statistical-system
Alternative formats are available on request from [email protected].
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/4802-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 16,
"total-input-tokens": 40360,
"total-output-tokens": 7846,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
123,
1
],
[
123,
2043,
2
],
[
2043,
4239,
3
],
[
4239,
6743,
4
],
[
6743,
9157,
5
],
[
9157,
11911,
6
],
[
11911,
13529,
7
],
[
13529,
15080,
8
],
[
15080,
17699,
9
],
[
17699,
21288,
10
],
[
21288,
24394,
11
],
[
24394,
26547,
12
],
[
26547,
28840,
13
],
[
28840,
30878,
14
],
[
30878,
32119,
15
],
[
32119,
32847,
16
]
]
} |
043e409f049d3a1519884ecaf064e07168777434 | Proven re-offending statistics: definitions and measurement
Published October 2011
## Contents
| Section | Page | |------------------------------------------------------------------------|------| | Proven re-offending statistics quarterly bulletin – background and measurement | 3 | | Early estimates of proven re-offending – background and measurement | 10 | | Local re-offending statistics quarterly bulletin – background and measurement | 12 | | Data Quality | 13 | | Statistical modelling and coefficients | 22 | | Appendix A: List of serious offences | 30 | | Appendix B: Glossary | 36 | | Appendix C: Comparison of the three measures of re-offending | 43 | | Contact details and further information | 44 | Proven Re-offending Statistics Quarterly Bulletin
Background
The Ministry of Justice launched a statistical consultation on improvements to the transparency and accessibility of our information in 2010 and a response to the consultation was published in March 2011. One aspect of the consultation was the measurement of proven re-offending. Responses have supported the proposals to move to a single framework for measuring re-offending where adult and youth data can be provided at the national and local level on a consistent basis. The response to the consultation is available here:
http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/consultations/improvements-moj-statistics-consultation-response.pdf
Prior to this consultation there were six different measures of proven re-offending:
- national adult proven re-offending;
- local adult proven re-offending;
- national youth proven re-offending;
- local youth proven re-offending;
- Prolific and other Priority Offending (PPO); and
- drug-misusing proven offending.
The current framework for measuring proven re-offending integrates these approaches into a single framework. This allows users to:
- form a clear picture of proven re-offending at national and local levels;
- compare adult and youth results, and enable other work on transition between the youth and adult system;
- understand how results for different offender groups (such as those managed by the prison and probation services, those under the PPO schemes, drug-misusing offenders, first time entrants, etc) fit in to the overall picture on proven re-offending; and
- continue to be able to analyse proven re-offending behaviour of particular types of offender. Measurement
The underlying principle of measuring re-offending (or recidivism, which is the most commonly used term internationally) is that someone who has received some form of criminal justice sanction (such as a conviction or a caution) goes on to commit another offence within a set time period.
Measuring true re-offending is difficult. Official records are taken from either the police or courts, but they will underestimate the true level of re-offending because only a proportion of crime is detected and sanctioned and not all crimes and sanctions are recorded on one central system. Other methods of measuring re-offending, such as self report studies, are likely to be unreliable.
Following the Ministry of Justice consultation on Improvements to Ministry of Justice Statistics (2010), a **proven re-offence is defined** as any offence committed in a one year follow-up period and receiving a court conviction, caution, reprimand or warning in the one year follow up or a further six months waiting period. The data source is the extract of the Police National Computer (PNC) held by the Ministry of Justice.
Definitions for the measurement of proven re-offending
**Cohort**
This is the group of individuals whose re-offending is measured. For the Proven Re-offending Statistics Quarterly Bulletin this is defined as all offenders in any one year who received a caution (for adults), a final warning or reprimand (for juveniles), a non-custodial conviction, or were discharged from custody.
Offenders who were discharged from custody or secure accommodation (juveniles only) or commenced a Court Order are matched to the PNC database. A proportion of cases are lost in this process because they cannot be matched (see the section titled “Matching offender records” below for details). Additionally, offenders who appear multiple times in the cohort are only included once (see the section titled “Multiple Offender Entries” below for details).
The group of offenders whose offending behaviour is proven is likely to be a sub-group of all active offenders. The Offending, Crime and Justice Survey (2003)(^1) estimated that around one in ten people in England and Wales aged between 10 and 65 had committed an offence in the previous twelve months, which translates into approximately 3.8 million people. This compares to 632,000 offenders in the 2002 cohort used to measure re-offending, underlining that the offenders whose proven re-offending
(^1) The Offending, Crime and Justice Survey (2003) was a random probability survey of 10,079 people aged from ten to 65 and asked people about their offending history. Like any such survey its accuracy is dependent upon the level of honesty with which respondents completed the survey. behaviour is presented in the re-offending bulletin are a small and probably unrepresentative sample of the population of all active offenders.
**Index disposal (sentence type)** The index disposal of the offender is the type of sentence the offender received for their index offence. For the Proven Re-offending Statistics Quarterly Bulletin this is defined as custody, court order, other disposal resulting from a conviction at court, such as a fine or discharge, caution (adult offenders), reprimand or final warning (young offenders).
**Index offence**: Offences are only counted as an index offence if the offence is:
- recordable (see below)
- committed in England and Wales
- prosecuted by the police
- not a breach offence
There are around 3,000 offence codes on the Police National Computer. These have been classified into 21 groups: violence (non serious), violence (serious), robbery, public order or riot, sexual, sexual (child), soliciting or prostitution, domestic burglary, other burglary, theft, handling, fraud and forgery, absconding or bail offences, taking and driving away and related offences, theft from vehicles, other motoring offences, drink driving offences, criminal or malicious damage, drugs import/export/production/supply, drugs possession/small scale supply and other.
**Start Point (also known as the index date)** This is the set point in time from when re-offences are measured. For the Proven Re-offending Statistics Quarterly Bulletin this is defined as the date of prison discharge, date of court conviction for non-custodial sentences, date of receipt for a caution, reprimand or final warning or the date of a positive drug test.
**Follow-up period** This is the length of time proven re-offending is measured over. For the Proven Re-offending Statistics Quarterly Bulletin this is defined as twelve months from the start point.
**Waiting period** This is the additional time beyond the follow up period to allow for offences committed towards the end of the follow up period to be proved by a court conviction, caution, reprimand or final warning. For the Proven Re-offending Statistics Quarterly Bulletin this is six months.
Figure 1 below illustrates why different offences are included or not in the re-offending measures for an example offender. Events A-E all occur in the one year follow up period, but Events F and G are outside this period, so would not be counted. Events A-D are all counted because they were all proven within the one year follow-up period or the further six months waiting period, but Event E, even though the offence took place in the one year follow up period, would not be counted, as the conviction did not occur within either the one year follow up period, or the further six month waiting period. The offender has therefore committed 7 proven offences during the one-year follow up period (2 for Event A, 1 for Event B, 3 for Event C, and 1 for Event D).
**Sentence/disposal that an offence receives to count as a re-offence**
Offences that are proved by a court conviction, caution, reprimand or final warning count as re-offences.
**Offences that count as re-offences**
Offences are counted as re-offences if they meet all of the following criteria:
- They are recordable. Not all offences are on the PNC and more recordable offences are entered than non-recordable offences. Analysis comparing offences proven at court with offences recorded on the PNC suggests the most cost common offences that are not recorded relates to motor vehicles e.g. using a motor vehicle whilst uninsured against third party risks, speeding offences, keeping a vehicle on the highway without a driving license, or to television license evasion.
- They were committed in England or Wales.
- They are offences that were prosecuted by the police. PNC data is collected and input by the police and offences prosecuted by the police are likely to be recorded more comprehensively on the PNC than offences that are prosecuted by other organisations. For example, benefit fraud is prosecuted by the Department of Work and Pensions, and benefit fraud offences may be poorly represented on the PNC.
- Offences are only counted if they are proven through caution (for adults), reprimands or final warnings (for juveniles) and court convictions. Offences that are not proven, or which meet with other responses from the Criminal Justice System, are not counted. The Offending, Crime and Justice Survey (2003) estimated that 6 per cent of all offences resulted in any contact with the Criminal Justice System. The offence is not a breach offence i.e breach of a court order, since we are only interested in new offences.
**Adjusted baseline (predicted rate)** Proven re-offending is related to the characteristics of offenders which means that any overall rate of proven re-offending will depend, in part, on the characteristics of offenders coming into the system (just as the examination pass rate of a school will be related to the characteristics of its pupils). We use a modelling technique to produce a baseline figure adjusted to match the characteristics of the cohort we are comparing. For more details see the chapter on Statistical modelling and coefficients.
**Measures of proven re-offending** Re-offending data are presented in the following ways:
- The number of offenders;
- The proportion of offenders who are proven re-offenders;
- The average number of proven re-offences among re-offenders;
- The average number of proven re-offences among all offenders including those who committed no proven re-offences (previously the frequency rate);
- The proportion of proven offenders who committed a proven serious re-offence against the person. See page 31 for details of what counts as a serious offence.
- The proportion of proven offenders who committed a proven serious acquisitive re-offence. See page xx for details of what counts as a serious acquisitive offence.
The proportion of offenders who are proven to re-offend, adjusted to control for changes in offender characteristics. This measure is different from the other measures in that it does not come from actual re-offences, but from a statistical model created for the baseline year of 2008. This gives a better indication of actual change against a baseline. See the chapter on Statistical modelling and coefficients (page 23)
**Multiple Offender Entries (MOEs)** Each offender is tracked over a fixed period of time and any proven offence committed in this period is counted as a proven re-offence. Offenders who, after entering the cohort in a given year, commits a re-offence and is either cautioned, discharged from prison or gets a non-custodial conviction in the same cohort year. This re-offence could also be included as a second entry for this offender into the cohort.
**Figure 2: Example of an offender with Multiple Offender Entries**
| Offender Cautioned | Re-offence 1 | Offender starts a community sentence | Re-offence 2 | Offender sentenced to 3 months in prison then released | Re-offence 3 | |--------------------|-------------|-------------------------------------|-------------|-------------------------------------------------------|-------------| | | | | | | |
1 year cohort period To date, publications have avoided the double counting of these multiple offender entries (MOE) by only counting an individual once based on their first proven offence in the relevant time period. In the illustration above the caution would be counted as the index disposal and the further two proven offences would be counted as re-offences. This avoids double counting of proven re-offences.
**Proven re-offending measure**
In this publication the main tables (tables 1 to 17) in the report have been produced on the basis of the 'first proven offence in the relevant time period' which led to an offender being included. This provides a picture of proven re-offending which is consistent with previous publications and tracks an offender, irrespective of the disposal they receive, to when they commit a proven re-offence.
The measure of proven re-offending now covers all offenders in any one year instead of the first quarter of a calendar year as in previous proven re-offending publications. The result is many more offenders with multiple entries (MOEs).
In addition, including cautions to identify a proven offence means many offenders’ first offence will be associated with a caution since cautions account for around a third of adult offenders in one year. Table 1 shows the number of offenders by their number of entries.
**Table 1: Number of adult offenders and their respective number of entries for 2000, 2002-2009 cohorts**
| Multiple Offender Entries (MOEs) | 2000 | 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | |---------------------------------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------| | 1 | 512,551 | 522,376 | 544,032 | 551,265 | 582,840 | 622,096 | 638,495 | 610,329 | 578,644 | | 2x | 75,311 | 77,813 | 81,651 | 81,120 | 87,589 | 91,695 | 88,207 | 83,785 | | | 3x | 19,565 | 21,208 | 22,073 | 20,855 | 20,926 | 21,974 | 23,757 | 22,662 | 22,125 | | 4x | 6,195 | 6,689 | 7,074 | 6,635 | 6,725 | 6,807 | 7,652 | 7,917 | 7,360 | | 5x | 1,998 | 2,314 | 2,392 | 2,355 | 2,425 | 2,795 | 2,911 | 2,938 | | | 6 to 10x | 1,240 | 1,510 | 1,689 | 1,641 | 1,505 | 1,513 | 1,966 | 2,341 | 2,308 | | greater than 10x | 164 | 155 | 129 | 131 | 119 | 115 | 114 | 160 | 202 | | Total MOEs | 104,473 | 109,689 | 115,008 | 110,788 | 112,750 | 120,423 | 127,979 | 125,198 | 118,718 | | % of total cohort | 16.9% | 17.4% | 17.5% | 16.7% | 16.2% | 16.2% | 16.7% | 17.0% | 17.0% | | Cohort | 617,024 | 632,065 | 659,040 | 662,053 | 695,590 | 742,519 | 766,474 | 735,527 | 697,362 |
The number of offenders with multiple entries has remained fairly constant over time. The proportion of the total that had multiple offender entries has remained at about 16 – 17 per cent between 2000 and 2009.
**Proven re-offending by index disposal, probation trust and prison**
In order to measure proven re-offending on a consistent and representative basis by offender management groups it is necessary to distinguish between the disposal types that led to an offender being included. Doing this allows the cohort to be defined according to the relative start point of an offender’s interaction with the prison (discharged from prison) or probation services (court order commencement). Tables 18 to 21 provide re-offending rates by disposal (sentence) types. These are produced on the basis of an individual's first disposal (sentence) in that category. In the illustration above the individual would appear once in the caution category, once in the community order category and once in the custody category. These tables will include an overall prison and probation proven re-offending rate which will be the figures we quote publicly. However these figures should not be used when comparing proven re-offending rates across different disposals to compare effectiveness. Instead the Compendium of Re-offending (www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/publications/statistics-and-data/mojstats/compendium-of-reoffending-statistics-and-analysis.pdf) should be referred to as this analysis controls for offender characteristics in order to give a more reliable estimate of the relative effectiveness of different disposals.
Tables 22 to 24 provide re-offending rates by individual prison and probation trust. These are produced on the basis of an individual's first disposal from each specified prison or probation trust. If the individual offender is discharged from two different prisons in the year they will appear in both of the prison's re-offending rates. The same applies for offenders commencing court orders in more than one probation trust within the year. This is to allow prisons and probation services to track their caseload of offenders. Early Estimates of Proven Re-offending Statistics
Background Responses from the consultation and from earlier engagement with representatives of front-line offender management services supported the proposal to produce early estimates of proven re-offending using shorter follow-up and waiting periods. This is intended to provide offender managers feedback on the proven re-offending trends of offenders they are working with in time for them to adjust or build on offender management operational policy. This section of the new bulletin addresses these issues.
Early estimates of proven re-offending are presented for four particular offender groups who are subject to specific offender management arrangements. These are offenders managed by the probation service, Prolific and other Priority Offenders (PPO) who are managed by a partnership of local front-line services, drug-misusing offenders who are managed by Drug Action Teams, and young offenders who are managed by Youth Offending Teams.
Proven re-offending for the early estimates is measured in exactly the same way as for the headline proven re-offending measure except that the follow-up period and waiting period are both three months each. (For the headline measure of proven re-offending they are twelve months and six months, respectively).
The headline figures and early estimates differ in the following ways:
- Early estimates of proven re-offending rates are considerably lower than in the headline publication. This is because they cover a shorter time period.
- The shorter follow-up period and waiting period allow rates to be calculated for more recent groups of proven offenders.
- Early estimates of proven re-offending rates provide local offender management services with information on proven re-offending trends for the offenders they are working with. The headline re-offending publication presents the public with information on a wide range of proven re-offending trends and provides proven re-offending rates by a variety of breakdowns, such as age, gender, disposal etc.
- The shorter follow-up period and waiting period provides insufficient time for many serious re-offences to be committed and convicted. For this reason early estimates of proven re-offending rates do not include information on serious re-offending.
- Results in the headline measure are compared to a baseline rate, adjusted for changes in the offender profile. This relies on an estimate of the relationship between offender characteristics and proven re-offending behaviour over twelve-months. An equivalent estimate has been carried out for the proven re-offending behaviour of offenders. commencing court order over three months. This uses the same variables as the headline measure plus additional variables to ensure that the actual and predicted rates are identical for every probation trust in the baseline period (2008). The tables accompanying the early estimates present the adjusted baseline for each trust, and the text identifies those trusts where the actual rate is significantly higher or lower than the predicted rate in the most recent results available.
**Measurement**
**Coverage:** Results are provided for four types of offenders: probation offenders by probation trust, PPO offenders by upper-tier local authority, drug-misusing offenders by Drug Action Team, and young offenders by Youth Offending Team.
**Cohort:** For probation offenders, the cohort is made up of all offenders who commenced a Court Order within a twelve month period. For PPO offenders, the cohort is made up of all offenders identified as a PPO who were discharged from custody, convicted at court, received a caution (adults), reprimand or final warning (juveniles) or tested positive for opiates or cocaine within a twelve month period. For drug-misusing offenders, the cohort is made up of all offenders identified as drug-misusing who were discharged from custody, convicted at court, received a caution or tested positive for opiates or cocaine within a twelve month period. For juveniles, the cohort is made up of all young offenders who were discharged from custody, convicted at court or received a reprimand or final warning within a twelve month period.
**Start Point:** Same as for the headline re-offending figures presented in the Re-offending Statistics Quarterly Bulletin.
**Follow-up period:** Three months from the start point
**Waiting period:** Three months
**Proven Re-offence:** Same as for the headline proven re-offending figures presented in the Re-offending Statistics Quarterly Bulletin.
**Adjusted baseline:** Proven re-offending is related to the characteristics of offenders which means that any overall rate of proven re-offending will depend, in part, on the characteristics of offenders coming into the system (just as the examination pass rate of a school will be related to the characteristics of its pupils). We use a modelling technique to produce a baseline figure adjusted to match the characteristics of the cohort we are comparing. For more details see the chapter on Statistical modelling and coefficients (p 23).
**Multiple Offender Entries (MOEs):** Same as for the offender management tables in the main bulletin. Local Measure of Re-offending
Background Proven re-offending results from this measure have been published by the Ministry of Justice since February 2009 at the Government Office Region, Probation Trust and local authority level. This data is used to measure probation performance and the Ministry of Justice will continue to produce these measures while offender management systems still require them.
The local proven re-offending data measures the re-offending of all offenders on the probation caseload. This includes offenders on licence and serving Court Orders.
http://www.justice.gov.uk/publications/statistics-and-data/reoffending/local-adult-reoffending.htm
Local proven re-offending rates use the same follow-up period and waiting period to those for the early estimates. However, there are several large differences between the local measure and the early estimates. These include:
- the sample of offenders. Local rates are estimated using all offenders on the probation caseload, including those on licence and those serving court orders. Offenders on the caseload are identified through four ‘snapshots’ of the caseload, taken each quarter. Offenders are included if they are on the caseload even if they have been on licence or serving the court order for longer than twelve months. The early estimates are based on offenders who commence a court order within a twelve month period.
- Local rates define the period reported on by the period of re-offending. The early estimates refer to the year of the index disposal.
Measurement
Cohort: All offenders on the probation caseload taken from four snapshots taken quarterly.
Start Point: The date of the snapshot.
Follow-up period: Three months from the start point
Waiting period: Three months
Proven Re-offence: Same as for the headline proven re-offending figures presented in the Re-offending Statistics Quarterly Bulletin.
Adjusted baseline (Predicted Rate): The predicted rate is the proportion of offenders we would expect to re-offend given the known characteristics of the offenders in the snapshot and re-offending rates in the baseline period. More detail on the predicted rate, and the statistical model used to calculate it, is provided in Appendix C of the Local Adult Re-offending bulletin. Data Quality
The data required for measuring proven re-offending involve a range of data sources (NOMS prison database, probation data, identification of drug-misusing offenders, identification of Prolific and other Priority Offenders, and young offenders in secure accommodation, and the criminal records from the Police National Computer) from a range of agencies (NOMS, probation trusts, the Youth Justice Board, Drug Action Teams, local authorities and the National Police Improvement Agency). These figures have been derived from administrative IT systems which, as with any large scale recording system, are subject to possible errors with data entry and processing.
Police National Computer data
Information regarding the proven re-offending behaviour of offenders has been compiled using the Ministry of Justice’s extract from the Police National Computer (PNC). The process involves matching offender details from the prison and probation services to the personal details recorded on the PNC. A proportion of cases cannot be matched and the figures presented in Table 1 are expressed as a percentage of the offenders that are matched. Like any large scale recording system the PNC is subject to errors with data entry and recording. The PNC is regularly updated so that further analysis at a later date will generate revised figures.
The quality of the information recorded on the PNC is generally assumed to be relatively high as it is an operational system on which the police depend, but analysis can reveal errors that are typical when handling administrative datasets of this scale. The extent of error or omitted records on the PNC is difficult to estimate because it is a unique data-source. As a result, there is not always an obvious source of data to provide a baseline from which to assess data quality. For some types of results, however, comparisons can be made. For example, the trend in receptions into prison in each month is very similar using the PNC and prisons data (see below for details) although the number of receptions recorded on the PNC is consistently slightly lower because prisons data included cases on remand whereas the PNC does not. Another example is the number of cases that given a custodial, broken down by offence type, which is similar using the PNC and the Court Proceedings Database with a match rate of 97 per cent.
A number of improvements are routinely carried out:
- Updates to the coding and classification of offences and court disposals, including the reduction of uncoded offences, the reduction in the use of miscellaneous offence codes and the clarification of the coding of breach offences;
- Updates to the methods used to identify the primary offence, where several offences are dealt with on the same occasion, and the methods used to identify the primary disposal, where an offence attracts more than one court disposal; and,
- Removal of some duplication of records within the database resulting in improvements to the efficiency and reliability of the matching process. Prison data Prison establishments record details for individual inmates on the prison IT system (either Prison-NOMIS or LIDS). The information recorded includes details such as date of birth, sex, religion, nationality, ethnic origin, custody type, offence, reception and discharge dates and, for sentenced prisoners, sentence length. The data from individual prison establishments then feeds through to a central computer database, called the Inmate Information System (IIS).
In May 2009, the National Offender Management Service began the roll-out of a new case management system for prisons (Prison-NOMIS). During the phased roll-out, data collection issues emerged that affected the supply of data for statistical purposes from July 2009 to February 2010. Specifically, statistical information on sentence length and offence group are not available on any of our prison datasets for this period.
In order to ensure the fullest possible set of data from July 2009 to February 2010, sentence lengths were estimated for those prisoners received or discharged before the problems were resolved. At the point when the problems were resolved, a small number of prison establishments were still using the old LIDS case management system; data for prisoners received or discharged from these prisons was assumed to be unaffected.
For those prisoners received or discharged from prisons operating Prison-NOMIS, efforts were made to populate their record with the correct sentence length using other data extracts. For example, many prisoners discharged in January 2010 were originally received into prison prior to July 2009, so we were able to take their sentence length from unaffected datasets before the problems began. Similarly, the majority of those received in early 2010 were still in prison in March 2010 when the problems were resolved, so we were able to use the sentence length in the corrected prison population data.
Where it was not possible to populate a sentence length using other datasets, prisoners were allocated a sentence length band based on the number of days they spent in custody (taking account of early release schemes where relevant).
Alternative estimation method As a check on the methodology, we created an alternative estimation process and compared the number of discharges in the second half of 2009 in each sentence length band using the two methods.
A number of estimation methods were considered, and each tested on the 2008 data (prior to the data problems, hence we had a full year of data) to see which yielded estimates closest to the actual 2008 data. This identified the following method:
1. Calculate data for the first half of the year as a proportion of the full calendar year, for each year from 2001 to 2008; separately for each sentence length band or offence group (the 2 key breakdowns to be estimated).
2. Apply the average of these proportions to the Jan-Jun 2009 data to estimate the 2009 annual totals; separately for each sentence length band/offence group.
3. Scale the estimated numbers in each sentence length band or offence group to sum to the annual total recorded in the raw data (where the totals are known to be correct).
Results The maximum difference between the two approaches was 2.6% in the band 12 months to less than 4 years; for all other bands the difference was less than 1%.
Indeterminate sentence prisoners In addition to the above, data on the discharge of prisoners on indeterminate sentence (prisoners given a life sentence or indeterminate sentence for Public Protection (IPP) is provided from the Public Protection Unit Database (PPUD). This holds data jointly owned by the Offender Management and Public Protection Group (OMPPG) in NOMS and the Parole Board.
PPUD records details of all indeterminate sentence prisoners at the point of conviction, those engaged in the Generic Parole Process and prisoners (determinate and indeterminate) who have been recalled from licence. It also covers those who have received a restricted hospital order/direction from a Crown Court, and those remand and convicted prisoners who have been transferred from prison/detention centres to psychiatric hospital under the relevant sections of mental health legislation.
All decisions taken by the NOMS casework sections and the Parole Board are recorded on the system.
Personal information recorded includes (but is not limited to) name, date of birth, gender, identifying numbers, ethnicity, last known address, probation area and sentencing information.
OMPPG and the Parole Board run monthly and ad hoc reports to cleanse data that are not otherwise identified by data validation routines built into the system.
Probation data Since 2005, detailed information on the supervision of offenders (at the individual offender level) has been submitted by probation trusts on a monthly basis. These monthly ‘probation listings’ include information on offenders starting probation supervision. Between 2002 and 2005 this information was submitted quarterly, and prior to 2002 a different data collection system was in place, which meant that information on caseload had to be calculated based on the number of people starting supervision and the number of terminations. The quality of the information recorded on the probation data is generally assumed to be relatively high as it is a direct extract from an operational system upon which the probation service depends for managing offenders locally. The extract consists of a small number of key fields for which completion is mandatory. Probation Trusts have their own IT departments who manage their own data validation processes and when the data is received centrally it is subject to another set of data validation processes. Trends from the data are consistent with comparable time-series from the Courts Proceeding Database. Any large scale recording systems are subject to possible errors with data entry and processing but there are no known issues regarding the probation commencements data.
**Identification of drug-misusing offenders**
There are four ways a drug-misusing offender can be identified:
- Individuals who have tested positive for heroin or crack/cocaine following an arrest or charge for ‘trigger’ offences (largely acquisitive crime offences) as part of the Drug Interventions Programme (DIP) are included as adult proven offenders.
- Any offender that received an OASys assessment whilst on licence or on a community sentence and are either recorded as being subject to a current Drug Treatment and Testing Order (DTTO) or Drug Rehabilitation Requirement (DRR), or are assessed as having a criminogenic drug need.
- Any offender identified as requiring further drug interventions by Counselling, Assessment, Referral, Advice, Throughcare (CARAT) teams in prison, and now being released into the community.
- Any offender identified by local Criminal Justice Integrated Teams (CJITs) as requiring further intervention for their drug use and offending as part of DIP.
**Drug Interventions Programme (DIP)**
The Drug Interventions Programme (DIP) was introduced in April 2003 with the aim of developing and integrating measures for directing adult drug-misusing offenders into drug treatment and reducing offending behaviour. The programme comprises of a number of interrelated interventions:
- Drug testing in police custody for specified Class A drugs – heroin, cocaine and crack cocaine – for individuals arrested for trigger offences (primarily offences related to acquisitive crime);
- Assessment following a positive test to establish the extent of the individual's drug-misuse, and whether the individual might benefit from further assessment, assistance or treatment; • Conditional cautioning which may include a DIP drug rehabilitative condition, tailored to the offender’s drug use and offending.
• Restriction on bail for adults who have tested positive and whose offence is a drug offence or is drug-related.
• Criminal Justice Integrated Teams (CJITs) manage offenders who have been referred to treatment and co-ordinate agencies and services so they offer access to joined-up treatment and support. They maintain strong links with both the National Probation Service and Prison Service to ensure the continuity of care whilst the offender is within the Criminal Justice System.
Legislative changes have broadened the scope of the programme:
• A major expansion of DIP took place in April 2006 to move the point of drug testing from the point of charge to the point of arrest and to introduce required (rather than voluntary) assessments. This change broadened the scope and size of the cohort coming into contact with DIP.
• The latest changes took effect from April 2011, when the authorisation to conduct Drug Testing on Arrest was extended across England & Wales. Drug testing on arrest previously occurred only in ‘intensive’ DIP areas, which had high levels of acquisitive crime.
Data Sources
Records of those who test positive are logged onto the Drugs Intervention Management Information System (DIMIS), which is managed by the Home Office. An extract of positive drug test records for the relevant period is used for a match to the PNC.
Offenders identified as drug misusers via CARAT teams and CJITs are also recorded onto DIMIS, from which an extract is taken for the relevant period to match to the PNC. OASys records are collated centrally within the Ministry of Justice in the OASys Data, Evaluation and Analysis Team (O-DEAT) database, from which an extract is taken for the relevant period to match to the PNC.
Identification of Prolific and other Priority offenders
The Prolific and other Priority Offenders Programme (PPO) aims to use a multi-agency approach to focus on a very small but hard core group of prolific/persistent offenders who commit disproportionate amounts of crime and cause disproportionate harm to their local communities. Full implementation of all three strands had commenced by the beginning of February 2005. In 2009, all local areas were asked to review their PPO schemes to ensure that the programme remained squarely focused on those offenders that were of most concern to the communities in which they live. The identification of a PPO is undertaken at a local level involving police, local authorities, prison and probation services and youth offending teams. The factors that influence the decision of whether an offender is included in the PPO programme are:
- the nature and volume of crimes they commit;
- the nature and volume of other harm they cause; and
- the detrimental impact they have on their community.
This process will typically involve police, prison and probation information systems and other tools available.
The size of the PPO caseload at a local level is influenced by a range of factors, including the number of offenders who meet the locally agreed selection criteria and the capacity of local partner agencies to provide the intensive management of offenders under PPO supervision.
PPO cohort data are derived from JTRACK, which is a management information and tracking tool used by practitioners in various criminal justice agencies to record details of the offenders being managed as PPOs in a local area. JTRACK relies on the accurate input of data by local users to ensure that the details of the caseload on the system reflect the caseload being managed. An extract of the caseload from JTRACK is taken for the relevant period to match to the PNC.
**Young offenders in secure accommodation**
Information about secure training centres (STCs) and secure children's homes (SCHs) comes from the Youth Justice Board's (YJB) Secure Accommodation Clearing House System (SACHS) database. The under 18 year olds in YOIs is also from SACHS, whereas information about young people aged 18 and held in YOIs is supplied by the Prison Service and private YOIs.
The quality of the information recorded on the SACHS database is generally assumed to be relatively high as it is a direct extract from an operational system which is used to place young people in custody. The extract uses a number of key fields for which completion is mandatory when booking a young person into custody.
**Data processing and analysis**
The data underpinning the results are considered by Ministry of Justice to be broadly robust. Considerable work has been carried out ensuring data quality, and the data have been used for research publications. Scrutiny of the data source continues in order to ensure the data remains reliable.
The National Audit Office (NAO) identified risk factors in its review of the reporting of PSA targets (NAO, 2005). The remainder of this section addresses these. Matching offender records
This process involves matching prison discharges and court order commencements data with the Police National Computer database. The process uses automated matching routines that look at offenders’ surnames, initials, and dates of birth, using direct name matching along with a variety of ‘sounds like’ algorithms. The matching algorithm also searches through PNC held information on alias names and dates of birth for offenders. However, not all offenders are matched and a thorough analysis of bias in the matching system has yet to be undertaken. Table 1 below shows that the overall matching rates between 2000 and 2009 have remained high. Additionally, matching rates are similar for both prison and court orders data.
Table 1: Matching rates for the different data sources for 2000, 2002-2009 cohorts
| | 2000 | 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | |----------------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------| | **Prison** | | | | | | | | | | | Prison discharges | 87,083 | 87,338 | 85,920 | 86,970 | 84,897 | 83,725 | 87,340 | 95,824 | 94,114 | | Automatically matched to the PNC | 80,572 | 81,211 | 80,121 | 81,125 | 79,398 | 78,285 | 81,874 | 90,021 | 88,745 | | Matched to an index date | 73,810 | 75,121 | 73,327 | 73,395 | 71,246 | 68,185 | 69,741 | 76,668 | 74,189 | | Percentage matched to the PNC | 92.5% | 93.0% | 93.3% | 93.3% | 93.5% | 93.5% | 93.7% | 93.9% | 94.3% | | Percentage matched to the PNC and index offences (not breach etc) | 84.8% | 86.0% | 85.3% | 84.4% | 83.9% | 81.4% | 79.9% | 80.0% | 78.8% | | **Court Orders** | | | | | | | | | | | Court order starts | 136,023 | 154,621 | 158,750 | 164,831 | 163,681 | 176,346 | 187,386 | 189,643 | 191,784 | | Automatically matched to the PNC | 123,540 | 142,838 | 146,257 | 154,075 | 158,416 | 172,906 | 184,740 | 187,253 | 190,128 | | Matched to an index date | 105,685 | 115,108 | 119,446 | 122,927 | 130,307 | 148,072 | 159,279 | 163,519 | 167,378 | | Percentage matched to the PNC | 90.8% | 92.4% | 93.4% | 93.5% | 96.8% | 98.0% | 98.6% | 98.7% | 99.1% | | Percentage matched to the PNC and index offences (not breach etc) | 77.7% | 74.4% | 75.2% | 74.6% | 79.6% | 84.0% | 85.0% | 86.2% | 87.3% | | **YJB** | | | | | | | | | | | YJB discharges | 1,337 | 1,612 | 1,521 | 1,551 | 1,564 | 1,553 | 1,647 | 1,626 | | | Automatically matched to the PNC | 1,226 | 1,502 | 1,425 | 1,448 | 1,464 | 1,463 | 1,537 | 1,564 | | | Matched to an index date | 680 | 818 | 785 | 800 | 769 | 780 | 845 | 817 | | | Percentage matched to the PNC | 91.7% | 93.2% | 93.7% | 93.4% | 93.6% | 94.2% | 93.3% | 96.2% | | | Percentage matched to the PNC and index date | 50.9% | 50.7% | 51.6% | 51.6% | 49.2% | 50.2% | 51.3% | 50.2% | |
The total number of offenders matched to the PNC is substantially higher than the final figure for the cohorts – for example, in 2009 there were 280,437 matched offenders but a final cohort size of 242,384. The main reasons for these discrepancies are:
- Conviction dates for the beginning of the community, suspended or custodial sentence do not match the conviction date within seven days of the criminal records database (PNC);
- The index offence was not dealt with by a Home Office police force – this ensures that only offences in England and Wales are counted;
- Exclusion of all offenders where the index offence is a breach, since we are only interested in new offences; and,
- Exclusion of Multiple Offender Entries (see above for a description).
Counting rules
The counting rules for choosing which prison discharges to include offer a variety of choices. For instance, it makes little sense to include offenders deported on release or who have died. These counting rules were enumerated and discussed to ensure a more accurate and consistent count and are reviewed on an annual basis to ensure a consistent approach. Complexity of data processing and analysis The data processing involved for measuring re-offending is complex. To analyse re-offending behaviour by previous offending or disposal history requires the extraction of criminal histories that can span a number of decades, and the subsequent matching of these histories against the probation caseload files and prison discharges in order to generate a dataset.
The extraction of the criminal histories To quality assure the extraction of criminal histories, a small set of random samples of offenders was taken after the analysis to check, via a basic validation, that outputs of the SQL (Structured Query Language) program are accurate outcomes and the Ministry of Justice is confident that this process has been successful.
Level of subjectivity There is relatively little subjectivity in the system. Occasional judgements are required (e.g. where to classify an offence) but these will not significantly influence the results.
Maturity and stability of the data system The system is well established having been used a number of times to produce re-offending statistics for publication. Nonetheless, vigilance continues to be exercised to ensure the validity of the results.
Expertise of those who operate the system Prison and court order data-feeds are continually monitored and improvement work is regularly undertaken to improve the reliability and the accuracy of datasets. The internal processing of the results within the Ministry of Justice has been subject to dip sampling of criminal histories and the statistical model has been extensively tested.
Interpreting trends in the proportion of offenders who commit a serious re-offence against the person Care should be taken when interpreting the severity rate for the following reasons:
- **Time through the CJS** – more serious offences are likely to take a longer time to progress through the Criminal Justice System than less serious offences. The proven re-offending statistics track proven re-offending behaviour for a year upon offenders entering the cohort, plus an additional six months for convictions to be updated on the system. There is a risk that this time scale is not long enough to capture the most serious offences. However, analysis suggests that the number of serious proven re-offences picked up by the measure remains comparatively stable year on year, ensuring performance is comparable over time.
- **Reporting variation** – variation in reporting time between police force areas and courts may also have an impact on how many serious offences are captured during the one-year follow up period. Data on historical trends
The data used to measure re-offending is from the Police National Computer (PNC). Police forces started to enter criminal records locally in 1995. In order to allow time for good practice among police forces in entering data onto the PNC to become embedded, PNC data was used to measure re-offending for the first time in 2000. In the headline bulletin, results are compared to 2000 to highlight long-term trends because it is the earliest data on re-offending that exists on a comparable basis. Results prior to 2000 cannot be compared to results from 2000 onwards for two main reasons:
- Change in data source – re-offences are measured using data from the Police National Computer (which covers recordable offences), whereas data from years before 2000 was measured using the offenders index (which covered a narrower range of offences)
- Change in measurement – the concept being measured from 2000 onwards in these reports is that of using the offences date to measure re-offences (a period of time is allowed for offences to be committed, and a further period allowed for these offences to be proved by caution, reprimand, final warning or court conviction), whereas the concept being measured prior to 2000 was that of using the conviction date to measure re-convictions (any conviction occurring in a set period of time, whether or not the offence occurred in that time period).
However the compendium of re-offending statistics and analysis published in November 2010 provides the most consistent statistical series possible between 1971 and 2006, adjusting for known methodological changes. For more information please refer to Chapter 4.4 at the following link:
www.justice.gov.uk/publications/statistics-and-data/reoffending/compendium-of-reoffending-statistics-and-analysis.htm
Results for 2001 cannot be calculated for offenders on Court Orders because of a problem with archived data on court orders.
Local breakdowns of the headline re-offending rates are available from 2005 onwards. Re-offending data is broken down by locality using the address and post-code information of the offender. Where this information is missing, the location of the processing police force is used instead. This is not a completely reliable indicator of the offender’s home address as offenders may offend in a different locality than where they reside. The completeness of this information has improved over time. In 2000, this information was omitted for 29 per cent of cases, which was considered too high to produce reliable results. By 2005, this was reduced to 16.5 per cent, and there has been a continuing downward trend since then. Statistical Modelling and Coefficients
Introduction The characteristics of proven offenders are likely to be systematically different over time and by sentence type and as the Criminal Justice System targets particular sentences to offenders most likely to benefit from that type. It is therefore important to note that it is not possible to reach firm conclusions about changes in rates over time, nor about the relative effectiveness of different sentence types, from actual proven re-offending rates.
The Ministry of Justice has developed models to address these two issues:
- modelling to adjust the baseline to reflect changes in offender characteristics (see below)
- modelling to match offenders across sentence types to make valid comparisons (see The Compendium of Reoffending Statistics and Analysis 2011 www.justice.gov.uk/publications/statistics-and-data/reoffending/compendium-of-reoffending-statistics-and-analysis.htm)
Modelling to adjust for the varying composition of the cohort of offenders over time If the composition of the cohorts of offenders being compared differs significantly over time so that the type of offenders in one year is inherently more (or less) likely to re-offend, this may result in an apparent rise or fall in the re-offending rates even when there may be no 'real' difference for similar offenders over that time. In order to address this problem, we have adopted the following solution:
- modelling the likelihood of proven re-offending based on known offender characteristics using historic data (which will be defined as the baseline)
- identifying the characteristics of the most recent cohort
- using the model, adjusting the baseline proven re-offending rate to match these characteristics
- comparing this adjusted rate with the current rate to make a more realistic estimate of trends over time.
In previous publications of proven re-offending statistics, this approach has been referred to as the predicted rate of proven re-offending.
Statistical model The 2008 statistical model is an update and improvement on the 2000 and 2005 logistic regression models and includes a range of offender characteristics available from the Police National Computer (PNC), such as age, gender, offence group and criminal history.
The logistic regression model based on the 2008 data identifies a statistically significant set of variables that are related to proven re-offending and based on these provides a probability of proven re-offending for each offender. However, other factors, for which data on these samples are not available, such as drug and alcohol use, employment, accommodation and marital background are likely to be significantly related to re-offending.
This means that the adjusted proven re-offending rates are only valid for terms included in the final model. Any adjusted proven re-offending rates for groups of offenders that have a common characteristic that is not in the final model (e.g. employment status or disposal type) can suffer from statistical biases and are, therefore, unreliable.
For the 2008 model additional developments were included to ensure that the adjusted rate model was a more parsimonious model, more robust against changes in the number of offenders, and that interaction terms and non-linear terms were included where appropriate. The final decision for inclusion or exclusion of particular variables was heavily influenced by their statistical significance (typically p < 0.10).
The Ministry of Justice believes that the method used for the construction of the statistical model for producing adjusted rates is robust and fit for purpose.
Variables included
The following notes provide some further detail on the 2008 model and show the relative impacts of different variables when holding all other variables constant.
Gender Gender is included in the model as a categorical variable separating out males and females. Generally, males are more likely to commit a proven re-offence than females.
Age Age is included in the model for adults as a linear, quadratic and cubed term and is included for juveniles as a categorical variable separating offenders into seven age bands. Generally, younger adults are more likely to commit a proven re-offence than older adults, and older juveniles are more likely to re-offend than younger juveniles.
Index offence The index offence represents the offence that led to the offender entering the cohort. Index offences were classified into 21 broad categories and their relative coefficients are shown in relation to the reference category violence. To ensure the reliability and replicability of the model coefficients, any index offences with low numbers were grouped with the ‘other’ index offence group.
Ethnicity Ethnicity is derived from the PNC and reflects the officer’s view of the offender’s ethnicity. Thus, ethnicity in this model should be taken as a proxy for the actual ethnicity and the results should not be over-interpreted because any biases in the assessment are unknown. Ethnicity was a statistically significant factor, making it an important factor to control for and therefore it was included in the model.
**Copas rate** The Copas rate (Copas and Marshall, 1998) controls for the rate at which an offender has built up convictions throughout their criminal career. The higher the rate, the more convictions an offender has in a given amount of time, and the more likely it is that an offender will be re-convicted. The Copas rate formula is:
[ \\text{copas rate} = \\log_e \\left( \\frac{\\text{Number of court appearances or cautions} + 1}{\\text{Length of criminal career in years} + 10} \\right) ]
For adults the copas rate is included as a linear and quadratic, but for juveniles it is included as a linear term only. As mentioned above, inclusion of variables was heavily influenced by their statistical significance.
**Length of criminal career** An offender’s criminal career is a significant factor in predicting the likelihood of a re-offence and this relationship is quadratic, thus both linear and quadratic terms were included in the model.
**Total number of previous offences** The total number of previous offences is a significant factor in predicting the likelihood of a re-offending. The previous offending variables counted cautions and convictions and were included as linear and logged variables.
**Previous custodial sentences** For adults, the number of previous custodial sentences was implemented as a continuous variable in both linear and quadratic terms. For juveniles, previous custodial sentences were included as a binary term: had the offender received one or more previous custodial sentences, yes or no. The difference in treatment reflects the more limited custodial history juvenile offenders generally possess compared to adult offenders.
**Counts of previous offending by type of offence** For adults, the number of previous offences by type of offence was an improvement over simple ‘yes or no’ variables for recording the presence of prior offences in the relevant categories. For juvenile offenders, simple ‘yes or no’ variables for recording the presence of prior offences in the relevant categories performed better. The difference in treatment reflects the more limited offending history juvenile offenders generally possess compared to adult offenders.
**Interaction terms** Interaction terms are calculated by multiplying two factors together. The inclusion of these terms allows the effect of one variable to vary according to the values of another, improving the quality of predictions. This is important because three factors (gender, age and total number of previous offences) are not completely independent of each other. For adults, interaction terms were also included for drug-misusing offenders as they showed some trends in their proven re-offending behaviour that were different from the more general offending population.
**Model assessment**
The model is assessed by calculating the level of discrimination between offenders that committed a proven re-offence and offenders that did not. The adult logistic regression model achieved a 78.9 per cent overall discrimination level on the 2008 cohort and 72.4 per cent for the juvenile logistic regression model. A level of discrimination of about 70% was deemed to be acceptable and the model should predict results accurately enough for the predicted rate to be used. The discrimination can also be evaluated by calculating the Area Under Curve (AUC) for the Receiver Operator Characteristic curve. Again, the value for the model was .784 for the adult regression model in 2008 and .716 for the youth regression model which means a satisfactory level of discrimination (Hosmer and Lemeshow, 2000, p.162).
**Coefficients of the 2008 statistical model**
The following tables (2 and 3) show the parameter estimates for the various components of the logistic regression model for the predicted one-year proven re-offending rates for adults and young offenders.
Each logistic coefficient is multiplied by the variable value for each offender to calculate a linear prediction. To calculate each offender’s predicted probability of committing a proven re-offence in the follow-up period or a further 6 month waiting period we transform the linear prediction Z using the following formula:
[ \\text{Predicted Probability of Reoffending} = \\frac{\\exp(Z)}{1 + \\exp(Z)} ]
The exponent of the coefficient is the odds ratio of committing a proven re-offence corresponding to the particular coefficient and enables us to make comparisons between different categories. For factors with interactions (e.g. age and gender) the interpretation is more complex.
The significance (p-value) gives us an assessment of how significant each variable is in predicting the likelihood of an offender to commit a proven re-offence within one year. For modelling purposes, a probability value (p-value) of less than 0.05 is considered to be significant. Table 2: List of variables in the logistic regression model applied to the 2008 data on adult offenders and their respective coefficients
| Variables | Coefficient | Logs-odd ratios | P-value | Variables | Coefficient | Logs-odd ratios | P-value | |-----------|-------------|-----------------|---------|-----------|-------------|-----------------|---------| | Constant | 1.940 | 6.958 | 0.000 | Violence | -0.361 | 0.697 | 0.000 | | Gender: | | | | Robbery | 0.462 | 1.620 | 0.000 | | Female | Reference category | | | Theft | 0.173 | 1.189 | 0.000 | | Male | 0.645 | 1.906 | 0.000 | Handling | 0.180 | 1.198 | 0.000 | | Age: | | | | Taking and driving away | 0.253 | 1.288 | 0.000 | | Age | -0.250 | 0.779 | 0.000 | Sexual child | -0.465 | 0.628 | 0.000 | | Age squared | 0.006 | 1.006 | 0.000 | Soliciting/prostitution | 0.253 | 1.288 | 0.000 | | Age cubed | -0.00004 | 1.000 | 0.000 | Domestic burglary | 0.148 | 1.159 | 0.000 | | Male * age interaction | -0.013 | 0.988 | 0.000 | Other burglary | 0.337 | 1.401 | 0.000 | | General criminal career variables: | | | | Theft from vehicles | 0.478 | 1.612 | 0.000 | | Previous offences | -0.006 | 0.994 | 0.000 | Drink driving | -0.154 | 0.857 | 0.000 | | Previous offences (logged) | 0.391 | 1.478 | 0.000 | Criminal damage | 0.226 | 1.254 | 0.000 | | Male * previous offences interaction | -0.003 | 0.997 | 0.000 | Drug supply | -0.400 | 0.670 | 0.000 | | Previous prison sentences | 0.045 | 1.046 | 0.000 | Drug possession | 0.074 | 1.077 | 0.000 | | Previous prison sentences (logged) | -0.060 | 0.942 | 0.000 | Drug test | -1.167 | 0.311 | 0.000 | | Career length | -0.0001 | 1.000 | 0.000 | Absconding and bail | 0.364 | 1.440 | 0.000 | | Career length squared | 0.000 | 1.000 | 0.069 | Number of previous offences: | | | | | Copas rate squared | -0.064 | 0.938 | 0.000 | Public order | 0.052 | 1.053 | 0.000 | | PPO offender | 0.528 | 1.696 | 0.000 | Sexual | 0.035 | 1.036 | 0.000 | | Drug-misusing offender | 1.422 | 4.146 | 0.000 | Domestic burglary | -0.006 | 0.994 | 0.005 | | Ethnicity: | | | | Theft | 0.012 | 1.012 | 0.000 | | White | Reference category | | | Handling | -0.010 | 0.990 | 0.002 | | White other | 0.324 | 1.383 | 0.000 | Absconding and bail | 0.018 | 1.018 | 0.000 | | Black | 0.161 | 1.175 | 0.000 | Taking and driving away | -0.007 | 0.993 | 0.003 | | Pacific | 0.210 | 1.233 | 0.000 | Criminal damage | 0.017 | 1.017 | 0.000 | | Middle East | 0.130 | 1.138 | 0.003 | Drug supply | -0.044 | 0.957 | 0.000 | | Interaction with drug-misusing offenders: | | | | Drug possession | 0.013 | 1.013 | 0.000 | | Previous offences (logged) | -0.156 | 0.855 | 0.000 | Other | -0.002 | 0.998 | 0.073 | | Index offence of drug supply | -0.430 | 0.651 | 0.000 | | | | | | Index offence of drug possession | -0.550 | 0.577 | 0.000 | | | | | Table 3: List of variables in the logistic regression model applied to the 2008 data on young offenders and their respective coefficients
| Variables | Coefficient | Logs-odd ratios | P-value | Variables | Coefficient | Logs-odd ratios | P-value | |-----------|-------------|-----------------|---------|-----------|-------------|-----------------|---------| | Constant | -1.495 | 0.224 | 0.000 | Reference category | Violence | 0.130 | 1.139 | 0.003 | | Gender: | | | | Robbery | 0.178 | 1.195 | 0.000 | | Female | Reference category | Public order or riot | -0.578 | 0.561 | 0.000 | | Male | 0.527 | 1.693 | 0.000 | Sexual offences against children | -1.157 | 0.314 | 0.000 | | Age: | | | | Domestic burglary | 0.233 | 1.262 | 0.000 | | Aged 10-11| Reference category | Other burglary | 0.083 | 1.087 | 0.026 | | Aged 12 | 0.354 | 1.425 | 0.000 | Theft | -0.088 | 0.916 | 0.000 | | Aged 13 | 0.448 | 1.566 | 0.000 | Handling | 0.118 | 1.126 | 0.018 | | Aged 14 | 0.431 | 1.538 | 0.000 | Fraud or forgery | -0.251 | 0.778 | 0.000 | | Aged 15 | 0.185 | 1.106 | 0.000 | Absconding or bail offences | 0.176 | 1.192 | 0.022 | | Aged 16 | -0.124 | 0.883 | 0.017 | Taking and driving away | 0.116 | 1.123 | 0.003 | | Aged 17 | -0.202 | 0.817 | 0.000 | Theft from vehicles | 0.264 | 1.302 | 0.000 | | | | | | Drunk driving | -0.488 | 0.614 | 0.000 | | Interactions between age and gender: | | | | | | | | | Female at any age | Reference category | Any previous offences: | | | | | | | Male aged 10-11 | Reference category | Violence | 0.039 | 1.039 | 0.062 | | Male aged 12 | -0.276 | 0.759 | 0.000 | Robbery | 0.101 | 1.108 | 0.011 | | Male aged 13 | -0.214 | 0.807 | 0.000 | Public order or riot | -0.143 | 1.154 | 0.000 | | Male aged 14 | -0.157 | 0.855 | 0.000 | Domestic burglary | 0.166 | 1.181 | 0.000 | | Male aged 15 | 0.134 | 1.144 | 0.002 | Other burglary | 0.099 | 1.104 | 0.001 | | Male aged 16 | 0.113 | 1.120 | 0.013 | Theft | 0.135 | 1.144 | 0.000 | | Male aged 17 | 0.113 | 1.120 | 0.013 | Handling | 0.107 | 1.113 | 0.009 | | General criminal career variables: | | | | | | | | | Career length | 0.000 | 1.000 | 0.000 | Taking and driving away | 0.088 | 1.093 | 0.012 | | Career length squared | 0.000 | 1.000 | 0.000 | Theft from vehicles | 0.125 | 1.133 | 0.012 | | Copas rate | 0.128 | 1.137 | 0.001 | Drunk driving | -0.245 | 0.783 | 0.033 | | Previous offences | -0.036 | 0.964 | 0.000 | Criminal or malicious damage | 0.069 | 1.071 | 0.001 | | Previous offences (logged) | 0.920 | 2.510 | 0.000 | Other | 0.138 | 1.148 | 0.001 | | Previous prison sentence(s) | 0.124 | 1.132 | 0.022 | Miscellaneous | -0.689 | 0.502 | 0.014 | | PPO offender | 0.930 | 2.534 | 0.000 | Breaches | 0.762 | 2.144 | 0.007 | | Ethnicity: | | | | | | | | | White | Reference category | Unknown | -0.823 | 0.439 | 0.000 | | White (other) | 0.196 | 1.217 | 0.000 | | Black | 0.187 | 1.106 | 0.000 | | Asian | -0.200 | 0.819 | 0.000 | | Pacific | -0.468 | 0.626 | 0.001 | Additional modelling for prison performance
Assessing the performance of individual prisons in reducing re-offending is difficult because the particular characteristics of offenders that are at a particular prison are likely to be the main drivers behind re-offending.
A statistical methodology has been developed to examine prison re-offending rates that not only takes account of offence, offender and prison characteristics, but also takes account of the hierarchical structure of the data; i.e. that offenders are within prisons.
Two separate models were developed: for prisoners receiving sentences of fewer than 12 months and prisoners with sentences of 12 months or over. The separate models for prisoners with sentences of fewer than 12 months and 12 months or more reflects differences in prisoners’ re-offending behaviour by prison sentence length.
The model used for both types of offender was a logistic regression model with mixed effects (fixed and random). The outcome variable is a binary yes/no variable representing whether an offender re-offends or not. Offender characteristics are included as fixed independent variables and the prisons are included as a random effect component which allows each prison to interact with the fixed effects differently.
The variables included in the model were similar to those used to develop the adjusted baseline described above: age, ethnicity, index offence, previous offences, previous prison sentences, copas scores, and criminal career, as well as the random effects component of prisons. The goodness-of-fit by AUC was satisfactory, above 0.77 in all cases.
Considerable preliminary analysis has been undertaken investigating the relative important of offence, offender and prison-level variables in explaining custodial re-offending. This analysis has overwhelmingly shown that offence and offender-level variables shape re-offending whereas prison-level variables refine re-offending behaviour. For this reason, the model uses offender and offence-level variables and only models prison-level effects using a single random effects component.
This model generates an expected probability of re-offending for each offender. When aggregated up to the prison it produces an expected proportion of offenders who re-offend. This can be compared with the actual rate of re-offending.
Where the model-predicted re-offending rate was statistically significantly different to actual re-offending rates, two possible explanations are plausible:
1. Missing characteristics: it is possible that there are underlying offence, offender or prison characteristics affecting re-offending behaviour that are not included in the current model; or,
2. A genuine difference: there is something specific to these prisons that make them better/worse than predicted.
Additional modelling for probation performance Results in the headline measure are compared to a baseline rate, adjusted for changes in the offender profile. This relies on an estimate of the relationship between offender characteristics and proven re-offending behaviour over twelve-months. An equivalent estimate has been carried out for the proven re-offending behaviour specifically of offenders commencing court orders. This uses the same variables as the headline measure plus additional variables to ensure that the actual and predicted rates are identical for every probation trust in the baseline period (2008). The tables accompanying the report present the adjusted baseline for each trust.
Differences between the prison and probation trusts models and the model for the adjusted baseline for the headline measure
- The adjusted baseline for the headline measure applies to all offenders; the prison and probation models only apply to offenders discharged from custody or given a Court Order.
- The adjusted baseline for the headline measure is created using a fixed effects model using only offender and offence level variables; the probation model does the same, but the prison models use offender and offence level variables and also include a random component to reflect that prisoners are located within prisons.
- The adjusted baseline for the headline measure and for the probation model is derived using data from a baseline year (2008). The observed re-offending is equal to the predicted re-offending for the baseline year; the model coefficients are then applied to subsequent years and the predicted rates begins to differ from the actual rates. Provided the baseline year model is frequently refreshed, this ensures that any deviations of the actual re-offending rate from the predicted rate are due to system changes and not due to changes in the cohort make up. This approach enables us to assess progress in reducing re-offending.
Whereas, the prison model are generated from scratch every year and assess if any prison or probation trust differs from the national average. As with the previous approach, the observed re-offending rate is still equal to the predicted re-offending for the prison population as a whole. It will not necessarily be the case for individual prisons. This approach provides an idea of which prisons have significantly lower (or higher) re-offending rates than predicted.
Work is underway to develop an equivalent model for probation trusts to the one used for prisons. Appendix A: List of serious offences
Serious violence against the person
1. Murder:
1. Of persons aged 1 year or over.
2. Of infants under 1 year of age.
2. Attempted murder.
3. Manslaughter, etc:
1. Manslaughter.
2. Infanticide.
3. Child destruction.
4. Wounding or other act endangering life:
01. Wounding, etc. with intent to do grievous bodily harm, etc. or to resist apprehension.
02. Shooting at naval or revenue vessels.
03. Attempting to choke, suffocate, etc. with intent to commit an indictable offence (garrotting).
04. Using chloroform, etc. to commit or assist in committing an indictable offence.
05. Burning, maiming, etc. by explosion.
06. Causing explosions or casting corrosive fluids with intent to do grievous bodily harm.
07. Impeding the saving of life from shipwreck.
08. Placing, etc. explosives in or near ships or buildings with intent to do bodily harm, etc.
09. Endangering life or causing harm by administering poison.
10. Causing danger by causing anything to be on road, interfering with a vehicle or traffic equipment.
11. Possession, etc. of explosives with intent to endanger life.
12. Possession of firearms, etc. with intent to endanger life or injure property, etc. (Group I).
13. Possession of firearms, etc. with intent to endanger life or injure property, etc. (Group II).
14. Possession of firearms, etc. with intent to endanger life or injure property, etc. (Group III).
15. Using, etc. firearms or imitation firearms with intent to resist arrest, etc. (Group I).
16. Using, etc. firearms or imitation firearms with intent to resist arrest, etc. (Group II).
17. Using, etc. firearms or imitation firearms with intent to resist arrest, etc. (Group III). [Group I - Firearms, etc. other than as described in Group II or III. Group II - Shotguns as defined in s.1 (3)(a) of the Firearms Act 1968. Group III - Air weapons as defined in s.1 (3)(b) of the Firearms Act 1968]
18. Use etc. of chemical weapons.
19. Use of premises or equipment for producing chemical weapons.
20. Use, threat to use, production or possession of a nuclear weapon.
21. Weapons related acts overseas.
22. Use of noxious substances or things to cause harm or intimidate.
23. Performing an aviation function or ancillary function when ability to carry out function is impaired because of drink or drugs.
24. Endangering safety at sea/aerodromes.
25. Torture.
5. Other wounding, etc:
1. Wounding or inflicting grievous bodily harm (inflicting bodily injury with or without weapon).
6. Racially aggravated wounding or inflicting grievous bodily harm (inflicting bodily injury with or without weapon).
7. Religiously aggravated malicious wounding or GBH.
8. Racially or religiously aggravated malicious wounding or grievous bodily harm.
Sexual offences
017. Sexual assault on a male (previously indecent assault on a male):
018. Indecent assault on male person under 16 years.
019. Indecent assault on male person 16 years or over.
020. Assault on a male by penetration.
021. Assault of a male child under 13 by penetration.
022. Sexual assault on a male.
023. Sexual assault of a male child under 13.
024. Rape:
025. Man having unlawful sexual intercourse with a woman who is a defective.
026. Male member of staff of hospital or mental nursing home having unlawful sexual intercourse with female patient.
027. Man having unlawful sexual intercourse with mentally disordered female patient who is subject to his care.
028. Rape of a female aged under 16.
029. Rape of a female aged 16 or over.
030. Rape of a male aged under 16.
031. Rape of a male aged 16 or over.
032. Attempted rape of a female aged under 16.
033. Attempted rape of a female aged 16 or over.
034. Attempted rape of a male aged under 16.
035. Attempted rape of a male aged 16 or over.
036. Rape of female child under 13 by a male.
037. Rape of a male child under 13 by a male.
038. Attempted rape of a female child under 13 by a male.
039. Attempted rape of a male child under 13 by a male.
040. Sexual assault on female (previously indecent assault on a female):
041. On females under 16 years of age.
042. On females aged 16 years and over.
043. Assault on a female by penetration.
044. Assault on a female child under 13 by penetration.
045. Sexual assault on a female.
046. Sexual assault on a female child under 13.
047. Sexual activity (male and female) (including with a child under 13) (previously unlawful intercourse with a girl under 13):
048. Causing or inciting a female child under 13 to engage in sexual activity - penetration.
049. Causing or inciting a female child under 13 to engage in sexual activity - no penetration.
050. Causing or inciting a male child under 13 to engage in sexual activity - penetration.
051. Causing or inciting a male child under 13 to engage in sexual activity - no penetration.
052. Sexual activity with a female child under 13 - offender aged 18 or over - penetration.
053. Sexual activity with a male child under 13 - offender aged 18 or over - penetration.
054. Causing or inciting a female child under 13 to engage in sexual activity - offender aged 18 or over - penetration.
055. Causing or inciting a male child under 13 to engage in sexual activity - offender aged 18 or over - penetration.
056. Engaging in sexual activity in the presence of a child under 13 (offender aged 18 or over).
057. Causing a child under 13 to watch a sexual act (offender aged 18 or over).
058. Sexual activity with a female child under 13 - offender aged under 18.
059. Sexual activity with a male child under 13 - offender aged under 18.
060. Causing of inciting a female child under 13 to engage in sexual activity - offender under 18.
061. Causing or inciting a male child under 13 to engage in sexual activity - offender under 18.
062. Engaging in sexual activity in the presence of a child under 13 - offender under 18.
063. Causing a child under 13 to watch a sexual act - offender under 18.
064. Sexual activity with a female under 13 - offender aged 18 or over - no penetration.
065. Sexual activity with a male child under 13 - offender aged 18 or over - no penetration.
066. Causing or inciting a female child under 13 to engage in sexual activity - offender aged 18 or over - no penetration.
067. Causing or inciting a male child under 13 to engage in sexual activity - offender aged 18 or over - no penetration.
068. Sexual activity with a female child under 16 - offender aged 18 or over - no penetration.
069. Sexual activity with a male child under 16 - offender aged 18 or over - no penetration.
070. Causing or inciting a female child under 16 to engage in sexual activity - offender aged 18 or over - no penetration.
071. Causing or inciting a male child under 16 to engage in sexual activity - offender aged 18 or over - no penetration.
072. Sexual activity (male and female) (including with a child under 16) (previously unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl under 16):
073. Unlawful sexual intercourse with girl under 16 (offences committed prior to 1 May 2004).
074. Causing a female person to engage in sexual activity without consent - penetration
075. Causing a male person to engage in sexual activity without consent - penetration
076. Causing a female person to engage in sexual activity without consent - no penetration.
077. Causing a male person to engage in sexual activity without consent - no penetration.
078. Sexual activity with a female child under 16 (offender aged 18 or over) - penetration
079. Sexual activity with a male child under 16 (offender aged 18 or over) - penetration
080. Causing or inciting a female child under 16 to engage in sexual activity (offender aged 18 or over) - penetration
081. Causing of inciting a male child under 16 to engage in sexual activity (offender aged 18 or over) - penetration
082. Engaging in sexual activity in the presence of a child under 16 (offender aged 18 or over).
083. Causing a child under 16 to watch a sexual act (offender aged 18 or over).
084. Sexual activity with a female child under 16 - offender aged 18 or over - no penetration.
085. Sexual activity with a male child under 16 - offender aged 18 or over - no penetration.
086. Causing or inciting a female child under 16 to engage in sexual activity (offender aged 18 or over) - no penetration.
087. Causing or inciting a male child under 16 to engage in sexual activity (offender aged 18 or over) - no penetration.
088. Sexual activity etc. with a person with a mental disorder:
089. Sexual activity with a male person with a mental disorder impeding choice – penetration.
090. Sexual activity with a female person with a mental disorder impeding choice – penetration.
091. Sexual activity with a male person with a mental disorder impeding choice - no penetration.
092. Sexual activity with a female person with a mental disorder impeding choice - no penetration.
093. Causing or inciting a male person with a mental disorder impeding choice to engage in sexual activity – penetration.
094. Causing or inciting a female person with a mental disorder impeding choice to engage in sexual activity – penetration.
095. Causing or inciting a male person with a mental disorder impeding choice to engage in sexual activity – penetration.
096. Causing or inciting a female person with a mental disorder impeding choice to engage in sexual activity - no penetration.
097. Engaging in sexual activity in the presence of a person with a mental disorder impeding choice.
098. Causing a person with a mental disorder impeding choice to watch a sexual act.
099. Inducement, threat or deception to procure sexual activity with a person with a mental disorder – penetration.
100. Inducement, threat or deception to procure sexual activity with a person with a mental disorder - no penetration.
101. Causing a person with a mental disorder to engage in sexual activity by inducement, threat or deception - penetration.
102. Causing a person with a mental disorder to engage in sexual activity by inducement, threat or deception - no penetration.
103. Engaging in sexual activity in the presence, procured by inducement, threat or deception, of a person with a mental disorder.
104. Causing a person with a mental disorder to watch a sexual act by inducement, threat or deception.
105. Care workers: Sexual activity with a male person with a mental disorder - penetration.
106. Care workers: Sexual activity with a female person with a mental disorder - penetration.
107. Care workers: Sexual activity with a male person with a mental disorder - no penetration.
108. Care workers: Sexual activity with a female person with a mental disorder - no penetration.
109. Care workers: Causing or inciting sexual activity (person with a mental disorder) - penetration.
110. Care workers: Causing or inciting sexual activity (person with a mental disorder) - no penetration.
111. Care workers: Sexual activity in the presence of a person with a mental disorder.
112. Care workers: Causing a person with a mental disorder impeding choice to watch a sexual act.
113. Abuse of children through prostitution and pornography (previously child prostitution and pornography):
114. Arranging or facilitating the commission of a child sex offence.
115. Paying for sex with a female child under 13 - penetration
116. Paying for sex with a male child under 13 - penetration
117. Paying for sex with a female child under 16 - no penetration
118. Paying for sex with a male child under 16 - no penetration
119. Paying for sex with a female child aged 16 or 17.
120. Paying for sex with a male child aged 16 or 17.
121. Causing or inciting child prostitution or pornography - child aged 13-17.
122. Controlling a child prostitute or a child involved in pornography - child aged 13-17.
123. Arranging or facilitating child prostitution or pornography - child aged 13-17.
124. Causing or inciting child prostitution or pornography - child under 13.
125. Controlling a child prostitute or child involved in pornography - child under 13.
126. Arranging or facilitating child prostitution or pornography - child under 13.
127. Paying for sex with a female child aged under 16 - penetration
128. Paying for sex with a male child aged under 16 - penetration
129. Trafficking for sexual exploitation:
130. Arranging or facilitating arrival of a person into the UK for sexual exploitation (trafficking).
131. Arranging or facilitating travel of a person within the UK for sexual exploitation (trafficking).
132. Arranging or facilitating departure of a person from the UK for sexual exploitation (trafficking).
Taking and driving away and related offences
37. Aggravated vehicle taking:
38. Where, owing to the driving of the vehicle, an accident occurs causing the death of any person.
Other motoring offences
4. Manslaughter, etc: 4. Causing death by dangerous driving. 8. (Offences) Causing death by careless or inconsiderate driving (Offences due to commence in Autumn 2007).
Drink driving offences
4. Manslaughter, etc: 6. Causing death by careless driving when under the influence of drink or drugs. Serious acquisitive offences
Burglary
1. Burglary in a dwelling with intent to commit or the commission of an offence triable only on indictment.
2. Burglary in a dwelling with violence or the threat of violence.
3. Other burglary in a dwelling.
4. Aggravated burglary in a dwelling (including attempts)
Robbery
1. Robbery
2. Assault with intent to rob.
Taking and driving away
1. Aggravated taking where the vehicle was driven dangerously on a road or other public place
2. Aggravated taking where owing to the driving of the vehicle an accident occurred causing injury to any person or damage to any property other than the vehicle
Theft from or of vehicles
1. Stealing from motor vehicles.
2. Stealing from other vehicles.
3. Theft of motor vehicle.
4. Unauthorised taking of a motor vehicle Appendix B: Glossary of Terms
Re-offending terms
**Cohort** - this is the group of individuals whose re-offending is measured.
**Index offence** - the index offence is the proven offence that leads to an offender being included in the cohort.
**Index disposal** - the index disposal of the offender is the type of sentence the offender received for their index offence.
**Start point (also known as the index date)** - this is the set point in time from when re-offences are measured.
**Follow up period** - this is the length of time proven re-offending is measured over.
**Waiting period** - this is the additional time beyond the follow up period to allow for offences committed towards the end of the follow up period to be proved by a court conviction, caution, reprimand or final warning.
**Adjusted baseline** - proven re-offending is related to the characteristics of offenders which means that any overall rate of proven re-offending will depend, in part, on the characteristics of offenders coming into the system (just as the examination pass rate of a school will be related to the characteristics of its pupils). We use a modelling technique to produce a baseline figure adjusted to match the characteristics of the cohort we are comparing. For more details see the chapter on Statistical modelling and coefficients.
**Reconviction** – where an offender is convicted at court for an offence committed within a set follow up period and convicted within either the follow up period or waiting period
**Proven re-offence** – where an offender is convicted at court or receives some other form of criminal justice sanction for an offence committed within a set follow up period and disposed of within either the follow up period or waiting period.
**Cohort definitions used in the Proven Re-offending statistic quarterly bulletin in England and Wales publication**
The proven re-offending cohort consists of all offenders discharged from custody, otherwise sanctioned at court, receiving a caution, reprimand or warning or tested positive for opiates or cocaine in each year. This cohort’s criminal history is collated and criminal behaviour is tracked over the following one year. Any offence committed in this one-year period which is proven by a court conviction or out-of-court disposal (either in the one-year period, or in a further six months waiting period) counts as a proven re-offence.
The latest available publication is the Proven Re-offending statistic quarterly bulletin in England and Wales; Ministry of Justice, October 2011.
**Cohort definitions used in the Local Measure of Re-offending quarterly bulletin publication**
The local adult re-offending measure takes a snapshot of all offenders, aged 18 or over, who are under probation supervision at the end of a quarter, and combines four such snapshots together.
This cohort’s criminal history is collated and criminal behaviour is tracked over the following three months. Any offence committed in this three month period which is proven by a court conviction or out-of-court disposal (either in the three month period, or in a further three months waiting period) counts as a proven re-offence.
Results from this publication are available at [www.justice.gov.uk/publications/statistics-and-data/reoffending/local-adult-reoffending.htm](http://www.justice.gov.uk/publications/statistics-and-data/reoffending/local-adult-reoffending.htm)
**Cohort definitions used in the previous Adult re-convictions in England and Wales publication**
The adult re-conviction cohort consists of adults discharged from custody or commencing a court order under probation supervision in the first quarter of each year. This cohort’s criminal history is collated and criminal behaviour is tracked over the following one year. Any offence committed in this one-year period which is proven by a court conviction (either in the one-year period, or in a further six months waiting period) counts as a reconviction.
The last publication in this series is the Adult re-convictions: results from the 2009 cohort; Ministry of Justice, March 2011.
[www.justice.gov.uk/publications/statistics-and-data/reoffending/adults.htm](http://www.justice.gov.uk/publications/statistics-and-data/reoffending/adults.htm)
**Cohort definitions used in the previous Re-offending of juveniles in England and Wales publication**
The juvenile reoffending cohort is formed of juvenile offenders discharged from custody, otherwise sanctioned at court, or receiving a reprimand or warning in January to March of each year. This cohort’s criminal history is collated and criminal behaviour is tracked over the following one year. Any offence committed in this one-year period which is proven by a court conviction or out-of-court disposal (either in the one-year period, or in a further six months waiting period) counts as proven reoffending.
The last publication in this series is the Reoffending of juveniles: results from the 2009 cohort; Ministry of Justice, March 2011.
[http://www.justice.gov.uk/publications/statistics-and-data/reoffending/juveniles.htm](http://www.justice.gov.uk/publications/statistics-and-data/reoffending/juveniles.htm) Disposals (Sentences)
Fine
A financial penalty imposed following conviction.
Court orders
Court orders include community sentences, community orders and suspended sentence orders supervised by the Probation Service. They do not include any pre or post release supervision.
Criminal Justice Act 2003 (CJA03)
For offences committed on or after 4 April 2005, the new community order replaced all existing community sentences for adults. The Act also introduced a new suspended sentence order for offences which pass the custody threshold. It also changed the release arrangements for prisoners. See Appendix A of Offender Management Caseload Statistics96 for more information.
Community order
For offences committed on or after 4 April 2005, the new community order introduced under the CJA 2003 replaced all existing community sentences for those aged 18 years and over. This term refers to all court orders except suspended sentence orders and deferred sentences which may have a custodial component to the sentence. The court must add at least one (but could potentially comprise of all 12) requirements depending on the offences and the offender. The requirements are:
- unpaid work (formerly community service/community punishment) – a requirement to complete between 40 and 300 hours’ unpaid work;
- activity – for example, to attend basic skills classes;
- programme – there are several designed to reduce the prospects of reoffending;
- prohibited activity – a requirement not do so something that is likely to lead to further offender or nuisance;
- curfew – which is electronically monitored;
- exclusion – this is not used frequently as there is no reliable electronic monitoring yet available;
- residence – requirement to reside only where approved by probation officer;
- mental health treatment (requires offender’s consent); • drug rehabilitation (requires offender’s consent); • alcohol treatment (requires offender’s consent); • supervision – meetings with probation officer to address needs/offending behaviour; and, • attendance centre – three hours of activity, between a minimum of 12 hours and a maximum of 36 in total.
Typically, the more serious the offence and the more extensive the offender’s needs, the more requirements there will be. Most orders will comprise one or two requirements but there are packages of several requirements available where required. The court tailors the order as appropriate and is guided by the Probation Service through a pre-sentence report.
Suspended Sentence Order (SSO) The Criminal Justice Act 2003 introduced a new suspended sentence order which is made up of the same requirements as a community order and, in the absence of breach is served wholly in the community supervised by the Probation Service. It consists of an ‘operational period’ (the time for which the custodial sentence is suspended) and a ‘supervision period’ (the time during which any requirements take effect). Both may be between six months and two years and the ‘supervision period’ cannot be longer than the ‘operational period’, although it may be shorter. Failure to comply with the requirements of the order or commission of another offence will almost certainly result in a custodial sentence.
Pre CJA03 Court Orders - Community sentences: Community punishment order (CPO): the offender is required to undertake unpaid community work.
Community rehabilitation order (CRO): a community sentence which may have additional requirements such as residence, probation centre attendance or treatment for drug, alcohol or mental health problems.
Community punishment and rehabilitation order (CPRO): a community sentence consisting of probation supervision alongside community punishment, with additional conditions like those of a community rehabilitation order.
Drug treatment and testing order (DTTO): a community sentence targeted at offenders with drug misuse problems.
Custody - the offender is awarded a sentence to be served in prison or YOI (Youth Offenders Institute). If the offender was given a sentence of 12 months or over, or was aged under 22 on release, the offender is supervised by the Probation Service on release. It is important to note that the sentence length awarded will be longer than the time served. For more information please refer to Appendix A of the Offender Management Caseload Statistics.
**Prison categories**
**Category B and Category C** prisons hold sentenced prisoners of their respective categories, including life sentenced prisoners. The regime focuses on programmes that address offending behaviour and provide education, vocational training and purposeful work for prisoners who will normally spend several years in one prison.
**High Security Prisons hold Category A and B prisoners.** Category A prisoners are managed by a process of dispersal, and these prisons also hold a proportion of Category B prisoners for whom they provide a similar regime to a Category B prison. The Category B prisoners held in a High Security Prison are not necessarily any more dangerous or difficult to manage than those in category B prisons.
**Female prisons.** As the name implies, they hold women prisoners. Because of the smaller numbers, they are not divided into the same number of categories although there are variations in security levels.
**Local prisons** serve the courts in the area. Historically their main function was to hold unconvicted and unsentenced prisoners and, once a prisoner had been sentenced, to allocate them on to a Category B, C or D prison as appropriate to serve their sentence. However, pressure on places means that many shorter term prisoners serve their entire sentence in a local prison, while longer term prisoners also complete some offending behaviour and training programmes there before moving on to lower security conditions. All local prisons operate to category B security standards.
**Open prisons** have much lower levels of physical security and only hold Category D prisoners. Many prisoners in open prisons will be allowed to go out of the prison on a daily basis to take part in voluntary or paid work in the community in preparation for their approaching release.
**Prisoner Categories**
These categories are based on a combination of the type of crime committed, the length of sentence, the likelihood of escape, and the danger to the public if they did escape. The four categories are:
**Category A** prisoners are those whose escape would be highly dangerous to the public or national security
**Category B** prisoners are those who do not require maximum security, but for whom escape needs to be made very difficult
**Category C** prisoners are those who cannot be trusted in open conditions but who are unlikely to try to escape
**Category D** prisoners are those who can be reasonably trusted not to try to escape, and are given the privilege of an open prison. Short sentences – under twelve months
Those sentenced to **under twelve months** spend the first half of their sentence in prison and are then released and considered ‘at risk’ for the remaining period. This means they are under no positive obligations and do not report to the probation service but, if they commit a further imprisonable offence during the at risk period, they can be made to serve the remainder of the sentence in addition to the punishment for the new offence. The exception to this is those aged 18 to 20 who have a minimum of three months’ supervision on release.
Sentences of 12 months or over
The Criminal Justice Act 2003 created a distinction between **standard determinate sentences** and **public protection sentences**. Offenders sentenced to a standard determinate sentence serve the first half in prison and the second half in the community on licence.
Miscellaneous terms
**National Probation Service**
The National Probation Service generally deals with those aged 18 years and over. (Those under 18 are mostly dealt with by Youth Offending Teams, answering to the Youth Justice Board.) They are responsible for supervising offenders who are given community sentences and suspended sentence orders by the courts, as well as offenders given custodial sentences, both pre and post their release.
**Police National Computer**
The Police National Computer (PNC) is the police’s administrative IT system used by all police forces in England and Wales and managed by the National Policing Improvement Agency. As with any large scale recording system the PNC is subject to possible errors with data entry and processing. The Ministry of Justice maintains a database based on weekly extracts of selected data from the PNC in order to compile statistics and conduct research on reoffending and criminal histories. The PNC largely covers recordable offences – these are all indictable and triable-either-way offences plus many of the more serious summary offences. All figures derived from the Ministry of Justice’s PNC database, and in particular those for the most recent months, are likely to be revised as more information is recorded by the police.
**Recordable offences**
Recordable offences are those that the police are required to record on the Police National Computer. They include all offences for which a custodial sentence can be given plus a range of other offences defined as recordable in legislation. They exclude a range of less serious summary offences, for example television licence evasion, driving without insurance, speeding and vehicle tax offences.
**Indictable and summary offences** - Summary offences are triable only by a magistrates’ court. This group includes motoring offences, common assault and criminal damage up to £5,000. More serious offences are classed either as **triable either way** (these can be tried either at the Crown Court or at a magistrates’ court and include criminal damage where the value is £5,000 or greater, theft and burglary) or **indictable** (the most serious offences that must be tried at the Crown Court. These ‘indictable-only’ offences include murder, manslaughter, rape and robbery).
**Offence Group** - A split of offences into twelve separate groups. A more detailed split of the ten indictable offence groups (violence against the person, sexual offences, burglary, robbery, theft and handling and stolen goods, fraud and forgery, criminal damage, drug offences, other indictable offences (excluding motoring), indictable motoring) and the two summary offence groups (summary non-motoring and summary motoring offence types). Appendix C: Comparison of the three measures of re-offending
Figure A1 below compares how the three measures of re-offending (the headline proven re-offending measure, the early estimates of re-offending and local adult re-offending) are constructed. It shows the period over which the re-offending cohort is formed, the time over which re-offending is measured, the additional time allowed for re-offending to be proven, and the time taken to collect and analyse the data, and then to publish.
Figure A1: how the three re-offending measures are constructed
| Measure | Cohort formation | Re-offences | Re-offences proven | Data collection and analysis | Publication | |--------------------------|------------------|-------------|--------------------|-----------------------------|-------------| | Headline measure | Jan-Mar Apr-Jun | Jul-Sep Oct-Dec | Jan-Mar Apr-Jun | Jul-Sep Oct-Dec | Oct-11 | | Early Estimates | Jan-Mar Apr-Jun | Jul-Sep Oct-Dec | Jan-Mar Apr-Jun | Jul-Sep Oct-Dec | Oct-11 | | Local Re-offending | Jan-Mar Apr-Jun | Jul-Sep Oct-Dec | Jan-Mar Apr-Jun | Jul-Sep Oct-Dec | Nov-11 |
Cohort formation Headline measure and early estimates: offenders enter the cohort when they receive a caution (adults), a final warning or reprimand (juveniles), are given a non-custodial conviction, are released from custody or test positive for cocaine or opiates in the cohort formation period shown.
Local adult re-offending: this uses a snapshot of all offenders aged 18 or over, who are under probation supervision at the end of a quarter, and combines four such snapshots together.
Re-offences Headline measure: A re-offence is counted if the offence occurs within the "Re-offences" period shown. This is within 12 months of entering the cohort.
Early estimates and local adult re-offending: A re-offence is counted if the offence occurs within 3 months of entering the cohort for the early estimates measure and within 3 months following each of the four caseload snapshots for the local re-offending measure.
Re-offences proven Headline measure: For a re-offence to be counted it must also be proven within the "Re-offences proven" period shown. This is within 6 months of the re-offence.
Early estimates and local adult re-offending: For a re-offence to be counted it must also be proven within the "Re-offences proven" period shown. This is within 3 months of the re-offence. CONTACT DETAILS AND FURTHER INFORMATION For queries, comments or further information, please contact:
Nick Mavron, Justice Statistics Analytical Services Ministry of Justice 7th floor 102 Petty France London SW1H 9AJ Email: [email protected]
© Crown copyright Produced by the Ministry of Justice
Alternative formats are available on request from [email protected]
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/4803-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 44,
"total-input-tokens": 88145,
"total-output-tokens": 27056,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
84,
1
],
[
84,
1015,
2
],
[
1015,
2693,
3
],
[
2693,
5449,
4
],
[
5449,
7749,
5
],
[
7749,
10018,
6
],
[
10018,
12844,
7
],
[
12844,
16457,
8
],
[
16457,
17913,
9
],
[
17913,
20570,
10
],
[
20570,
23141,
11
],
[
23141,
25423,
12
],
[
25423,
28469,
13
],
[
28469,
31329,
14
],
[
31329,
33711,
15
],
[
33711,
36202,
16
],
[
36202,
38702,
17
],
[
38702,
41195,
18
],
[
41195,
45318,
19
],
[
45318,
47950,
20
],
[
47950,
50620,
21
],
[
50620,
53190,
22
],
[
53190,
55671,
23
],
[
55671,
58363,
24
],
[
58363,
60630,
25
],
[
60630,
63697,
26
],
[
63697,
66946,
27
],
[
66946,
69647,
28
],
[
69647,
72290,
29
],
[
72290,
74892,
30
],
[
74892,
77775,
31
],
[
77775,
80992,
32
],
[
80992,
84444,
33
],
[
84444,
85442,
34
],
[
85442,
86245,
35
],
[
86245,
88581,
36
],
[
88581,
91445,
37
],
[
91445,
93292,
38
],
[
93292,
95729,
39
],
[
95729,
98355,
40
],
[
98355,
100866,
41
],
[
100866,
101988,
42
],
[
101988,
104442,
43
],
[
104442,
104852,
44
]
]
} |
d7d38464ebbe260b575586d4925df904a615cb0e | Proven re-offending statistics: definitions and measurement
Published October 2011
## Contents
Proven Re-offending Statistics Quarterly Bulletin Background 3\
Early Estimates of Proven Re-offending Statistics Background 10\
Local Measure of Re-offending Background 13\
Data Quality 15\
Statistical modelling and coefficients 26\
Appendix A: List of serious offences 35\
Appendix B: Glossary of Terms 41\
Appendix C: Comparison of the three measures of re-offending 48\
Contact details and further information 49 Proven Re-offending Statistics Quarterly Bulletin
Background
The Ministry of Justice launched a statistical consultation on improvements to the transparency and accessibility of our information in 2010 and a response to the consultation was published in March 2011. One aspect of the consultation was the measurement of proven re-offending. Responses have supported the proposals to move to a single framework for measuring re-offending where adult and youth data can be provided at the national and local level on a consistent basis. The response to the consultation is available here:
www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/consultations/improvements-moj-statistics-consultation-response.pdf
Prior to this consultation there were six different measures of proven re-offending:
- national adult proven re-offending;
- local adult proven re-offending;
- national youth proven re-offending;
- local youth proven re-offending;
- Prolific and other Priority Offending (PPO); and
- drug-misusing proven offending.
The current framework for measuring proven re-offending integrates these approaches into a single framework. This allows users to:
- form a clear picture of proven re-offending at national and local levels;
- compare adult and youth results, and enable other work on transition between the youth and adult system;
- understand how results for different offender groups (such as those managed by the prison and probation services, those under the PPO schemes, drug-misusing offenders, first time entrants, etc) fit in to the overall picture on proven re-offending; and
- continue to be able to analyse proven re-offending behaviour of particular types of offender. Measurement
The underlying principle of measuring re-offending (or recidivism, which is the most commonly used term internationally) is that someone who has received some form of criminal justice sanction (such as a conviction or a caution) goes on to commit another offence within a set time period.
Measuring true re-offending is difficult. Official records are taken from either the police or courts, but they will underestimate the true level of re-offending because only a proportion of crime is detected and sanctioned and not all crimes and sanctions are recorded on one central system. Other methods of measuring re-offending, such as self report studies, are likely to be unreliable.
Following the Ministry of Justice consultation on Improvements to Ministry of Justice Statistics (2010), a proven re-offence is defined as any offence committed in a one year follow-up period and receiving a court conviction, caution, reprimand or warning in the one year follow up or a further six months waiting period. The data source is the extract of the Police National Computer (PNC) held by the Ministry of Justice.
Definitions for the measurement of proven re-offending
Cohort
This is the group of individuals whose re-offending is measured. For the Proven Re-offending Statistics Quarterly Bulletin this is defined as all offenders in any one year who received a caution (for adults), a final warning or reprimand (for juveniles), a non-custodial conviction, or were discharged from custody.
Offenders who were discharged from custody or secure accommodation (juveniles only) or commenced a Court Order are matched to the PNC database. A proportion of cases are lost in this process because they cannot be matched (see the section titled “Matching offender records” below for details). Additionally, offenders who appear multiple times in the cohort are only included once (see the section titled “Multiple Offender Entries” below for details).
The group of offenders whose offending behaviour is proven is likely to be a sub-group of all active offenders. The Offending, Crime and Justice Survey (2003)(^1) estimated that around one in ten people in England and Wales aged between 10 and 65 had committed an offence in the previous twelve months, which translates into approximately 3.8 million people. This
(^1) The Offending, Crime and Justice Survey (2003) was a random probability survey of 10,079 people aged from ten to 65 and asked people about their offending history. Like any such survey its accuracy is dependent upon the level of honesty with which respondents completed the survey. compares to 632,000 offenders in the 2002 cohort used to measure re-offending, underlining that the offenders whose proven re-offending behaviour is presented in the re-offending bulletin are a small and probably unrepresentative sample of the population of all active offenders.
**Index disposal (sentence type)**
The index disposal of the offender is the type of sentence the offender received for their index offence. For the Proven Re-offending Statistics Quarterly Bulletin this is defined as custody, court order, other disposal resulting from a conviction at court, such as a fine or discharge, caution (adult offenders), reprimand or final warning (young offenders).
**Index offence**: Offences are only counted as an index offence if the offence is:
- recordable (see below)
- committed in England and Wales
- prosecuted by the police
- not a breach offence
There are around 3,000 offence codes on the Police National Computer. These have been classified into 21 groups: violence (non serious), violence (serious), robbery, public order or riot, sexual, sexual (child), soliciting or prostitution, domestic burglary, other burglary, theft, handling, fraud and forgery, absconding or bail offences, taking and driving away and related offences, theft from vehicles, other motoring offences, drink driving offences, criminal or malicious damage, drugs import/export/production/supply, drugs possession/small scale supply and other.
**Start Point (also known as the index date)**
This is the set point in time from when re-offences are measured. For the Proven Re-offending Statistics Quarterly Bulletin this is defined as the date of prison discharge, date of court conviction for non-custodial sentences, date of receipt for a caution, reprimand or final warning or the date of a positive drug test.
**Follow-up period**
This is the length of time proven re-offending is measured over. For the Proven Re-offending Statistics Quarterly Bulletin this is defined as twelve months from the start point.
**Waiting period**
This is the additional time beyond the follow up period to allow for offences committed towards the end of the follow up period to be proved by a court conviction, caution, reprimand or final warning. For the Proven Re-offending Statistics Quarterly Bulletin this is six months.
Figure 1 below illustrates why different offences are included or not in the re-offending measures for an example offender. Events A-E all occur in the one year follow up period, but Events F and G are outside this period, so would not be counted. Events A-D are all counted because they were all proven within the one year follow-up period or the further six months waiting period, but Event E, even though the offence took place in the one year follow up period, would not be counted, as the conviction did not occur within either the one year follow up period, or the further six month waiting period. The offender has therefore committed 7 proven offences during the one-year follow up period (2 for Event A, 1 for Event B, 3 for Event C, and 1 for Event D).
**Sentence/disposal that an offence receives to count as a re-offence**
Offences that are proved by a court conviction, caution, reprimand or final warning count as re-offences.
**Offences that count as re-offences**
Offences are counted as re-offences if they meet all of the following criteria:
- They are recordable. Not all offences are on the PNC and more recordable offences are entered than non-recordable offences. Analysis comparing offences proven at court with offences recorded on the PNC suggests the most cost common offences that are not recorded relates to motor vehicles e.g. using a motor vehicle whilst uninsured against third party risks, speeding offences, keeping a vehicle on the highway without a driving license, or to television license evasion.
- They were committed in England or Wales.
- They are offences that were prosecuted by the police. PNC data is collected and input by the police and offences prosecuted by the police are likely to be recorded more comprehensively on the PNC than offences that are prosecuted by other organisations. For example, benefit fraud is prosecuted by the Department of Work and Pensions, and benefit fraud offences may be poorly represented on the PNC. Offences are only counted if they are proven through caution (for adults), reprimands or final warnings (for juveniles) and court convictions. Offences that are not proven, or which meet with other responses from the Criminal Justice System, are not counted. The Offending, Crime and Justice Survey (2003) estimated that 6 per cent of all offences resulted in any contact with the Criminal Justice System.
The offence is not a breach offence i.e breach of a court order, since we are only interested in new offences.
Adjusted baseline (predicted rate) Proven re-offending is related to the characteristics of offenders which means that any overall rate of proven re-offending will depend, in part, on the characteristics of offenders coming into the system (just as the examination pass rate of a school will be related to the characteristics of its pupils). We use a modelling technique to produce a baseline figure adjusted to match the characteristics of the cohort we are comparing. For more details see the chapter on Statistical modelling and coefficients.
Measures of proven re-offending Re-offending data are presented in the following ways:
- The number of offenders;
- The proportion of offenders who are proven re-offenders;
- The average number of proven re-offences among re-offenders;
- The average number of proven re-offences among all offenders including those who committed no proven re-offences (previously the frequency rate);
- The proportion of proven offenders who committed a proven serious re-offence against the person. See page 31 for details of what counts as a serious offence.
- The proportion of proven offenders who committed a proven serious acquisitive re-offence. See page xx for details of what counts as a serious acquisitive offence.
The proportion of offenders who are proven to re-offend, adjusted to control for changes in offender characteristics. This measure is different from the other measures in that it does not come from actual re-offences, but from a statistical model created for the baseline year of 2008. This gives a better indication of actual change against a baseline. See the chapter on Statistical modelling and coefficients (page 23).
Multiple Offender Entries (MOEs) Each offender is tracked over a fixed period of time and any proven offence committed in this period is counted as a proven re-offence. Offenders who, after entering the cohort in a given year, commits a re-offence and is either cautioned, discharged from prison or gets a non-custodial conviction in the same cohort year. This re-offence could also be included as a second entry for this offender into the cohort. To date, publications have avoided the double counting of these multiple offender entries (MOE) by only counting an individual once based on their first proven offence in the relevant time period. In the illustration above the caution would be counted as the index disposal and the further two proven offences would be counted as re-offences. This avoids double counting of proven re-offences.
**Proven re-offending measure**
In this publication the main tables (tables 1 to 17) in the report have been produced on the basis of the 'first proven offence in the relevant time period' which led to an offender being included. This provides a picture of proven re-offending which is consistent with previous publications and tracks an offender, irrespective of the disposal they receive, to when they commit a proven re-offence.
The measure of proven re-offending now covers all offenders in any one year instead of the first quarter of a calendar year as in previous proven re-offending publications. The result is many more offenders with multiple entries (MOEs).
In addition, including cautions to identify a proven offence means many offenders’ first offence will be associated with a caution since cautions account for around a third of adult offenders in one year. Table 1 shows the number of offenders by their number of entries.
**Table 1: Number of adult offenders and their respective number of entries for 2000, 2002-2009 cohorts**
| Multiple Offender Entries (MOEs) | 2000 | 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | |---------------------------------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------| | 1 | 512,551 | 522,376 | 544,032 | 551,265 | 582,840 | 622,096 | 638,495 | 610,329 | 578,644 | | 2x | 75,311 | 77,813 | 81,651 | 78,969 | 81,120 | 87,589 | 91,695 | 88,207 | 83,785 | | 3x | 19,565 | 21,208 | 22,073 | 20,855 | 20,926 | 21,974 | 23,757 | 23,662 | 22,125 | | 4x | 6,195 | 6,689 | 7,074 | 6,835 | 6,725 | 6,807 | 7,652 | 7,917 | 7,360 | | 5x | 1,998 | 2,314 | 2,392 | 2,357 | 2,425 | 2,795 | 2,911 | 2,938 | | | 6 to 10x | 1,240 | 1,510 | 1,689 | 1,641 | 1,505 | 1,513 | 1,966 | 2,341 | 2,308 | | greater than 10x | 164 | 155 | 129 | 131 | 119 | 115 | 114 | 160 | 202 | | Total MOEs | 104,473 | 109,689 | 115,008 | 110,788 | 112,750 | 120,423 | 127,979 | 125,198 | 118,718 | | % of total cohort | 16.9% | 17.4% | 17.5% | 16.7% | 16.2% | 16.2% | 16.7% | 17.0% | 17.0% | | Cohort | 617,024 | 632,065 | 659,040 | 662,053 | 695,590 | 742,519 | 766,474 | 735,527 | 697,362 |
The number of offenders with multiple entries has remained fairly constant over time. The proportion of the total that had multiple offender entries has remained at about 16 – 17 per cent between 2000 and 2009. Proven re-offending by index disposal, probation trust and prison
In order to measure proven re-offending on a consistent and representative basis by offender management groups it is necessary to distinguish between the disposal types that led to an offender being included. Doing this allows the cohort to be defined according to the relative start point of an offender's interaction with the prison (discharged from prison) or probation services (court order commencement).
Tables 18 to 21 provide re-offending rates by disposal (sentence) types, These are produced on the basis of an individual's first disposal (sentence) in that category. In the illustration above the individual would appear once in the caution category, once in the community order category and once in the custody category. These tables will include an overall prison and probation proven re-offending rate which will be the figures we quote publicly. However these figures should not be used when comparing proven re-offending rates across different disposals to compare effectiveness. Instead the Compendium of Re-offending (www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/publications/statistics-and-data/moistats/compendium-of-reoffending-statistics-and-analysis.pdf) should be referred to as this analysis controls for offender characteristics in order to give a more reliable estimate of the relative effectiveness of different disposals.
Tables 22 to 24 provide re-offending rates by individual prison and probation trust. These are produced on the basis of an individual's first disposal from each specified prison or probation trust. If the individual offender is discharged from two different prisons in the year they will appear in both of the prison's re-offending rates. The same applies for offenders commencing court orders in more than one probation trust within the year. This is to allow prisons and probation services to track their caseload of offenders. Early Estimates of Proven Re-offending Statistics
Background
Responses from the consultation and from earlier engagement with representatives of front-line offender management services supported the proposal to produce early estimates of proven re-offending using shorter follow-up and waiting periods. This is intended to provide offender managers feedback on the proven re-offending trends of offenders they are working with in time for them to adjust or build on offender management operational policy. This section of the new bulletin addresses these issues.
Early estimates of proven re-offending are presented for four particular offender groups who are subject to specific offender management arrangements. These are offenders managed by the probation service, Prolific and other Priority Offenders (PPO) who are managed by a partnership of local front-line services, drug-misusing offenders who are managed by Drug Action Teams, and young offenders who are managed by Youth Offending Teams.
Proven re-offending for the early estimates is measured in exactly the same way as for the headline proven re-offending measure except that the follow-up period and waiting period are both three months each. (For the headline measure of proven re-offending they are twelve months and six months, respectively).
The headline figures and early estimates differ in the following ways:
- Early estimates of proven re-offending rates are considerably lower than in the headline publication. This is because they cover a shorter time period.
- The shorter follow-up period and waiting period allow rates to be calculated for more recent groups of proven offenders.
- Early estimates of proven re-offending rates provide local offender management services with information on proven re-offending trends for the offenders they are working with. The headline re-offending publication presents the public with information on a wide range of proven re-offending trends and provides proven re-offending rates by a variety of breakdowns, such as age, gender, disposal etc.
- The shorter follow-up period and waiting period provides insufficient time for many serious re-offences to be committed and convicted. For this reason early estimates of proven re-offending rates do not include information on serious re-offending. Results in the headline measure are compared to a baseline rate, adjusted for changes in the offender profile. This relies on an estimate of the relationship between offender characteristics and proven re-offending behaviour over twelve-months. An equivalent estimate has been carried out for the proven re-offending behaviour of offenders commencing court order over three months. This uses the same variables as the headline measure plus additional variables to ensure that the actual and predicted rates are identical for every probation trust in the baseline period (2008). The tables accompanying the early estimates present the adjusted baseline for each trust, and the text identifies those trusts where the actual rate is significantly higher or lower than the predicted rate in the most recent results available.
Measurement
Coverage: Results are provided for four types of offenders: probation offenders by probation trust, PPO offenders by upper-tier local authority, drug-misusing offenders by Drug Action Team, and young offenders by Youth Offending Team.
Cohort: For probation offenders, the cohort is made up of all offenders who commenced a Court Order within a twelve month period. For PPO offenders, the cohort is made up of all offenders identified as a PPO who were discharged from custody, convicted at court, received a caution (adults), reprimand or final warning (juveniles) or tested positive for opiates or cocaine within a twelve month period. For drug-misusing offenders, the cohort is made up of all offenders identified as drug-misusing who were discharged from custody, convicted at court, received a caution or tested positive for opiates or cocaine within a twelve month period. For juveniles, the cohort is made up of all young offenders who were discharged from custody, convicted at court or received a reprimand or final warning within a twelve month period.
Start Point: Same as for the headline re-offending figures presented in the Re-offending Statistics Quarterly Bulletin.
Follow-up period: Three months from the start point
Waiting period: Three months
Proven Re-offence: Same as for the headline proven re-offending figures presented in the Re-offending Statistics Quarterly Bulletin.
Adjusted baseline: Proven re-offending is related to the characteristics of offenders which means that any overall rate of proven re-offending will depend, in part, on the characteristics of offenders coming into the system (just as the examination pass rate of a school will be related to the characteristics of its pupils). We use a modelling technique to produce a baseline figure adjusted to match the characteristics of the cohort we are comparing. For more details see the chapter on Statistical modelling and coefficients (p 23). Multiple Offender Entries (MOEs): Same as for the offender management tables in the main bulletin. Local Measure of Re-offending
Background
Proven re-offending results from this measure have been published by the Ministry of Justice since February 2009 at the Government Office Region, Probation Trust and local authority level. This data is used to measure probation performance and the Ministry of Justice will continue to produce these measures while offender management systems still require them.
The local proven re-offending data measures the re-offending of all offenders on the probation caseload. This includes offenders on licence and serving Court Orders.
www.justice.gov.uk/publications/statistics-and-data/reoffending/local-adult-reoffending.htm
Local proven re-offending rates use the same follow-up period and waiting period to those for the early estimates. However, there are several large differences between the local measure and the early estimates. These include:
- the sample of offenders. Local rates are estimated using all offenders on the probation caseload, including those on licence and those serving court orders. Offenders on the caseload are identified through four ‘snapshots’ of the caseload, taken each quarter. Offenders are included if they are on the caseload even if they have been on licence or serving the court order for longer than twelve months. The early estimates are based on offenders who commence a court order within a twelve month period.
- Local rates define the period reported on by the period of re-offending. The early estimates refer to the year of the index disposal.
Measurement
Cohort: All offenders on the probation caseload taken from four snapshots taken quarterly.
Start Point: The date of the snapshot.
Follow-up period: Three months from the start point
Waiting period: Three months
Proven Re-offence: Same as for the headline proven re-offending figures presented in the Re-offending Statistics Quarterly Bulletin. Adjusted baseline (Predicted Rate): The predicted rate is the proportion of offenders we would expect to re-offend given the known characteristics of the offenders in the snapshot and re-offending rates in the baseline period. More detail on the predicted rate, and the statistical model used to calculate it, is provided in Appendix C of the Local Adult Re-offending bulletin. Data Quality
The data required for measuring proven re-offending involve a range of data sources (NOMS prison database, probation data, identification of drug-misusing offenders, identification of Prolific and other Priority Offenders, and young offenders in secure accommodation, and the criminal records from the Police National Computer) from a range of agencies (NOMS, probation trusts, the Youth Justice Board, Drug Action Teams, local authorities and the National Police Improvement Agency). These figures have been derived from administrative IT systems which, as with any large scale recording system, are subject to possible errors with data entry and processing.
Police National Computer data
Information regarding the proven re-offending behaviour of offenders has been compiled using the Ministry of Justice’s extract from the Police National Computer (PNC). The process involves matching offender details from the prison and probation services to the personal details recorded on the PNC. A proportion of cases cannot be matched and the figures presented in Table 1 are expressed as a percentage of the offenders that are matched. Like any large scale recording system the PNC is subject to errors with data entry and recording. The PNC is regularly updated so that further analysis at a later date will generate revised figures.
The quality of the information recorded on the PNC is generally assumed to be relatively high as it is an operational system on which the police depend, but analysis can reveal errors that are typical when handling administrative datasets of this scale. The extent of error or omitted records on the PNC is difficult to estimate because it is a unique data-source. As a result, there is not always an obvious source of data to provide a baseline from which to assess data quality. For some types of results, however, comparisons can be made. For example, the trend in receptions into prison in each month is very similar using the PNC and prisons data (see below for details) although the number of receptions recorded on the PNC is consistently slightly lower because prisons data included cases on remand whereas the PNC does not. Another example is the number of cases that given a custodial, broken down by offence type, which is similar using the PNC and the Court Proceedings Database with a match rate of 97 per cent.
A number of improvements are routinely carried out:
- Updates to the coding and classification of offences and court disposals, including the reduction of uncoded offences, the reduction in the use of miscellaneous offence codes and the clarification of the coding of breach offences; • Updates to the methods used to identify the primary offence, where several offences are dealt with on the same occasion, and the methods used to identify the primary disposal, where an offence attracts more than one court disposal; and,
• Removal of some duplication of records within the database resulting in improvements to the efficiency and reliability of the matching process.
Prison data
Prison establishments record details for individual inmates on the prison IT system (either Prison-NOMIS or LIDS). The information recorded includes details such as date of birth, sex, religion, nationality, ethnic origin, custody type, offence, reception and discharge dates and, for sentenced prisoners, sentence length. The data from individual prison establishments then feeds through to a central computer database, called the Inmate Information System (IIS).
In May 2009, the National Offender Management Service began the roll-out of a new case management system for prisons (Prison-NOMIS). During the phased roll-out, data collection issues emerged that affected the supply of data for statistical purposes from July 2009 to February 2010. Specifically, statistical information on sentence length and offence group are not available on any of our prison datasets for this period.
In order to ensure the fullest possible set of data from July 2009 to February 2010, sentence lengths were estimated for those prisoners received or discharged before the problems were resolved. At the point when the problems were resolved, a small number of prison establishments were still using the old LIDS case management system; data for prisoners received or discharged from these prisons was assumed to be unaffected.
For those prisoners received or discharged from prisons operating Prison-NOMIS, efforts were made to populate their record with the correct sentence length using other data extracts. For example, many prisoners discharged in January 2010 were originally received into prison prior to July 2009, so we were able to take their sentence length from unaffected datasets before the problems began. Similarly, the majority of those received in early 2010 were still in prison in March 2010 when the problems were resolved, so we were able to use the sentence length in the corrected prison population data.
Where it was not possible to populate a sentence length using other datasets, prisoners were allocated a sentence length band based on the number of days they spent in custody (taking account of early release schemes where relevant). Alternative estimation method
As a check on the methodology, we created an alternative estimation process and compared the number of discharges in the second half of 2009 in each sentence length band using the two methods.
A number of estimation methods were considered, and each tested on the 2008 data (prior to the data problems, hence we had a full year of data) to see which yielded estimates closest to the actual 2008 data. This identified the following method:
1. Calculate data for the first half of the year as a proportion of the full calendar year, for each year from 2001 to 2008; separately for each sentence length band or offence group (the 2 key breakdowns to be estimated).
2. Apply the average of these proportions to the Jan-Jun 2009 data to estimate the 2009 annual totals; separately for each sentence length band/offence group.
3. Scale the estimated numbers in each sentence length band or offence group to sum to the annual total recorded in the raw data (where the totals are known to be correct).
Results
The maximum difference between the two approaches was 2.6% in the band 12 months to less than 4 years; for all other bands the difference was less than 1%.
Indeterminate sentence prisoners
In addition to the above, data on the discharge of prisoners on indeterminate sentence (prisoners given a life sentence or indeterminate sentence for Public Protection (IPP) is provided from the Public Protection Unit Database (PPUD). This holds data jointly owned by the Offender Management and Public Protection Group (OMPPG) in NOMS and the Parole Board.
PPUD records details of all indeterminate sentence prisoners at the point of conviction, those engaged in the Generic Parole Process and prisoners (determinate and indeterminate) who have been recalled from licence. It also covers those who have received a restricted hospital order/direction from a Crown Court, and those remand and convicted prisoners who have been transferred from prison/detention centres to psychiatric hospital under the relevant sections of mental health legislation.
All decisions taken by the NOMS casework sections and the Parole Board are recorded on the system.
Personal information recorded includes (but is not limited to) name, date of birth, gender, identifying numbers, ethnicity, last known address, probation area and sentencing information. OMPPG and the Parole Board run monthly and ad hoc reports to cleanse data that are not otherwise identified by data validation routines built into the system.
**Probation data**
Since 2005, detailed information on the supervision of offenders (at the individual offender level) has been submitted by probation trusts on a monthly basis. These monthly ‘probation listings’ include information on offenders starting probation supervision. Between 2002 and 2005 this information was submitted quarterly, and prior to 2002 a different data collection system was in place, which meant that information on caseload had to be calculated based on the number of people starting supervision and the number of terminations.
The quality of the information recorded on the probation data is generally assumed to be relatively high as it is a direct extract from an operational system upon which the probation service depends for managing offenders locally. The extract consists of a small number of key fields for which completion is mandatory. Probation Trusts have their own IT departments who manage their own data validation processes and when the data is received centrally it is subject to another set of data validation processes. Trends from the data are consistent with comparable time-series from the Courts Proceeding Database. Any large scale recording systems are subject to possible errors with data entry and processing but there are no known issues regarding the probation commencements data.
**Identification of drug-misusing offenders**
There are four ways a drug-misusing offender can be identified:
- Individuals who have tested positive for heroin or crack/cocaine following an arrest or charge for ‘trigger’ offences (largely acquisitive crime offences) as part of the Drug Interventions Programme (DIP) are included as adult proven offenders.
- Any offender that received an OASys assessment whilst on licence or on a community sentence and are either recorded as being subject to a current Drug Treatment and Testing Order (DTTO) or Drug Rehabilitation Requirement (DRR), or are assessed as having a criminogenic drug need.
- Any offender identified as requiring further drug interventions by Counselling, Assessment, Referral, Advice, Throughcare (CARAT) teams in prison, and now being released into the community. Any offender identified by local Criminal Justice Integrated Teams (CJITs) as requiring further intervention for their drug use and offending as part of DIP.
Drug Interventions Programme (DIP)
The Drug Interventions Programme (DIP) was introduced in April 2003 with the aim of developing and integrating measures for directing adult drug-misusing offenders into drug treatment and reducing offending behaviour. The programme comprises of a number of interrelated interventions:
- Drug testing in police custody for specified Class A drugs – heroin, cocaine and crack cocaine – for individuals arrested for trigger offences (primarily offences related to acquisitive crime);
- Assessment following a positive test to establish the extent of the individual's drug-misuse, and whether the individual might benefit from further assessment, assistance or treatment;
- Conditional cautioning which may include a DIP drug rehabilitative condition, tailored to the offender’s drug use and offending.
- Restriction on bail for adults who have tested positive and whose offence is a drug offence or is drug-related.
- Criminal Justice Integrated Teams (CJITs) manage offenders who have been referred to treatment and co-ordinate agencies and services so they offer access to joined-up treatment and support. They maintain strong links with both the National Probation Service and Prison Service to ensure the continuity of care whilst the offender is within the Criminal Justice System.
Legislative changes have broadened the scope of the programme:
- A major expansion of DIP took place in April 2006 to move the point of drug testing from the point of charge to the point of arrest and to introduce required (rather than voluntary) assessments. This change broadened the scope and size of the cohort coming into contact with DIP.
- The latest changes took effect from April 2011, when the authorisation to conduct Drug Testing on Arrest was extended across England & Wales. Drug testing on arrest previously occurred only in 'intensive' DIP areas, which had high levels of acquisitive crime. Data Sources
Records of those who test positive are logged onto the Drugs Intervention Management Information System (DIMIS), which is managed by the Home Office. An extract of positive drug test records for the relevant period is used for a match to the PNC.
Offenders identified as drug misusers via CARAT teams and CJITs are also recorded onto DIMIS, from which an extract is taken for the relevant period to match to the PNC. OASys records are collated centrally within the Ministry of Justice in the OASys Data, Evaluation and Analysis Team (O-DEAT) database, from which an extract is taken for the relevant period to match to the PNC.
Identification of Prolific and other Priority offenders
The Prolific and other Priority Offenders Programme (PPO) aims to use a multi-agency approach to focus on a very small but hard core group of prolific/persistent offenders who commit disproportionate amounts of crime and cause disproportionate harm to their local communities. Full implementation of all three strands had commenced by the beginning of February 2005. In 2009, all local areas were asked to review their PPO schemes to ensure that the programme remained squarely focused on those offenders that were of most concern to the communities in which they live.
The identification of a PPO is undertaken at a local level involving police, local authorities, prison and probation services and youth offending teams. The factors that influence the decision of whether an offender is included in the PPO programme are:
- the nature and volume of crimes they commit;
- the nature and volume of other harm they cause; and
- the detrimental impact they have on their community.
This process will typically involve police, prison and probation information systems and other tools available.
The size of the PPO caseload at a local level is influenced by a range of factors, including the number of offenders who meet the locally agreed selection criteria and the capacity of local partner agencies to provide the intensive management of offenders under PPO supervision. PPO cohort data are derived from JTRACK, which is a management information and tracking tool used by practitioners in various criminal justice agencies to record details of the offenders being managed as PPOs in a local area. JTRACK relies on the accurate input of data by local users to ensure that the details of the caseload on the system reflect the caseload being managed. An extract of the caseload from JTRACK is taken for the relevant period to match to the PNC.
**Young offenders in secure accommodation**
Information about secure training centres (STCs) and secure children’s homes (SCHs) comes from the Youth Justice Board's (YJB) Secure Accommodation Clearing House System (SACHS) database. The under 18 year olds in YOIs is also from SACHS, whereas information about young people aged 18 and held in YOIs is supplied by the Prison Service and private YOIs.
The quality of the information recorded on the SACHS database is generally assumed to be relatively high as it is a direct extract from an operational system which is used to place young people in custody. The extract uses a number of key fields for which completion is mandatory when booking a young person into custody.
**Data processing and analysis**
The data underpinning the results are considered by Ministry of Justice to be broadly robust. Considerable work has been carried out ensuring data quality, and the data have been used for research publications. Scrutiny of the data source continues in order to ensure the data remains reliable.
The National Audit Office (NAO) identified risk factors in its review of the reporting of PSA targets (NAO, 2005). The remainder of this section addresses these.
**Matching offender records**
This process involves matching prison discharges and court order commencements data with the Police National Computer database. The process uses automated matching routines that look at offenders’ surnames, initials, and dates of birth, using direct name matching along with a variety of ‘sounds like’ algorithms. The matching algorithm also searches through PNC held information on alias names and dates of birth for offenders. However, not all offenders are matched and a thorough analysis of bias in the matching system has yet to be undertaken. Table 1 below shows that the overall matching rates between 2000 and 2009 have remained high. Additionally, matching rates are similar for both prison and court orders data. Table 1: Matching rates for the different data sources for 2000, 2002-2009 cohorts
| | 2000 | 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | |----------------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------| | **Prison** | | | | | | | | | | | Prison discharges | 87,083| 87,338| 85,920| 86,970| 84,897| 83,725| 87,340| 95,824| 94,114| | Automatically matched to the PNC | 80,572| 81,211| 80,121| 81,125| 79,398| 78,285| 81,874| 90,021| 88,745| | Matched to an index date | 73,810| 75,121| 73,327| 73,390| 71,246| 68,185| 69,741| 76,668| 74,189| | Percentage matched to the PNC | 92.5% | 93.0% | 93.3% | 93.3% | 93.5% | 93.5% | 93.7% | 93.9% | 94.3% | | Percentage matched to the PNC and index offences (not breach etc) | 84.8% | 86.0% | 85.3% | 84.4% | 83.9% | 81.4% | 79.9% | 80.0% | 78.8% | | **Court Orders** | | | | | | | | | | | Court order starts | 136,023| 154,621| 158,750| 164,831| 163,681| 176,346| 187,386| 189,643| 191,784| | Automatically matched to the PNC | 123,540| 142,838| 148,257| 154,075| 158,416| 172,906| 184,740| 187,253| 190,128| | Matched to an index date | 105,685| 115,108| 119,446| 122,927| 130,307| 148,072| 159,279| 163,519| 167,378| | Percentage matched to the PNC | 90.8% | 92.4% | 93.4% | 93.5% | 96.8% | 98.0% | 98.6% | 98.7% | 99.1% | | Percentage matched to the PNC and index offences (not breach etc) | 77.7% | 74.4% | 75.2% | 74.6% | 79.6% | 84.0% | 85.0% | 86.2% | 87.3% | | **YJB** | | | | | | | | | | | YJB discharges | 1,337 | 1,612 | 1,521 | 1,551 | 1,564 | 1,553 | 1,647 | 1,626 | | | Automatically matched to the PNC | 1,226 | 1,502 | 1,425 | 1,448 | 1,464 | 1,463 | 1,537 | 1,564 | | | Matched to an index date | 680 | 818 | 785 | 800 | 769 | 780 | 845 | 817 | | | Percentage matched to the PNC | 91.7% | 93.2% | 93.7% | 93.4% | 93.6% | 94.2% | 93.3% | 96.2% | | | Percentage matched to the PNC and index date | 50.9% | 50.7% | 51.6% | 51.6% | 49.2% | 50.2% | 51.3% | 50.2% | |
The total number of offenders matched to the PNC is substantially higher than the final figure for the cohorts – for example, in 2009 there were 280,437 matched offenders but a final cohort size of 242,384. The main reasons for these discrepancies are:
- Conviction dates for the beginning of the community, suspended or custodial sentence do not match the conviction date within seven days of the criminal records database (PNC);
- The index offence was not dealt with by a Home Office police force – this ensures that only offences in England and Wales are counted;
- Exclusion of all offenders where the index offence is a breach, since we are only interested in new offences; and,
- Exclusion of Multiple Offender Entries (see above for a description).
**Counting rules**
The counting rules for choosing which prison discharges to include offer a variety of choices. For instance, it makes little sense to include offenders deported on release or who have died. These counting rules were enumerated and discussed to ensure a more accurate and consistent count and are reviewed on an annual basis to ensure a consistent approach.
**Complexity of data processing and analysis**
The data processing involved for measuring re-offending is complex. To analyse re-offending behaviour by previous offending or disposal history requires the extraction of criminal histories that can span a number of decades, and the subsequent matching of these histories against the probation caseload files and prison discharges in order to generate a dataset. The extraction of the criminal histories
To quality assure the extraction of criminal histories, a small set of random samples of offenders was taken after the analysis to check, via a basic validation, that outputs of the SQL (Structured Query Language) program are accurate outcomes and the Ministry of Justice is confident that this process has been successful.
Level of subjectivity
There is relatively little subjectivity in the system. Occasional judgements are required (e.g. where to classify an offence) but these will not significantly influence the results.
Maturity and stability of the data system
The system is well established having been used a number of times to produce re-offending statistics for publication. Nonetheless, vigilance continues to be exercised to ensure the validity of the results.
Expertise of those who operate the system
Prison and court order data-feeds are continually monitored and improvement work is regularly undertaken to improve the reliability and the accuracy of datasets. The internal processing of the results within the Ministry of Justice has been subject to dip sampling of criminal histories and the statistical model has been extensively tested.
Interpreting trends in the proportion of offenders who commit a serious re-offence against the person
Care should be taken when interpreting the severity rate for the following reasons:
- **Time through the CJS** – more serious offences are likely to take a longer time to progress through the Criminal Justice System than less serious offences. The proven re-offending statistics track proven re-offending behaviour for a year upon offenders entering the cohort, plus an additional six months for convictions to be updated on the system. There is a risk that this time scale is not long enough to capture the most serious offences. However, analysis suggests that the number of serious proven re-offences picked up by the measure remains comparatively stable year on year, ensuring performance is comparable over time. • **Reporting variation** – variation in reporting time between police force areas and courts may also have an impact on how many serious offences are captured during the one-year follow up period.
**Data on historical trends**
The data used to measure re-offending is from the Police National Computer (PNC). Police forces started to enter criminal records locally in 1995. In order to allow time for good practice among police forces in entering data onto the PNC to become embedded, PNC data was used to measure re-offending for the first time in 2000. In the headline bulletin, results are compared to 2000 to highlight long-term trends because it is the earliest data on re-offending that exists on a comparable basis. Results prior to 2000 cannot be compared to results from 2000 onwards for two main reasons:
- Change in data source – re-offences are measured using data from the Police National Computer (which covers recordable offences), whereas data from years before 2000 was measured using the offenders index (which covered a narrower range of offences)
- Change in measurement – the concept being measured from 2000 onwards in these reports is that of using the offences date to measure re-offences (a period of time is allowed for offences to be committed, and a further period allowed for these offences to be proved by caution, reprimand, final warning or court conviction), whereas the concept being measured prior to 2000 was that of using the conviction date to measure re-convictions (any conviction occurring in a set period of time, whether or not the offence occurred in that time period).
However the compendium of re-offending statistics and analysis published in November 2010 provides the most consistent statistical series possible between 1971 and 2006, adjusting for known methodological changes. For more information please refer to Chapter 4.4 at the following link:
[www.justice.gov.uk/publications/statistics-and-data/reoffending/compendium-of-reoffending-statistics-and-analysis.htm](http://www.justice.gov.uk/publications/statistics-and-data/reoffending/compendium-of-reoffending-statistics-and-analysis.htm)
Results for 2001 cannot be calculated for offenders on Court Orders because of a problem with archived data on court orders. Local breakdowns of the headline re-offending rates are available from 2005 onwards. Re-offending data is broken down by locality using the address and post-code information of the offender. Where this information is missing, the location of the processing police force is used instead. This is not a completely reliable indicator of the offender’s home address as offenders may offend in a different locality than where they reside. The completeness of this information has improved over time. In 2000, this information was omitted for 29 per cent of cases, which was considered too high to produce reliable results. By 2005, this was reduced to 16.5 per cent, and there has been a continuing downward trend since then. Statistical Modelling and Coefficients
Introduction
The characteristics of proven offenders are likely to be systematically different over time and by sentence type and as the Criminal Justice System targets particular sentences to offenders most likely to benefit from that type. It is therefore important to note that it is not possible to reach firm conclusions about changes in rates over time, nor about the relative effectiveness of different sentence types, from actual proven re-offending rates.
The Ministry of Justice has developed models to address these two issues:
- modelling to adjust the baseline to reflect changes in offender characteristics (see below)
- modelling to match offenders across sentence types to make valid comparisons (see The Compendium of Reoffending Statistics and Analysis 2011 www.justice.gov.uk/publications/statistics-and-data/reoffending/compendium-of-reoffending-statistics-and-analysis.htm)
Modelling to adjust for the varying composition of the cohort of offenders over time
If the composition of the cohorts of offenders being compared differs significantly over time so that the type of offenders in one year is inherently more (or less) likely to re-offend, this may result in an apparent rise or fall in the re-offending rates even when there may be no 'real' difference for similar offenders over that time. In order to address this problem, we have adopted the following solution:
- modelling the likelihood of proven re-offending based on known offender characteristics using historic data (which will be defined as the baseline)
- identifying the characteristics of the most recent cohort
- using the model, adjusting the baseline proven re-offending rate to match these characteristics
- comparing this adjusted rate with the current rate to make a more realistic estimate of trends over time.
In previous publications of proven re-offending statistics, this approach has been referred to as the predicted rate of proven re-offending. Statistical model
The 2008 statistical model is an update and improvement on the 2000 and 2005 logistic regression models and includes a range of offender characteristics available from the Police National Computer (PNC), such as age, gender, offence group and criminal history.
The logistic regression model based on the 2008 data identifies a statistically significant set of variables that are related to proven re-offending and based on these provides a probability of proven re-offending for each offender. However, other factors, for which data on these samples are not available, such as drug and alcohol use, employment, accommodation and marital background are likely to be significantly related to re-offending.
This means that the adjusted proven re-offending rates are only valid for terms included in the final model. Any adjusted proven re-offending rates for groups of offenders that have a common characteristic that is not in the final model (e.g. employment status or disposal type) can suffer from statistical biases and are, therefore, unreliable.
For the 2008 model additional developments were included to ensure that the adjusted rate model was a more parsimonious model, more robust against changes in the number of offenders, and that interaction terms and non-linear terms were included where appropriate. The final decision for inclusion or exclusion of particular variables was heavily influenced by their statistical significance (typically p < 0.10).
The Ministry of Justice believes that the method used for the construction of the statistical model for producing adjusted rates is robust and fit for purpose.
Variables included
The following notes provide some further detail on the 2008 model and show the relative impacts of different variables when holding all other variables constant.
Gender
Gender is included in the model as a categorical variable separating out males and females. Generally, males are more likely to commit a proven re-offence than females.
Age
Age is included in the model for adults as a linear, quadratic and cubed term and is included for juveniles as a categorical variable separating offenders into seven age bands. Generally, younger adults are more likely to commit a proven re-offence than older adults, and older juveniles are more likely to re-offend than younger juveniles.
**Index offence** The index offence represents the offence that led to the offender entering the cohort. Index offences were classified into 21 broad categories and their relative coefficients are shown in relation to the reference category violence. To ensure the reliability and replicability of the model coefficients, any index offences with low numbers were grouped with the ‘other’ index offence group.
**Ethnicity** Ethnicity is derived from the PNC and reflects the officer’s view of the offender’s ethnicity. Thus, ethnicity in this model should be taken as a proxy for the actual ethnicity and the results should not be over-interpreted because any biases in the assessment are unknown. Ethnicity was a statistically significant factor, making it an important factor to control for and therefore it was included in the model.
**Copas rate** The Copas rate (Copas and Marshall, 1998) controls for the rate at which an offender has built up convictions throughout their criminal career. The higher the rate, the more convictions an offender has in a given amount of time, and the more likely it is that an offender will be re-convicted. The Copas rate formula is:
[ \\text{copas rate} = \\log_e \\left( \\frac{\\text{Number of court appearances or cautions} + 1}{\\text{Length of criminal career in years} + 10} \\right) ]
For adults the copas rate is included as a linear and quadratic, but for juveniles it is included as a linear term only. As mentioned above, inclusion of variables was heavily influenced by their statistical significance.
**Length of criminal career** An offender’s criminal career is a significant factor in predicting the likelihood of a re-offence and this relationship is quadratic, thus both linear and quadratic terms were included in the model.
**Total number of previous offences** The total number of previous offences is a significant factor in predicting the likelihood of a re-offending. The previous offending variables counted cautions and convictions and were included as linear and logged variables. Previous custodial sentences For adults, the number of previous custodial sentences was implemented as a continuous variable in both linear and quadratic terms. For juveniles, previous custodial sentences were included as a binary term: had the offender received one or more previous custodial sentences, yes or no. The difference in treatment reflects the more limited custodial history juvenile offenders generally possess compared to adult offenders.
Counts of previous offending by type of offence For adults, the number of previous offences by type of offence was an improvement over simple ‘yes or no’ variables for recording the presence of prior offences in the relevant categories. For juvenile offenders, simple ‘yes or no’ variables for recording the presence of prior offences in the relevant categories performed better. The difference in treatment reflects the more limited offending history juvenile offenders generally possess compared to adult offenders.
Interaction terms Interaction terms are calculated by multiplying two factors together. The inclusion of these terms allows the effect of one variable to vary according to the values of another, improving the quality of predictions. This is important because three factors (gender, age and total number of previous offences) are not completely independent of each other.
For adults, interaction terms were also included for drug-misusing offenders as they showed some trends in their proven re-offending behaviour that were different from the more general offending population.
Model assessment The model is assessed by calculating the level of discrimination between offenders that committed a proven re-offence and offenders that did not. The adult logistic regression model achieved a 78.9 per cent overall discrimination level on the 2008 cohort and 72.4 per cent for the juvenile logistic regression model. A level of discrimination of about 70% was deemed to be acceptable and the model should predict results accurately enough for the predicted rate to be used. The discrimination can also be evaluated by calculating the Area Under Curve (AUC) for the Receiver Operator Characteristic curve. Again, the value for the model was .784 for the adult regression model in 2008 and .716 for the youth regression model which means a satisfactory level of discrimination (Hosmer and Lemeshow, 2000, p.162). Coefficients of the 2008 statistical model
The following tables (2 and 3) show the parameter estimates for the various components of the logistic regression model for the predicted one-year proven re-offending rates for adults and young offenders.
Each logistic coefficient is multiplied by the variable value for each offender to calculate a linear prediction. To calculate each offender’s predicted probability of committing a proven re-offence in the follow-up period or a further 6 month waiting period we transform the linear prediction $Z$ using the following formula:
$$\\text{Predicted Probability of Reoffending} = \\frac{\\exp(Z)}{1 + \\exp(Z)}$$
The exponent of the coefficient is the odds ratio of committing a proven re-offence corresponding to the particular coefficient and enables us to make comparisons between different categories. For factors with interactions (e.g. age and gender) the interpretation is more complex.
The significance (p-value) gives us an assessment of how significant each variable is in predicting the likelihood of an offender to commit a proven re-offence within one year. For modelling purposes, a probability value (p-value) of less than 0.05 is considered to be significant. Table 2: List of variables in the logistic regression model applied to the 2008 data on adult offenders and their respective coefficients
| Variables | Coefficient | Logs-odd ratios | P-value | Variables | Coefficient | Logs-odd ratios | P-value | |-----------|-------------|-----------------|---------|-----------|-------------|-----------------|---------| | Constant | 1.940 | 6.958 | 0.000 | Violence | Reference category | | Gender: | | | | Robbery | -0.361 | 0.697 | 0.000 | | Female | Reference category | | | Theft | 0.462 | 1.620 | 0.000 | | Male | 0.645 | 1.906 | 0.000 | Handling | 0.173 | 1.189 | 0.000 | | Age: | | | | Taking and driving away | 0.180 | 1.198 | 0.000 | | Age | -0.250 | 0.779 | 0.000 | Sexual child | -0.465 | 0.628 | 0.000 | | Age squared | 0.006 | 1.006 | 0.000 | Soliciting/prostitution | 0.253 | 1.288 | 0.000 | | Age cubed | -0.00004 | 1.000 | 0.000 | Domestic burglary | 0.148 | 1.159 | 0.000 | | Male * age interaction | -0.013 | 0.988 | 0.000 | Other burglary | 0.337 | 1.401 | 0.000 | | General criminal career variables: | | | | Theft from vehicles | 0.478 | 1.612 | 0.000 | | Previous offences | -0.006 | 0.994 | 0.000 | Drink driving | -0.154 | 0.857 | 0.000 | | Previous offences (logged) | 0.391 | 1.478 | 0.000 | Criminal damage | 0.226 | 1.254 | 0.000 | | Male * previous offences interaction | -0.003 | 0.997 | 0.000 | Drug supply | -0.400 | 0.670 | 0.000 | | Previous prison sentences | 0.045 | 1.046 | 0.000 | Drug possession | 0.074 | 1.077 | 0.000 | | Previous prison sentences (logged) | -0.060 | 0.842 | 0.000 | Drug test | -1.167 | 0.311 | 0.000 | | Career length | -0.0001 | 1.000 | 0.000 | Absconding and bail | 0.364 | 1.440 | 0.000 | | Career length squared | 0.000 | 1.000 | 0.069 | Number of previous offences: | | | | | Copas rate squared | -0.064 | 0.938 | 0.000 | Public order | 0.052 | 1.053 | 0.000 | | PPO offender | 0.528 | 1.696 | 0.000 | Sexual | 0.035 | 1.036 | 0.000 | | Drug-misusing offender | 1.422 | 4.146 | 0.000 | Domestic burglary | -0.006 | 0.994 | 0.005 | | Ethnicity: | | | | Theft | 0.012 | 1.012 | 0.000 | | White | Reference category | | | Handling | -0.010 | 0.990 | 0.002 | | White other | 0.324 | 1.383 | 0.000 | Absconding and bail | 0.018 | 1.018 | 0.000 | | Black | 0.161 | 1.175 | 0.000 | Taking and driving away | -0.007 | 0.993 | 0.003 | | Pacific | 0.210 | 1.233 | 0.000 | Criminal damage | 0.017 | 1.017 | 0.000 | | Middle East | 0.130 | 1.138 | 0.003 | Drug supply | -0.044 | 0.957 | 0.000 | | Interaction with drug-misusing offenders: | | | | Other | -0.002 | 0.998 | 0.073 | | Previous offences (logged) | -0.156 | 0.855 | 0.000 | Index offence of drug supply | -0.430 | 0.651 | 0.000 | | Index offence of drug possession | -0.550 | 0.577 | 0.000 | Table 3: List of variables in the logistic regression model applied to the 2008 data on young offenders and their respective coefficients
| Variables | Coefficient | Logs-odd ratios | P-value | Variables | Coefficient | Logs-odd ratios | P-value | |-----------|-------------|-----------------|---------|-----------|-------------|-----------------|---------| | Constant | -1.495 | 0.224 | 0.000 | Index offence: | Reference category | | Gender: | | | | Violence | Reference category | | Female | | | | Robbery | 0.130 | 1.139 | 0.003 | | Male | 0.527 | 1.693 | 0.000 | Public order or riot | 0.178 | 1.195 | 0.000 | | Age: | | | | Sexual offences | -0.578 | 0.561 | 0.000 | | Aged 10-11| | | | Sexual offences against children | -1.157 | 0.314 | 0.000 | | Aged 12 | 0.354 | 1.425 | 0.000 | Domestic burglary | 0.233 | 1.262 | 0.000 | | Aged 13 | 0.448 | 1.566 | 0.000 | Theft | -0.088 | 0.916 | 0.000 | | Aged 14 | 0.431 | 1.538 | 0.000 | Handling | 0.118 | 1.126 | 0.018 | | Aged 15 | 0.186 | 1.205 | 0.000 | Fraud or forgery | -0.251 | 0.778 | 0.000 | | Aged 16 | -0.124 | 0.883 | 0.017 | Absconding or bail offences | 0.176 | 1.192 | 0.022 | | Aged 17 | -0.202 | 0.817 | 0.000 | Taking and driving away | 0.116 | 1.123 | 0.003 | | Interactions between age and gender: | | | | Theft from vehicles | 0.294 | 1.302 | 0.000 | | Female at any age | Reference category | Any previous offences: | Reference category | | | | | | Male aged 10-11 | Reference category | Violence | 0.039 | 1.039 | 0.062 | | Male aged 12 | -0.276 | 0.759 | 0.000 | Robbery | 0.101 | 1.106 | 0.011 | | Male aged 13 | -0.214 | 0.807 | 0.000 | Public order or riot | 0.143 | 1.154 | 0.000 | | Male aged 14 | -0.157 | 0.855 | 0.000 | Domestic burglary | 0.166 | 1.181 | 0.000 | | Male aged 15 | 0.134 | 1.144 | 0.002 | Other burglary | 0.099 | 1.104 | 0.001 | | Male aged 16 | 0.113 | 1.120 | 0.013 | Theft | 0.135 | 1.144 | 0.000 | | Male aged 17 | 0.113 | 1.120 | 0.013 | Handling | 0.107 | 1.113 | 0.009 | | General criminal career variables: | Reference category | Any previous offences: | Reference category | | | | | | Career length | 0.000 | 1.000 | 0.000 | Taking and driving away | 0.088 | 1.093 | 0.012 | | Career length squared | 0.000 | 1.000 | 0.000 | Theft from vehicles | 0.125 | 1.133 | 0.012 | | Copas rate | 0.128 | 1.137 | 0.001 | Drunk driving | -0.245 | 0.783 | 0.033 | | Previous offences | -0.036 | 0.964 | 0.000 | Criminal or malicious damage | 0.069 | 1.071 | 0.001 | | Previous offences (logged) | 0.820 | 2.251 | 0.000 | Other | 0.138 | 1.148 | 0.001 | | Previous prison sentence(s) | 0.124 | 1.132 | 0.022 | Miscellaneous | -0.689 | 0.502 | 0.014 | | PPO offender | 0.930 | 2.534 | 0.000 | Breaches | 0.762 | 2.144 | 0.007 | | Ethnicity: | Reference category | | | | | | | | White | Unknown | -0.823 | 0.439 | 0.000 | | White (other) | 0.196 | 1.217 | 0.000 | | Black | 0.187 | 1.206 | 0.000 | | Asian | -0.200 | 0.819 | 0.000 | | Pacific | -0.468 | 0.626 | 0.001 | Additional modelling for prison performance
Assessing the performance of individual prisons in reducing re-offending is difficult because the particular characteristics of offenders that are at a particular prison are likely to be the main drivers behind re-offending.
A statistical methodology has been developed to examine prison re-offending rates that not only takes account of offence, offender and prison characteristics, but also takes account of the hierarchical structure of the data; i.e. that offenders are within prisons.
Two separate models were developed: for prisoners receiving sentences of fewer than 12 months and prisoners with sentences of 12 months or over. The separate models for prisoners with sentences of fewer than 12 months and 12 months or more reflects differences in prisoners’ re-offending behaviour by prison sentence length.
The model used for both types of offender was a logistic regression model with mixed effects (fixed and random). The outcome variable is a binary yes/no variable representing whether an offender re-offends or not. Offender characteristics are included as fixed independent variables and the prisons are included as a random effect component which allows each prison to interact with the fixed effects differently.
The variables included in the model were similar to those used to develop the adjusted baseline described above: age, ethnicity, index offence, previous offences, previous prison sentences, copas scores, and criminal career, as well as the random effects component of prisons. The goodness-of-fit by AUC was satisfactory, above 0.77 in all cases.
Considerable preliminary analysis has been undertaken investigating the relative important of offence, offender and prison-level variables in explaining custodial re-offending. This analysis has overwhelmingly shown that offence and offender-level variables shape re-offending whereas prison-level variables refine re-offending behaviour. For this reason, the model uses offender and offence-level variables and only models prison-level effects using a single random effects component.
This model generates an expected probability of re-offending for each offender. When aggregated up to the prison it produces an expected proportion of offenders who re-offend. This can be compared with the actual rate of re-offending.
Where the model-predicted re-offending rate was statistically significantly different to actual re-offending rates, two possible explanations are plausible:
1. Missing characteristics: it is possible that there are underlying offence, offender or prison characteristics affecting re-offending behaviour that are not included in the current model; or,
2. A genuine difference: there is something specific to these prisons that make them better/worse than predicted.
Additional modelling for probation performance
Results in the headline measure are compared to a baseline rate, adjusted for changes in the offender profile. This relies on an estimate of the relationship between offender characteristics and proven re-offending behaviour over twelve-months. An equivalent estimate has been carried out for the proven re-offending behaviour specifically of offenders commencing court orders. This uses the same variables as the headline measure plus additional variables to ensure that the actual and predicted rates are identical for every probation trust in the baseline period (2008). The tables accompanying the report present the adjusted baseline for each trust.
Differences between the prison and probation trusts models and the model for the adjusted baseline for the headline measure
- The adjusted baseline for the headline measure applies to all offenders; the prison and probation models only apply to offenders discharged from custody or given a Court Order.
- The adjusted baseline for the headline measure is created using a fixed effects model using only offender and offence level variables; the probation model does the same, but the prison models use offender and offence level variables and also include a random component to reflect that prisoners are located within prisons.
- The adjusted baseline for the headline measure and for the probation model is derived using data from a baseline year (2008). The observed re-offending is equal to the predicted re-offending for the baseline year; the model coefficients are then applied to subsequent years and the predicted rates begins to differ from the actual rates. Provided the baseline year model is frequently refreshed, this ensures that any deviations of the actual re-offending rate from the predicted rate are due to system changes and not due to changes in the cohort make up. This approach enables us to assess progress in reducing re-offending.
Whereas, the prison model are generated from scratch every year and assess if any prison or probation trust differs from the national average. As with the previous approach, the observed re-offending rate is still equal to the predicted re-offending for the prison population as a whole. It will not necessarily be the case for individual prisons. This approach provides an idea of which prisons have significantly lower (or higher) re-offending rates than predicted.
Work is underway to develop an equivalent model for probation trusts to the one used for prisons. Appendix A: List of serious offences
Serious violence against the person
1. Murder:
1. Of persons aged 1 year or over.
2. Of infants under 1 year of age.
2. Attempted murder.
3. Manslaughter, etc:
1. Manslaughter.
2. Infanticide.
3. Child destruction.
4. Wounding or other act endangering life:
01. Wounding, etc. with intent to do grievous bodily harm, etc. or to resist apprehension.
02. Shooting at naval or revenue vessels.
03. Attempting to choke, suffocate, etc. with intent to commit an indictable offence (garrotting).
04. Using chloroform, etc. to commit or assist in committing an indictable offence.
05. Burning, maiming, etc. by explosion.
06. Causing explosions or casting corrosive fluids with intent to do grievous bodily harm.
07. Impeding the saving of life from shipwreck.
08. Placing, etc. explosives in or near ships or buildings with intent to do bodily harm, etc.
09. Endangering life or causing harm by administering poison.
10. Causing danger by causing anything to be on road, interfering with a vehicle or traffic equipment.
11. Possession, etc. of explosives with intent to endanger life.
12. Possession of firearms, etc. with intent to endanger life or injure property, etc. (Group I).
13. Possession of firearms, etc. with intent to endanger life or injure property, etc. (Group II).
14. Possession of firearms, etc. with intent to endanger life or injure property, etc. (Group III).
15. Using, etc. firearms or imitation firearms with intent to resist arrest, etc. (Group I).
16. Using, etc. firearms or imitation firearms with intent to resist arrest, etc. (Group II).
17. Using, etc. firearms or imitation firearms with intent to resist arrest, etc. (Group III). [Group I - Firearms, etc. other than as described in Group II or III. Group II - Shotguns as defined in s.1 (3)(a) of the Firearms Act 1968. Group III - Air weapons as defined in s.1 (3)(b) of the Firearms Act 1968]
18. Use etc. of chemical weapons.
19. Use of premises or equipment for producing chemical weapons.
20. Use, threat to use, production or possession of a nuclear weapon.
21. Weapons related acts overseas.
22. Use of noxious substances or things to cause harm or intimidate.
23. Performing an aviation function or ancillary function when ability to carry out function is impaired because of drink or drugs.
24. Endangering safety at sea/aerodromes.
25. Torture.
5. Other wounding, etc:
6. Wounding or inflicting grievous bodily harm (inflicting bodily injury with or without weapon).
7. Racially aggravated wounding or inflicting grievous bodily harm (inflicting bodily injury with or without weapon).
8. Religiously aggravated malicious wounding or GBH.
9. Racially or religiously aggravated malicious wounding or grievous bodily harm.
**Sexual offences**
017. Sexual assault on a male (previously indecent assault on a male):
018. Indecent assault on male person under 16 years.
019. Indecent assault on male person 16 years or over.
020. Assault on a male by penetration.
021. Assault of a male child under 13 by penetration.
022. Sexual assault on a male.
023. Sexual assault of a male child under 13.
024. Rape:
025. Man having unlawful sexual intercourse with a woman who is a defective.
026. Male member of staff of hospital or mental nursing home having unlawful sexual intercourse with female patient.
027. Man having unlawful sexual intercourse with mentally disordered female patient who is subject to his care.
028. Rape of a female aged under 16.
029. Rape of a female aged 16 or over.
030. Rape of a male aged under 16.
031. Rape of a male aged 16 or over.
032. Attempted rape of a female aged under 16.
033. Attempted rape of a female aged 16 or over.
034. Attempted rape of a male aged under 16.
035. Attempted rape of a male aged 16 or over.
036. Rape of female child under 13 by a male.
037. Rape of a male child under 13 by a male.
038. Attempted rape of a female child under 13 by a male.
039. Attempted rape of a male child under 13 by a male.
040. Sexual assault on female (previously indecent assault on a female):
041. On females under 16 years of age.
042. On females aged 16 years and over.
043. Assault on a female by penetration.
044. Assault on a female child under 13 by penetration.
045. Sexual assault on a female.
046. Sexual assault on a female child under 13.
047. Sexual activity (male and female) (including with a child under 13) (previously unlawful intercourse with a girl under 13):
048. Causing or inciting a female child under 13 to engage in sexual activity - penetration.
049. Causing or inciting a female child under 13 to engage in sexual activity - no penetration.
050. Causing or inciting a male child under 13 to engage in sexual activity - penetration.
051. Causing or inciting a male child under 13 to engage in sexual activity - no penetration.
052. Sexual activity with a female child under 13 - offender aged 18 or over - penetration.
053. Sexual activity with a male child under 13 - offender aged 18 or over - penetration.
054. Causing or inciting a female child under 13 to engage in sexual activity - offender aged 18 or over - penetration.
055. Causing or inciting a male child under 13 to engage in sexual activity - offender aged 18 or over - penetration.
056. Engaging in sexual activity in the presence of a child under 13 (offender aged 18 or over).
057. Causing a child under 13 to watch a sexual act (offender aged 18 or over).
058. Sexual activity with a female child under 13 - offender aged under 18.
059. Sexual activity with a male child under 13 - offender aged under 18.
060. Causing of inciting a female child under 13 to engage in sexual activity - offender under 18.
061. Causing or inciting a male child under 13 to engage in sexual activity - offender under 18.
062. Engaging in sexual activity in the presence of a child under 13 - offender under 18.
063. Causing a child under 13 to watch a sexual act - offender under 18.
064. Sexual activity with a female under 13 - offender aged 18 or over - no penetration.
065. Sexual activity with a male child under 13 - offender aged 18 or over - no penetration.
066. Causing or inciting a female child under 13 to engage in sexual activity - offender aged 18 or over - no penetration.
067. Causing or inciting a male child under 13 to engage in sexual activity - offender aged 18 or over - no penetration.
068. Sexual activity with a female child under 13 - offender aged under 18 - no penetration.
069. Sexual activity with a male child under 13 - offender aged under 18 - no penetration.
070. Causing or inciting a female child under 13 to engage in sexual activity - offender aged under 18 - no penetration.
071. Causing or inciting a male child under 13 to engage in sexual activity - offender aged under 18 - no penetration.
072. Sexual activity (male and female) (including with a child under 16) (previously unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl under 16):
073. Unlawful sexual intercourse with girl under 16 (offences committed prior to 1 May 2004).
074. Causing a female person to engage in sexual activity without consent - penetration
075. Causing a male person to engage in sexual activity without consent - penetration
076. Causing a female person to engage in sexual activity without consent - no penetration.
077. Causing a male person to engage in sexual activity without consent - no penetration.
078. Sexual activity with a female child under 16 (offender aged 18 or over) - penetration
079. Sexual activity with a male child under 16 (offender aged 18 or over) - penetration
080. Causing or inciting a female child under 16 to engage in sexual activity (offender aged 18 or over) - penetration
081. Causing of inciting a male child under 16 to engage in sexual activity (offender aged 18 or over) - penetration
082. Engaging in sexual activity in the presence of a child under 16 (offender aged 18 or over).
083. Causing a child under 16 to watch a sexual act (offender aged 18 or over).
084. Sexual activity with a female child under 16 - offender aged 18 or over - no penetration.
085. Sexual activity with a male child under 16 - offender aged 18 or over - no penetration.
086. Causing or inciting a female child under 16 to engage in sexual activity (offender aged 18 or over) - no penetration.
087. Causing or inciting a male child under 16 to engage in sexual activity (offender aged 18 or over) - no penetration.
088. Sexual activity etc. with a person with a mental disorder:
089. Sexual activity with a male person with a mental disorder impeding choice – penetration.
090. Sexual activity with a female person with a mental disorder impeding choice – penetration.
091. Sexual activity with a male person with a mental disorder impeding choice - no penetration.
092. Sexual activity with a female person with a mental disorder impeding choice - no penetration.
093. Causing or inciting a male person with a mental disorder impeding choice to engage in sexual activity – penetration.
094. Causing or inciting a female person with a mental disorder impeding choice to engage in sexual activity – penetration.
095. Causing or inciting a male person with a mental disorder impeding choice to engage in sexual activity – penetration.
096. Causing or inciting a female person with a mental disorder impeding choice to engage in sexual activity - no penetration.
097. Engaging in sexual activity in the presence of a person with a mental disorder impeding choice.
098. Causing a person with a mental disorder impeding choice to watch a sexual act.
099. Inducement, threat or deception to procure sexual activity with a person with a mental disorder – penetration.
100. Inducement, threat or deception to procure sexual activity with a person with a mental disorder - no penetration.
101. Causing a person with a mental disorder to engage in sexual activity by inducement, threat or deception - penetration.
102. Causing a person with a mental disorder to engage in sexual activity by inducement, threat or deception - no penetration.
103. Engaging in sexual activity in the presence, procured by inducement, threat or deception, of a person with a mental disorder.
104. Causing a person with a mental disorder to watch a sexual act by inducement, threat or deception.
105. Care workers: Sexual activity with a male person with a mental disorder - penetration.
106. Care workers: Sexual activity with a female person with a mental disorder - penetration.
107. Care workers: Sexual activity with a male person with a mental disorder - no penetration.
108. Care workers: Sexual activity with a female person with a mental disorder - no penetration.
109. Care workers: Causing or inciting sexual activity (person with a mental disorder) - penetration.
110. Care workers: Causing or inciting sexual activity (person with a mental disorder) - no penetration.
111. Care workers: Sexual activity in the presence of a person with a mental disorder.
112. Care workers: Causing a person with a mental disorder impeding choice to watch a sexual act.
113. Abuse of children through prostitution and pornography (previously child prostitution and pornography):
114. Arranging or facilitating the commission of a child sex offence.
115. Paying for sex with a female child under 13 - penetration
116. Paying for sex with a male child under 13 - penetration
117. Paying for sex with a female child under 16 - no penetration
118. Paying for sex with a male child under 16 - no penetration
119. Paying for sex with a female child aged 16 or 17.
120. Paying for sex with a male child aged 16 or 17.
121. Causing or inciting child prostitution or pornography - child aged 13-17.
122. Controlling a child prostitute or a child involved in pornography - child aged 13-17.
123. Arranging or facilitating child prostitution or pornography - child aged 13-17.
124. Causing or inciting child prostitution or pornography - child under 13.
125. Controlling a child prostitute or child involved in pornography - child under 13.
126. Arranging or facilitating child prostitution or pornography - child under 13.
127. Paying for sex with a female child aged under 16 - penetration
128. Paying for sex with a male child aged under 16 - penetration
129. Trafficking for sexual exploitation:
130. Arranging or facilitating arrival of a person into the UK for sexual exploitation (trafficking).
131. Arranging or facilitating travel of a person within the UK for sexual exploitation (trafficking).
132. Arranging or facilitating departure of a person from the UK for sexual exploitation (trafficking).
Taking and driving away and related offences
37. Aggravated vehicle taking:
38. Where, owing to the driving of the vehicle, an accident occurs causing the death of any person.
Other motoring offences
4. Manslaughter, etc: 4. Causing death by dangerous driving. 8. (Offences) Causing death by careless or inconsiderate driving (Offences due to commence in Autumn 2007).
Drink driving offences
4. Manslaughter, etc: 6. Causing death by careless driving when under the influence of drink or drugs. Serious acquisitive offences
Burglary
1. Burglary in a dwelling with intent to commit or the commission of an offence triable only on indictment.
2. Burglary in a dwelling with violence or the threat of violence.
3. Other burglary in a dwelling.
4. Aggravated burglary in a dwelling (including attempts)
Robbery
1. Robbery
2. Assault with intent to rob.
Taking and driving away
1. Aggravated taking where the vehicle was driven dangerously on a road or other public place
2. Aggravated taking where owing to the driving of the vehicle an accident occurred causing injury to any person or damage to any property other than the vehicle
Theft from or of vehicles
1. Stealing from motor vehicles.
2. Stealing from other vehicles.
3. Theft of motor vehicle.
4. Unauthorised taking of a motor vehicle Appendix B: Glossary of Terms
Re-offending terms
**Cohort** - this is the group of individuals whose re-offending is measured.
**Index offence** - the index offence is the proven offence that leads to an offender being included in the cohort.
**Index disposal** - the index disposal of the offender is the type of sentence the offender received for their index offence.
**Start point (also known as the index date)** - this is the set point in time from when re-offences are measured.
**Follow up period** - this is the length of time proven re-offending is measured over.
**Waiting period** - this is the additional time beyond the follow up period to allow for offences committed towards the end of the follow up period to be proved by a court conviction, caution, reprimand or final warning.
**Adjusted baseline** - proven re-offending is related to the characteristics of offenders which means that any overall rate of proven re-offending will depend, in part, on the characteristics of offenders coming into the system (just as the examination pass rate of a school will be related to the characteristics of its pupils). We use a modelling technique to produce a baseline figure adjusted to match the characteristics of the cohort we are comparing. For more details see the chapter on Statistical modelling and coefficients.
**Reconviction** – where an offender is convicted at court for an offence committed within a set follow up period and convicted within either the follow up period or waiting period
**Proven re-offence** – where an offender is convicted at court or receives some other form of criminal justice sanction for an offence committed within a set follow up period and disposed of within either the follow up period or waiting period.
**Cohort definitions used in the Proven Re-offending statistic quarterly bulletin in England and Wales publication**
The proven re-offending cohort consists of all offenders discharged from custody, otherwise sanctioned at court, receiving a caution, reprimand or warning or tested positive for opiates or cocaine in each year. This cohort’s criminal history is collated and criminal behaviour is tracked over the following one year. Any offence committed in this one-year period which is proven by a court conviction or out-of-court disposal (either in the one-year period, or in a further six months waiting period) counts as a proven re-offence.
The latest available publication is the Proven Re-offending statistic quarterly bulletin in England and Wales; Ministry of Justice, October 2011.
**Cohort definitions used in the Local Measure of Re-offending quarterly bulletin publication**
The local adult re-offending measure takes a snapshot of all offenders, aged 18 or over, who are under probation supervision at the end of a quarter, and combines four such snapshots together.
This cohort’s criminal history is collated and criminal behaviour is tracked over the following three months. Any offence committed in this three month period which is proven by a court conviction or out-of-court disposal (either in the three month period, or in a further three months waiting period) counts as a proven re-offence.
Results from this publication are available at [www.justice.gov.uk/publications/statistics-and-data/reoffending/local-adult-reoffending.htm](http://www.justice.gov.uk/publications/statistics-and-data/reoffending/local-adult-reoffending.htm)
**Cohort definitions used in the previous Adult re-convictions in England and Wales publication**
The adult re-conviction cohort consists of adults discharged from custody or commencing a court order under probation supervision in the first quarter of each year. This cohort’s criminal history is collated and criminal behaviour is tracked over the following one year. Any offence committed in this one-year period which is proven by a court conviction (either in the one-year period, or in a further six months waiting period) counts as a reconviction.
The last publication in this series is the Adult re-convictions: results from the 2009 cohort; Ministry of Justice, March 2011.
[www.justice.gov.uk/publications/statistics-and-data/reoffending/adults.htm](http://www.justice.gov.uk/publications/statistics-and-data/reoffending/adults.htm)
**Cohort definitions used in the previous Re-offending of juveniles in England and Wales publication**
The juvenile reoffending cohort is formed of juvenile offenders discharged from custody, otherwise sanctioned at court, or receiving a reprimand or warning in January to March of each year. This cohort’s criminal history is collated and criminal behaviour is tracked over the following one year. Any offence committed in this one-year period which is proven by a court conviction or out-of-court disposal (either in the one-year period, or in a further six months waiting period) counts as proven reoffending.
The last publication in this series is the Reoffending of juveniles: results from the 2009 cohort; Ministry of Justice, March 2011.
[http://www.justice.gov.uk/publications/statistics-and-data/reoffending/juveniles.htm](http://www.justice.gov.uk/publications/statistics-and-data/reoffending/juveniles.htm) Disposals (Sentences)
Fine A financial penalty imposed following conviction.
Court orders Court orders include community sentences, community orders and suspended sentence orders supervised by the Probation Service. They do not include any pre or post release supervision.
Criminal Justice Act 2003 (CJA03) For offences committed on or after 4 April 2005, the new community order replaced all existing community sentences for adults. The Act also introduced a new suspended sentence order for offences which pass the custody threshold. It also changed the release arrangements for prisoners. See Appendix A of Offender Management Caseload Statistics96 for more information.
Community order For offences committed on or after 4 April 2005, the new community order introduced under the CJA 2003 replaced all existing community sentences for those aged 18 years and over. This term refers to all court orders except suspended sentence orders and deferred sentences which may have a custodial component to the sentence. The court must add at least one (but could potentially comprise of all 12) requirements depending on the offences and the offender. The requirements are:
- unpaid work (formerly community service/community punishment) – a requirement to complete between 40 and 300 hours’ unpaid work;
- activity – for example, to attend basic skills classes;
- programme – there are several designed to reduce the prospects of reoffending;
- prohibited activity – a requirement not do so something that is likely to lead to further offender or nuisance;
- curfew – which is electronically monitored;
- exclusion – this is not used frequently as there is no reliable electronic monitoring yet available;
- residence – requirement to reside only where approved by probation officer;
- mental health treatment (requires offender’s consent); • drug rehabilitation (requires offender’s consent); • alcohol treatment (requires offender’s consent); • supervision – meetings with probation officer to address needs/offending behaviour; and, • attendance centre – three hours of activity, between a minimum of 12 hours and a maximum of 36 in total.
Typically, the more serious the offence and the more extensive the offender’s needs, the more requirements there will be. Most orders will comprise one or two requirements but there are packages of several requirements available where required. The court tailors the order as appropriate and is guided by the Probation Service through a pre-sentence report.
**Suspended Sentence Order (SSO)**
The Criminal Justice Act 2003 introduced a new suspended sentence order which is made up of the same requirements as a community order and, in the absence of breach is served wholly in the community supervised by the Probation Service. It consists of an ‘operational period’ (the time for which the custodial sentence is suspended) and a ‘supervision period’ (the time during which any requirements take effect). Both may be between six months and two years and the ‘supervision period’ cannot be longer than the ‘operational period’, although it may be shorter. Failure to comply with the requirements of the order or commission of another offence will almost certainly result in a custodial sentence.
**Pre CJA03 Court Orders - Community sentences:**
**Community punishment order (CPO):** the offender is required to undertake unpaid community work.
**Community rehabilitation order (CRO):** a community sentence which may have additional requirements such as residence, probation centre attendance or treatment for drug, alcohol or mental health problems.
**Community punishment and rehabilitation order (CPRO):** a community sentence consisting of probation supervision alongside community punishment, with additional conditions like those of a community rehabilitation order.
**Drug treatment and testing order (DTTO):** a community sentence targeted at offenders with drug misuse problems.
**Custody** - the offender is awarded a sentence to be served in prison or YOI (Youth Offenders Institute). If the offender was given a sentence of 12 months or over, or was aged under 22 on release, the offender is supervised by the Probation Service on release. It is important to note that the sentence length awarded will be longer than the time served. For more information please refer to Appendix A of the Offender Management Caseload Statistics.
**Prison categories**
**Category B and Category C** prisons hold sentenced prisoners of their respective categories, including life sentenced prisoners. The regime focuses on programmes that address offending behaviour and provide education, vocational training and purposeful work for prisoners who will normally spend several years in one prison.
**High Security Prisons hold Category A and B prisoners.** Category A prisoners are managed by a process of dispersal, and these prisons also hold a proportion of Category B prisoners for whom they provide a similar regime to a Category B prison. The Category B prisoners held in a High Security Prison are not necessarily any more dangerous or difficult to manage than those in category B prisons.
**Female prisons.** As the name implies, they hold women prisoners. Because of the smaller numbers, they are not divided into the same number of categories although there are variations in security levels.
**Local prisons** serve the courts in the area. Historically their main function was to hold unconvicted and unsentenced prisoners and, once a prisoner had been sentenced, to allocate them on to a Category B, C or D prison as appropriate to serve their sentence. However, pressure on places means that many shorter term prisoners serve their entire sentence in a local prison, while longer term prisoners also complete some offending behaviour and training programmes there before moving on to lower security conditions. All local prisons operate to category B security standards.
**Open prisons** have much lower levels of physical security and only hold Category D prisoners. Many prisoners in open prisons will be allowed to go out of the prison on a daily basis to take part in voluntary or paid work in the community in preparation for their approaching release.
**Prisoner Categories**
These categories are based on a combination of the type of crime committed, the length of sentence, the likelihood of escape, and the danger to the public if they did escape. The four categories are:
**Category A** prisoners are those whose escape would be highly dangerous to the public or national security
**Category B** prisoners are those who do not require maximum security, but for whom escape needs to be made very difficult
**Category C** prisoners are those who cannot be trusted in open conditions but who are unlikely to try to escape Category D prisoners are those who can be reasonably trusted not to try to escape, and are given the privilege of an open prison.
Short sentences – under twelve months
Those sentenced to under twelve months spend the first half of their sentence in prison and are then released and considered ‘at risk’ for the remaining period. This means they are under no positive obligations and do not report to the probation service but, if they commit a further imprisonable offence during the at risk period, they can be made to serve the remainder of the sentence in addition to the punishment for the new offence. The exception to this is those aged 18 to 20 who have a minimum of three months’ supervision on release.
Sentences of 12 months or over
The Criminal Justice Act 2003 created a distinction between standard determinate sentences and public protection sentences. Offenders sentenced to a standard determinate sentence serve the first half in prison and the second half in the community on licence.
Miscellaneous terms
National Probation Service
The National Probation Service generally deals with those aged 18 years and over. (Those under 18 are mostly dealt with by Youth Offending Teams, answering to the Youth Justice Board.) They are responsible for supervising offenders who are given community sentences and suspended sentence orders by the courts, as well as offenders given custodial sentences, both pre and post their release.
Police National Computer
The Police National Computer (PNC) is the police’s administrative IT system used by all police forces in England and Wales and managed by the National Policing Improvement Agency. As with any large scale recording system the PNC is subject to possible errors with data entry and processing. The Ministry of Justice maintains a database based on weekly extracts of selected data from the PNC in order to compile statistics and conduct research on reoffending and criminal histories. The PNC largely covers recordable offences – these are all indictable and triable-either-way offences plus many of the more serious summary offences. All figures derived from the Ministry of Justice’s PNC database, and in particular those for the most recent months, are likely to be revised as more information is recorded by the police. Recordable offences
Recordable offences are those that the police are required to record on the Police National Computer. They include all offences for which a custodial sentence can be given plus a range of other offences defined as recordable in legislation. They exclude a range of less serious summary offences, for example television licence evasion, driving without insurance, speeding and vehicle tax offences.
Indictable and summary offences - Summary offences are triable only by a magistrates’ court. This group includes motoring offences, common assault and criminal damage up to £5,000. More serious offences are classed either as triable either way (these can be tried either at the Crown Court or at a magistrates’ court and include criminal damage where the value is £5,000 or greater, theft and burglary) or indictable (the most serious offences that must be tried at the Crown Court. These ‘indictable-only’ offences include murder, manslaughter, rape and robbery).
Offence Group - A split of offences into twelve separate groups. A more detailed split of the ten indictable offence groups (violence against the person, sexual offences, burglary, robbery, theft and handling and stolen goods, fraud and forgery, criminal damage, drug offences, other indictable offences (excluding motoring), indictable motoring) and the two summary offence groups (summary non-motoring and summary motoring offence types). Appendix C: Comparison of the three measures of re-offending
Figure A1 below compares how the three measures of re-offending (the headline proven re-offending measure, the early estimates of re-offending and local adult re-offending) are constructed. It shows the period over which the re-offending cohort is formed, the time over which re-offending is measured, the additional time allowed for re-offending to be proven, and the time taken to collect and analyse the data, and then to publish.
Figure A1: how the three re-offending measures are constructed
| Measure | Cohort formation | Re-offences | Re-offences proven | Data collection and analysis | Publication | |--------------------------|------------------|-------------|--------------------|------------------------------|-------------| | Headline measure | Jan-Mar Apr-Jun | Jul-Sep Oct-Dec | Jan-Mar Apr-Jun | Jul-Sep Oct-Dec | Oct-11 | | Early Estimates | Jan-Mar Apr-Jun | Jul-Sep Oct-Dec | Jan-Mar Apr-Jun | Jul-Sep Oct-Dec | Oct-11 | | Local Re-offending | Jan-Mar Apr-Jun | Jul-Sep Oct-Dec | Jan-Mar Apr-Jun | Jul-Sep Oct-Dec | Nov-11 |
Cohort formation
Headline measure and early estimates: offenders enter the cohort when they receive a caution (adults), a final warning or reprimand (juveniles), are given a non-custodial conviction, are released from custody or test positive for cocaine or opiates in the cohort formation period shown.
Local adult re-offending: this uses a snapshot of all offenders aged 18 or over, who are under probation supervision at the end of a quarter, and combines four such snapshots together.
Re-offences
Headline measure: A re-offence is counted if the offence occurs within the "Re-offences" period shown. This is within 12 months of entering the cohort.
Early estimates and local adult re-offending: A re-offence is counted if the offence occurs within 3 months of entering the cohort for the early estimates measure and within 3 months following each of the four caseload snapshots for the local re-offending measure.
Re-offences proven
Headline measure: For a re-offence to be counted it must also be proven within the "Re-offences proven" period shown. This is within 6 months of the re-offence.
Early estimates and local adult re-offending: For a re-offence to be counted it must also be proven within the "Re-offences proven" period shown. This is within 3 months of the re-offence. Contact details and further information
For queries, comments or further information, please contact:
Nick Mavron, Justice Statistics Analytical Services Ministry of Justice 7th floor 102 Petty France London SW1H 9AJ Email: [email protected]
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/4804-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 49,
"total-input-tokens": 93364,
"total-output-tokens": 27003,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
84,
1
],
[
84,
534,
2
],
[
534,
2205,
3
],
[
2205,
4817,
4
],
[
4817,
7257,
5
],
[
7257,
9118,
6
],
[
9118,
11766,
7
],
[
11766,
14901,
8
],
[
14901,
16835,
9
],
[
16835,
19153,
10
],
[
19153,
21928,
11
],
[
21928,
22027,
12
],
[
22027,
23924,
13
],
[
23924,
24302,
14
],
[
24302,
26961,
15
],
[
26961,
29514,
16
],
[
29514,
31883,
17
],
[
31883,
34218,
18
],
[
34218,
36307,
19
],
[
36307,
38383,
20
],
[
38383,
40826,
21
],
[
40826,
44561,
22
],
[
44561,
46592,
23
],
[
46592,
48871,
24
],
[
48871,
49592,
25
],
[
49592,
51588,
26
],
[
51588,
53832,
27
],
[
53832,
55991,
28
],
[
55991,
58373,
29
],
[
58373,
59594,
30
],
[
59594,
62580,
31
],
[
62580,
66100,
32
],
[
66100,
68801,
33
],
[
68801,
71448,
34
],
[
71448,
73949,
35
],
[
73949,
76835,
36
],
[
76835,
80045,
37
],
[
80045,
83421,
38
],
[
83421,
84587,
39
],
[
84587,
85390,
40
],
[
85390,
87726,
41
],
[
87726,
90590,
42
],
[
90590,
92433,
43
],
[
92433,
94826,
44
],
[
94826,
97391,
45
],
[
97391,
99687,
46
],
[
99687,
101114,
47
],
[
101114,
103572,
48
],
[
103572,
103837,
49
]
]
} |
0fbccfe82b2912ddd1d4a0c093fbd17d54f12a8b | Proven re-offending statistics: definitions and measurement
Published October 2011
## Contents
| Section | Page | |------------------------------------------------------------------------|------| | Proven re-offending statistics quarterly bulletin – background and measurement | 3 | | Early estimates of proven re-offending – background and measurement | 10 | | Local re-offending statistics quarterly bulletin – background and measurement | 12 | | Data Quality | 13 | | Statistical modelling and coefficients | 22 | | Appendix A: List of serious offences | 30 | | Appendix B: Glossary | 36 | | Appendix C: Comparison of the three measures of re-offending | 43 | | Contact details and further information | 44 | Proven Re-offending Statistics Quarterly Bulletin
Background
The Ministry of Justice launched a statistical consultation on improvements to the transparency and accessibility of our information in 2010 and a response to the consultation was published in March 2011. One aspect of the consultation was the measurement of proven re-offending. Responses have supported the proposals to move to a single framework for measuring re-offending where adult and youth data can be provided at the national and local level on a consistent basis. The response to the consultation is available here:
http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/consultations/improvements-moj-statistics-consultation-response.pdf
Prior to this consultation there were six different measures of proven re-offending:
- national adult proven re-offending;
- local adult proven re-offending;
- national youth proven re-offending;
- local youth proven re-offending;
- Prolific and other Priority Offending (PPO); and
- drug-misusing proven offending.
The current framework for measuring proven re-offending integrates these approaches into a single framework. This allows users to:
- form a clear picture of proven re-offending at national and local levels;
- compare adult and youth results, and enable other work on transition between the youth and adult system;
- understand how results for different offender groups (such as those managed by the prison and probation services, those under the PPO schemes, drug-misusing offenders, first time entrants, etc) fit in to the overall picture on proven re-offending; and
- continue to be able to analyse proven re-offending behaviour of particular types of offender. Measurement
The underlying principle of measuring re-offending (or recidivism, which is the most commonly used term internationally) is that someone who has received some form of criminal justice sanction (such as a conviction or a caution) goes on to commit another offence within a set time period.
Measuring true re-offending is difficult. Official records are taken from either the police or courts, but they will underestimate the true level of re-offending because only a proportion of crime is detected and sanctioned and not all crimes and sanctions are recorded on one central system. Other methods of measuring re-offending, such as self report studies, are likely to be unreliable.
Following the Ministry of Justice consultation on Improvements to Ministry of Justice Statistics (2010), a **proven re-offence is defined** as any offence committed in a one year follow-up period and receiving a court conviction, caution, reprimand or warning in the one year follow up or a further six months waiting period. The data source is the extract of the Police National Computer (PNC) held by the Ministry of Justice.
Definitions for the measurement of proven re-offending
**Cohort**
This is the group of individuals whose re-offending is measured. For the Proven Re-offending Statistics Quarterly Bulletin this is defined as all offenders in any one year who received a caution (for adults), a final warning or reprimand (for juveniles), a non-custodial conviction, or were discharged from custody.
Offenders who were discharged from custody or secure accommodation (juveniles only) or commenced a Court Order are matched to the PNC database. A proportion of cases are lost in this process because they cannot be matched (see the section titled “Matching offender records” below for details). Additionally, offenders who appear multiple times in the cohort are only included once (see the section titled “Multiple Offender Entries” below for details).
The group of offenders whose offending behaviour is proven is likely to be a sub-group of all active offenders. The Offending, Crime and Justice Survey (2003)(^1) estimated that around one in ten people in England and Wales aged between 10 and 65 had committed an offence in the previous twelve months, which translates into approximately 3.8 million people. This compares to 632,000 offenders in the 2002 cohort used to measure re-offending, underlining that the offenders whose proven re-offending
(^1) The Offending, Crime and Justice Survey (2003) was a random probability survey of 10,079 people aged from ten to 65 and asked people about their offending history. Like any such survey its accuracy is dependent upon the level of honesty with which respondents completed the survey. behaviour is presented in the re-offending bulletin are a small and probably unrepresentative sample of the population of all active offenders.
**Index disposal (sentence type)** The index disposal of the offender is the type of sentence the offender received for their index offence. For the Proven Re-offending Statistics Quarterly Bulletin this is defined as custody, court order, other disposal resulting from a conviction at court, such as a fine or discharge, caution (adult offenders), reprimand or final warning (young offenders).
**Index offence**: Offences are only counted as an index offence if the offence is:
- recordable (see below)
- committed in England and Wales
- prosecuted by the police
- not a breach offence
There are around 3,000 offence codes on the Police National Computer. These have been classified into 21 groups: violence (non serious), violence (serious), robbery, public order or riot, sexual, sexual (child), soliciting or prostitution, domestic burglary, other burglary, theft, handling, fraud and forgery, absconding or bail offences, taking and driving away and related offences, theft from vehicles, other motoring offences, drink driving offences, criminal or malicious damage, drugs import/export/production/supply, drugs possession/small scale supply and other.
**Start Point (also known as the index date)** This is the set point in time from when re-offences are measured. For the Proven Re-offending Statistics Quarterly Bulletin this is defined as the date of prison discharge, date of court conviction for non-custodial sentences, date of receipt for a caution, reprimand or final warning or the date of a positive drug test.
**Follow-up period** This is the length of time proven re-offending is measured over. For the Proven Re-offending Statistics Quarterly Bulletin this is defined as twelve months from the start point.
**Waiting period** This is the additional time beyond the follow up period to allow for offences committed towards the end of the follow up period to be proved by a court conviction, caution, reprimand or final warning. For the Proven Re-offending Statistics Quarterly Bulletin this is six months.
Figure 1 below illustrates why different offences are included or not in the re-offending measures for an example offender. Events A-E all occur in the one year follow up period, but Events F and G are outside this period, so would not be counted. Events A-D are all counted because they were all proven within the one year follow-up period or the further six months waiting period, but Event E, even though the offence took place in the one year follow up period, would not be counted, as the conviction did not occur within either the one year follow up period, or the further six month waiting period. The offender has therefore committed 7 proven offences during the one-year follow up period (2 for Event A, 1 for Event B, 3 for Event C, and 1 for Event D).
**Sentence/disposal that an offence receives to count as a re-offence**
Offences that are proved by a court conviction, caution, reprimand or final warning count as re-offences.
**Offences that count as re-offences**
Offences are counted as re-offences if they meet all of the following criteria:
- They are recordable. Not all offences are on the PNC and more recordable offences are entered than non-recordable offences. Analysis comparing offences proven at court with offences recorded on the PNC suggests the most cost common offences that are not recorded relates to motor vehicles e.g. using a motor vehicle whilst uninsured against third party risks, speeding offences, keeping a vehicle on the highway without a driving license, or to television license evasion.
- They were committed in England or Wales.
- They are offences that were prosecuted by the police. PNC data is collected and input by the police and offences prosecuted by the police are likely to be recorded more comprehensively on the PNC than offences that are prosecuted by other organisations. For example, benefit fraud is prosecuted by the Department of Work and Pensions, and benefit fraud offences may be poorly represented on the PNC.
- Offences are only counted if they are proven through caution (for adults), reprimands or final warnings (for juveniles) and court convictions. Offences that are not proven, or which meet with other responses from the Criminal Justice System, are not counted. The Offending, Crime and Justice Survey (2003) estimated that 6 per cent of all offences resulted in any contact with the Criminal Justice System. • The offence is not a breach offence i.e breach of a court order, since we are only interested in new offences
Adjusted baseline (predicted rate) Proven re-offending is related to the characteristics of offenders which means that any overall rate of proven re-offending will depend, in part, on the characteristics of offenders coming into the system (just as the examination pass rate of a school will be related to the characteristics of its pupils). We use a modelling technique to produce a baseline figure adjusted to match the characteristics of the cohort we are comparing. For more details see the chapter on Statistical modelling and coefficients.
Measures of proven re-offending Re-offending data are presented in the following ways: • The number of offenders; • The proportion of offenders who are proven re-offenders; • The average number of proven re-offences among re-offenders; • The average number of proven re-offences among all offenders including those who committed no proven re-offences (previously the frequency rate); • The proportion of proven offenders who committed a proven serious re-offence against the person. See page 31 for details of what counts as a serious offence. • The proportion of proven offenders who committed a proven serious acquisitive re-offence. See page xx for details of what counts as a serious acquisitive offence.
The proportion of offenders who are proven to re-offend, adjusted to control for changes in offender characteristics. This measure is different from the other measures in that it does not come from actual re-offences, but from a statistical model created for the baseline year of 2008. This gives a better indication of actual change against a baseline. See the chapter on Statistical modelling and coefficients (page 23)
Multiple Offender Entries (MOEs) Each offender is tracked over a fixed period of time and any proven offence committed in this period is counted as a proven re-offence. Offenders who, after entering the cohort in a given year, commits a re-offence and is either cautioned, discharged from prison or gets a non-custodial conviction in the same cohort year. This re-offence could also be included as a second entry for this offender into the cohort.
Figure 2: Example of an offender with Multiple Offender Entries
| Offender Cautioned | Re-offence 1 | Offender starts a community sentence | Re-offence 2 | Offender sentenced to 3 months in prison then released | Re-offence 3 | |--------------------|-------------|-------------------------------------|-------------|-------------------------------------------------------|-------------| | | | | | | |
1 year cohort period To date, publications have avoided the double counting of these multiple offender entries (MOE) by only counting an individual once based on their first proven offence in the relevant time period. In the illustration above the caution would be counted as the index disposal and the further two proven offences would be counted as re-offences. This avoids double counting of proven re-offences.
**Proven re-offending measure**
In this publication the main tables (tables 1 to 17) in the report have been produced on the basis of the 'first proven offence in the relevant time period' which led to an offender being included. This provides a picture of proven re-offending which is consistent with previous publications and tracks an offender, irrespective of the disposal they receive, to when they commit a proven re-offence.
The measure of proven re-offending now covers all offenders in any one year instead of the first quarter of a calendar year as in previous proven re-offending publications. The result is many more offenders with multiple entries (MOEs).
In addition, including cautions to identify a proven offence means many offenders’ first offence will be associated with a caution since cautions account for around a third of adult offenders in one year. Table 1 shows the number of offenders by their number of entries.
**Table 1: Number of adult offenders and their respective number of entries for 2000, 2002-2009 cohorts**
| Multiple Offender Entries (MOEs) | 2000 | 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | |---------------------------------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------| | 1 | 512,551 | 522,376 | 544,032 | 551,265 | 582,840 | 622,096 | 638,495 | 610,329 | 578,644 | | 2x | 75,311 | 77,813 | 81,651 | 81,120 | 87,589 | 91,695 | 88,207 | 83,785 | | | 3x | 19,565 | 21,208 | 22,073 | 20,855 | 20,926 | 21,974 | 23,757 | 22,662 | 22,125 | | 4x | 6,195 | 6,689 | 7,074 | 6,635 | 6,725 | 6,807 | 7,652 | 7,917 | 7,360 | | 5x | 1,998 | 2,314 | 2,392 | 2,355 | 2,425 | 2,795 | 2,911 | 2,938 | | | 6 to 10x | 1,240 | 1,510 | 1,689 | 1,641 | 1,505 | 1,513 | 1,966 | 2,341 | 2,308 | | greater than 10x | 164 | 155 | 129 | 131 | 119 | 115 | 114 | 160 | 202 | | Total MOEs | 104,473 | 109,689 | 115,008 | 110,788 | 112,750 | 120,423 | 127,979 | 125,198 | 118,718 | | % of total cohort | 16.9% | 17.4% | 17.5% | 16.7% | 16.2% | 16.2% | 16.7% | 17.0% | 17.0% | | Cohort | 617,024 | 632,065 | 659,040 | 662,053 | 695,590 | 742,519 | 766,474 | 735,527 | 697,362 |
The number of offenders with multiple entries has remained fairly constant over time. The proportion of the total that had multiple offender entries has remained at about 16 – 17 per cent between 2000 and 2009.
**Proven re-offending by index disposal, probation trust and prison**
In order to measure proven re-offending on a consistent and representative basis by offender management groups it is necessary to distinguish between the disposal types that led to an offender being included. Doing this allows the cohort to be defined according to the relative start point of an offender’s interaction with the prison (discharged from prison) or probation services (court order commencement). Tables 18 to 21 provide re-offending rates by disposal (sentence) types. These are produced on the basis of an individual's first disposal (sentence) in that category. In the illustration above the individual would appear once in the caution category, once in the community order category and once in the custody category. These tables will include an overall prison and probation proven re-offending rate which will be the figures we quote publicly. However these figures should not be used when comparing proven re-offending rates across different disposals to compare effectiveness. Instead the Compendium of Re-offending (www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/publications/statistics-and-data/mojstats/compendium-of-reoffending-statistics-and-analysis.pdf) should be referred to as this analysis controls for offender characteristics in order to give a more reliable estimate of the relative effectiveness of different disposals.
Tables 22 to 24 provide re-offending rates by individual prison and probation trust. These are produced on the basis of an individual's first disposal from each specified prison or probation trust. If the individual offender is discharged from two different prisons in the year they will appear in both of the prison's re-offending rates. The same applies for offenders commencing court orders in more than one probation trust within the year. This is to allow prisons and probation services to track their caseload of offenders. Early Estimates of Proven Re-offending Statistics
Background Responses from the consultation and from earlier engagement with representatives of front-line offender management services supported the proposal to produce early estimates of proven re-offending using shorter follow-up and waiting periods. This is intended to provide offender managers feedback on the proven re-offending trends of offenders they are working with in time for them to adjust or build on offender management operational policy. This section of the new bulletin addresses these issues.
Early estimates of proven re-offending are presented for four particular offender groups who are subject to specific offender management arrangements. These are offenders managed by the probation service, Prolific and other Priority Offenders (PPO) who are managed by a partnership of local front-line services, drug-misusing offenders who are managed by Drug Action Teams, and young offenders who are managed by Youth Offending Teams.
Proven re-offending for the early estimates is measured in exactly the same way as for the headline proven re-offending measure except that the follow-up period and waiting period are both three months each. (For the headline measure of proven re-offending they are twelve months and six months, respectively).
The headline figures and early estimates differ in the following ways:
- Early estimates of proven re-offending rates are considerably lower than in the headline publication. This is because they cover a shorter time period.
- The shorter follow-up period and waiting period allow rates to be calculated for more recent groups of proven offenders.
- Early estimates of proven re-offending rates provide local offender management services with information on proven re-offending trends for the offenders they are working with. The headline re-offending publication presents the public with information on a wide range of proven re-offending trends and provides proven re-offending rates by a variety of breakdowns, such as age, gender, disposal etc.
- The shorter follow-up period and waiting period provides insufficient time for many serious re-offences to be committed and convicted. For this reason early estimates of proven re-offending rates do not include information on serious re-offending.
- Results in the headline measure are compared to a baseline rate, adjusted for changes in the offender profile. This relies on an estimate of the relationship between offender characteristics and proven re-offending behaviour over twelve-months. An equivalent estimate has been carried out for the proven re-offending behaviour of offenders. commencing court order over three months. This uses the same variables as the headline measure plus additional variables to ensure that the actual and predicted rates are identical for every probation trust in the baseline period (2008). The tables accompanying the early estimates present the adjusted baseline for each trust, and the text identifies those trusts where the actual rate is significantly higher or lower than the predicted rate in the most recent results available.
**Measurement**
**Coverage:** Results are provided for four types of offenders: probation offenders by probation trust, PPO offenders by upper-tier local authority, drug-misusing offenders by Drug Action Team, and young offenders by Youth Offending Team.
**Cohort:** For probation offenders, the cohort is made up of all offenders who commenced a Court Order within a twelve month period. For PPO offenders, the cohort is made up of all offenders identified as a PPO who were discharged from custody, convicted at court, received a caution (adults), reprimand or final warning (juveniles) or tested positive for opiates or cocaine within a twelve month period. For drug-misusing offenders, the cohort is made up of all offenders identified as drug-misusing who were discharged from custody, convicted at court, received a caution or tested positive for opiates or cocaine within a twelve month period. For juveniles, the cohort is made up of all young offenders who were discharged from custody, convicted at court or received a reprimand or final warning within a twelve month period.
**Start Point:** Same as for the headline re-offending figures presented in the Re-offending Statistics Quarterly Bulletin.
**Follow-up period:** Three months from the start point
**Waiting period:** Three months
**Proven Re-offence:** Same as for the headline proven re-offending figures presented in the Re-offending Statistics Quarterly Bulletin.
**Adjusted baseline:** Proven re-offending is related to the characteristics of offenders which means that any overall rate of proven re-offending will depend, in part, on the characteristics of offenders coming into the system (just as the examination pass rate of a school will be related to the characteristics of its pupils). We use a modelling technique to produce a baseline figure adjusted to match the characteristics of the cohort we are comparing. For more details see the chapter on Statistical modelling and coefficients (p 23).
**Multiple Offender Entries (MOEs):** Same as for the offender management tables in the main bulletin. Local Measure of Re-offending
Background Proven re-offending results from this measure have been published by the Ministry of Justice since February 2009 at the Government Office Region, Probation Trust and local authority level. This data is used to measure probation performance and the Ministry of Justice will continue to produce these measures while offender management systems still require them.
The local proven re-offending data measures the re-offending of all offenders on the probation caseload. This includes offenders on licence and serving Court Orders.
http://www.justice.gov.uk/publications/statistics-and-data/reoffending/local-adult-reoffending.htm
Local proven re-offending rates use the same follow-up period and waiting period to those for the early estimates. However, there are several large differences between the local measure and the early estimates. These include:
- the sample of offenders. Local rates are estimated using all offenders on the probation caseload, including those on licence and those serving court orders. Offenders on the caseload are identified through four ‘snapshots’ of the caseload, taken each quarter. Offenders are included if they are on the caseload even if they have been on licence or serving the court order for longer than twelve months. The early estimates are based on offenders who commence a court order within a twelve month period.
- Local rates define the period reported on by the period of re-offending. The early estimates refer to the year of the index disposal.
Measurement
Cohort: All offenders on the probation caseload taken from four snapshots taken quarterly.
Start Point: The date of the snapshot.
Follow-up period: Three months from the start point
Waiting period: Three months
Proven Re-offence: Same as for the headline proven re-offending figures presented in the Re-offending Statistics Quarterly Bulletin.
Adjusted baseline (Predicted Rate): The predicted rate is the proportion of offenders we would expect to re-offend given the known characteristics of the offenders in the snapshot and re-offending rates in the baseline period. More detail on the predicted rate, and the statistical model used to calculate it, is provided in Appendix C of the Local Adult Re-offending bulletin. Data Quality
The data required for measuring proven re-offending involve a range of data sources (NOMS prison database, probation data, identification of drug-misusing offenders, identification of Prolific and other Priority Offenders, and young offenders in secure accommodation, and the criminal records from the Police National Computer) from a range of agencies (NOMS, probation trusts, the Youth Justice Board, Drug Action Teams, local authorities and the National Police Improvement Agency). These figures have been derived from administrative IT systems which, as with any large scale recording system, are subject to possible errors with data entry and processing.
Police National Computer data
Information regarding the proven re-offending behaviour of offenders has been compiled using the Ministry of Justice’s extract from the Police National Computer (PNC). The process involves matching offender details from the prison and probation services to the personal details recorded on the PNC. A proportion of cases cannot be matched and the figures presented in Table 1 are expressed as a percentage of the offenders that are matched. Like any large scale recording system the PNC is subject to errors with data entry and recording. The PNC is regularly updated so that further analysis at a later date will generate revised figures.
The quality of the information recorded on the PNC is generally assumed to be relatively high as it is an operational system on which the police depend, but analysis can reveal errors that are typical when handling administrative datasets of this scale. The extent of error or omitted records on the PNC is difficult to estimate because it is a unique data-source. As a result, there is not always an obvious source of data to provide a baseline from which to assess data quality. For some types of results, however, comparisons can be made. For example, the trend in receptions into prison in each month is very similar using the PNC and prisons data (see below for details) although the number of receptions recorded on the PNC is consistently slightly lower because prisons data included cases on remand whereas the PNC does not. Another example is the number of cases that given a custodial, broken down by offence type, which is similar using the PNC and the Court Proceedings Database with a match rate of 97 per cent.
A number of improvements are routinely carried out:
- Updates to the coding and classification of offences and court disposals, including the reduction of uncoded offences, the reduction in the use of miscellaneous offence codes and the clarification of the coding of breach offences;
- Updates to the methods used to identify the primary offence, where several offences are dealt with on the same occasion, and the methods used to identify the primary disposal, where an offence attracts more than one court disposal; and,
- Removal of some duplication of records within the database resulting in improvements to the efficiency and reliability of the matching process. Prison data Prison establishments record details for individual inmates on the prison IT system (either Prison-NOMIS or LIDS). The information recorded includes details such as date of birth, sex, religion, nationality, ethnic origin, custody type, offence, reception and discharge dates and, for sentenced prisoners, sentence length. The data from individual prison establishments then feeds through to a central computer database, called the Inmate Information System (IIS).
In May 2009, the National Offender Management Service began the roll-out of a new case management system for prisons (Prison-NOMIS). During the phased roll-out, data collection issues emerged that affected the supply of data for statistical purposes from July 2009 to February 2010. Specifically, statistical information on sentence length and offence group are not available on any of our prison datasets for this period.
In order to ensure the fullest possible set of data from July 2009 to February 2010, sentence lengths were estimated for those prisoners received or discharged before the problems were resolved. At the point when the problems were resolved, a small number of prison establishments were still using the old LIDS case management system; data for prisoners received or discharged from these prisons was assumed to be unaffected.
For those prisoners received or discharged from prisons operating Prison-NOMIS, efforts were made to populate their record with the correct sentence length using other data extracts. For example, many prisoners discharged in January 2010 were originally received into prison prior to July 2009, so we were able to take their sentence length from unaffected datasets before the problems began. Similarly, the majority of those received in early 2010 were still in prison in March 2010 when the problems were resolved, so we were able to use the sentence length in the corrected prison population data.
Where it was not possible to populate a sentence length using other datasets, prisoners were allocated a sentence length band based on the number of days they spent in custody (taking account of early release schemes where relevant).
Alternative estimation method As a check on the methodology, we created an alternative estimation process and compared the number of discharges in the second half of 2009 in each sentence length band using the two methods.
A number of estimation methods were considered, and each tested on the 2008 data (prior to the data problems, hence we had a full year of data) to see which yielded estimates closest to the actual 2008 data. This identified the following method:
1. Calculate data for the first half of the year as a proportion of the full calendar year, for each year from 2001 to 2008; separately for each sentence length band or offence group (the 2 key breakdowns to be estimated).
2. Apply the average of these proportions to the Jan-Jun 2009 data to estimate the 2009 annual totals; separately for each sentence length band/offence group.
3. Scale the estimated numbers in each sentence length band or offence group to sum to the annual total recorded in the raw data (where the totals are known to be correct).
Results The maximum difference between the two approaches was 2.6% in the band 12 months to less than 4 years; for all other bands the difference was less than 1%.
Indeterminate sentence prisoners In addition to the above, data on the discharge of prisoners on indeterminate sentence (prisoners given a life sentence or indeterminate sentence for Public Protection (IPP) is provided from the Public Protection Unit Database (PPUD). This holds data jointly owned by the Offender Management and Public Protection Group (OMPPG) in NOMS and the Parole Board.
PPUD records details of all indeterminate sentence prisoners at the point of conviction, those engaged in the Generic Parole Process and prisoners (determinate and indeterminate) who have been recalled from licence. It also covers those who have received a restricted hospital order/direction from a Crown Court, and those remand and convicted prisoners who have been transferred from prison/detention centres to psychiatric hospital under the relevant sections of mental health legislation.
All decisions taken by the NOMS casework sections and the Parole Board are recorded on the system.
Personal information recorded includes (but is not limited to) name, date of birth, gender, identifying numbers, ethnicity, last known address, probation area and sentencing information.
OMPPG and the Parole Board run monthly and ad hoc reports to cleanse data that are not otherwise identified by data validation routines built into the system.
Probation data Since 2005, detailed information on the supervision of offenders (at the individual offender level) has been submitted by probation trusts on a monthly basis. These monthly ‘probation listings’ include information on offenders starting probation supervision. Between 2002 and 2005 this information was submitted quarterly, and prior to 2002 a different data collection system was in place, which meant that information on caseload had to be calculated based on the number of people starting supervision and the number of terminations. The quality of the information recorded on the probation data is generally assumed to be relatively high as it is a direct extract from an operational system upon which the probation service depends for managing offenders locally. The extract consists of a small number of key fields for which completion is mandatory. Probation Trusts have their own IT departments who manage their own data validation processes and when the data is received centrally it is subject to another set of data validation processes. Trends from the data are consistent with comparable time-series from the Courts Proceeding Database. Any large scale recording systems are subject to possible errors with data entry and processing but there are no known issues regarding the probation commencements data.
**Identification of drug-misusing offenders**
There are four ways a drug-misusing offender can be identified:
- Individuals who have tested positive for heroin or crack/cocaine following an arrest or charge for ‘trigger’ offences (largely acquisitive crime offences) as part of the Drug Interventions Programme (DIP) are included as adult proven offenders.
- Any offender that received an OASys assessment whilst on licence or on a community sentence and are either recorded as being subject to a current Drug Treatment and Testing Order (DTTO) or Drug Rehabilitation Requirement (DRR), or are assessed as having a criminogenic drug need.
- Any offender identified as requiring further drug interventions by Counselling, Assessment, Referral, Advice, Throughcare (CARAT) teams in prison, and now being released into the community.
- Any offender identified by local Criminal Justice Integrated Teams (CJITs) as requiring further intervention for their drug use and offending as part of DIP.
**Drug Interventions Programme (DIP)**
The Drug Interventions Programme (DIP) was introduced in April 2003 with the aim of developing and integrating measures for directing adult drug-misusing offenders into drug treatment and reducing offending behaviour. The programme comprises of a number of interrelated interventions:
- Drug testing in police custody for specified Class A drugs – heroin, cocaine and crack cocaine – for individuals arrested for trigger offences (primarily offences related to acquisitive crime);
- Assessment following a positive test to establish the extent of the individual's drug-misuse, and whether the individual might benefit from further assessment, assistance or treatment; • Conditional cautioning which may include a DIP drug rehabilitative condition, tailored to the offender’s drug use and offending.
• Restriction on bail for adults who have tested positive and whose offence is a drug offence or is drug-related.
• Criminal Justice Integrated Teams (CJITs) manage offenders who have been referred to treatment and co-ordinate agencies and services so they offer access to joined-up treatment and support. They maintain strong links with both the National Probation Service and Prison Service to ensure the continuity of care whilst the offender is within the Criminal Justice System.
Legislative changes have broadened the scope of the programme:
• A major expansion of DIP took place in April 2006 to move the point of drug testing from the point of charge to the point of arrest and to introduce required (rather than voluntary) assessments. This change broadened the scope and size of the cohort coming into contact with DIP.
• The latest changes took effect from April 2011, when the authorisation to conduct Drug Testing on Arrest was extended across England & Wales. Drug testing on arrest previously occurred only in ‘intensive’ DIP areas, which had high levels of acquisitive crime.
Data Sources
Records of those who test positive are logged onto the Drugs Intervention Management Information System (DIMIS), which is managed by the Home Office. An extract of positive drug test records for the relevant period is used for a match to the PNC.
Offenders identified as drug misusers via CARAT teams and CJITs are also recorded onto DIMIS, from which an extract is taken for the relevant period to match to the PNC. OASys records are collated centrally within the Ministry of Justice in the OASys Data, Evaluation and Analysis Team (O-DEAT) database, from which an extract is taken for the relevant period to match to the PNC.
Identification of Prolific and other Priority offenders
The Prolific and other Priority Offenders Programme (PPO) aims to use a multi-agency approach to focus on a very small but hard core group of prolific/persistent offenders who commit disproportionate amounts of crime and cause disproportionate harm to their local communities. Full implementation of all three strands had commenced by the beginning of February 2005. In 2009, all local areas were asked to review their PPO schemes to ensure that the programme remained squarely focused on those offenders that were of most concern to the communities in which they live. The identification of a PPO is undertaken at a local level involving police, local authorities, prison and probation services and youth offending teams. The factors that influence the decision of whether an offender is included in the PPO programme are:
- the nature and volume of crimes they commit;
- the nature and volume of other harm they cause; and
- the detrimental impact they have on their community.
This process will typically involve police, prison and probation information systems and other tools available.
The size of the PPO caseload at a local level is influenced by a range of factors, including the number of offenders who meet the locally agreed selection criteria and the capacity of local partner agencies to provide the intensive management of offenders under PPO supervision.
PPO cohort data are derived from JTRACK, which is a management information and tracking tool used by practitioners in various criminal justice agencies to record details of the offenders being managed as PPOs in a local area. JTRACK relies on the accurate input of data by local users to ensure that the details of the caseload on the system reflect the caseload being managed. An extract of the caseload from JTRACK is taken for the relevant period to match to the PNC.
**Young offenders in secure accommodation**
Information about secure training centres (STCs) and secure children's homes (SCHs) comes from the Youth Justice Board's (YJB) Secure Accommodation Clearing House System (SACHS) database. The under 18 year olds in YOIs is also from SACHS, whereas information about young people aged 18 and held in YOIs is supplied by the Prison Service and private YOIs.
The quality of the information recorded on the SACHS database is generally assumed to be relatively high as it is a direct extract from an operational system which is used to place young people in custody. The extract uses a number of key fields for which completion is mandatory when booking a young person into custody.
**Data processing and analysis**
The data underpinning the results are considered by Ministry of Justice to be broadly robust. Considerable work has been carried out ensuring data quality, and the data have been used for research publications. Scrutiny of the data source continues in order to ensure the data remains reliable.
The National Audit Office (NAO) identified risk factors in its review of the reporting of PSA targets (NAO, 2005). The remainder of this section addresses these. Matching offender records This process involves matching prison discharges and court order commencements data with the Police National Computer database. The process uses automated matching routines that look at offenders’ surnames, initials, and dates of birth, using direct name matching along with a variety of ‘sounds like’ algorithms. The matching algorithm also searches through PNC held information on alias names and dates of birth for offenders. However, not all offenders are matched and a thorough analysis of bias in the matching system has yet to be undertaken. Table 1 below shows that the overall matching rates between 2000 and 2009 have remained high. Additionally, matching rates are similar for both prison and court orders data.
Table 1: Matching rates for the different data sources for 2000, 2002-2009 cohorts
| | 2000 | 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | |----------------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------| | **Prison** | | | | | | | | | | | Prison discharges | 87,083 | 87,338 | 85,920 | 86,970 | 84,897 | 83,725 | 87,340 | 95,824 | 94,114 | | Automatically matched to the PNC | 80,572 | 81,211 | 80,121 | 81,125 | 79,398 | 78,285 | 81,874 | 90,021 | 88,745 | | Matched to an index date | 73,810 | 75,121 | 73,327 | 73,395 | 71,246 | 68,185 | 69,741 | 76,668 | 74,189 | | Percentage matched to the PNC | 92.5% | 93.0% | 93.3% | 93.3% | 93.5% | 93.5% | 93.7% | 93.9% | 94.3% | | Percentage matched to the PNC and index offences (not breach etc) | 84.8% | 86.0% | 85.3% | 84.4% | 83.9% | 81.4% | 79.9% | 80.0% | 78.8% | | **Court Orders** | | | | | | | | | | | Court order starts | 136,023 | 154,621 | 158,750 | 164,831 | 163,681 | 176,346 | 187,386 | 189,643 | 191,784 | | Automatically matched to the PNC | 123,540 | 142,838 | 146,257 | 154,075 | 158,416 | 172,906 | 184,740 | 187,253 | 190,128 | | Matched to an index date | 105,685 | 115,108 | 119,446 | 122,927 | 130,307 | 148,072 | 159,279 | 163,519 | 167,378 | | Percentage matched to the PNC | 90.8% | 92.4% | 93.4% | 93.5% | 96.8% | 98.0% | 98.6% | 98.7% | 99.1% | | Percentage matched to the PNC and index offences (not breach etc) | 77.7% | 74.4% | 75.2% | 74.6% | 79.6% | 84.0% | 85.0% | 86.2% | 87.3% | | **YJB** | | | | | | | | | | | YJB discharges | 1,337 | 1,612 | 1,521 | 1,551 | 1,564 | 1,553 | 1,647 | 1,626 | | | Automatically matched to the PNC | 1,226 | 1,502 | 1,425 | 1,448 | 1,464 | 1,463 | 1,537 | 1,564 | | | Matched to an index date | 680 | 818 | 785 | 800 | 769 | 780 | 845 | 817 | | | Percentage matched to the PNC | 91.7% | 93.2% | 93.7% | 93.4% | 93.6% | 94.2% | 93.3% | 96.2% | | | Percentage matched to the PNC and index date | 50.9% | 50.7% | 51.6% | 51.6% | 49.2% | 50.2% | 51.3% | 50.2% | |
The total number of offenders matched to the PNC is substantially higher than the final figure for the cohorts – for example, in 2009 there were 280,437 matched offenders but a final cohort size of 242,384. The main reasons for these discrepancies are:
- Conviction dates for the beginning of the community, suspended or custodial sentence do not match the conviction date within seven days of the criminal records database (PNC);
- The index offence was not dealt with by a Home Office police force – this ensures that only offences in England and Wales are counted;
- Exclusion of all offenders where the index offence is a breach, since we are only interested in new offences; and,
- Exclusion of Multiple Offender Entries (see above for a description).
Counting rules The counting rules for choosing which prison discharges to include offer a variety of choices. For instance, it makes little sense to include offenders deported on release or who have died. These counting rules were enumerated and discussed to ensure a more accurate and consistent count and are reviewed on an annual basis to ensure a consistent approach. Complexity of data processing and analysis The data processing involved for measuring re-offending is complex. To analyse re-offending behaviour by previous offending or disposal history requires the extraction of criminal histories that can span a number of decades, and the subsequent matching of these histories against the probation caseload files and prison discharges in order to generate a dataset.
The extraction of the criminal histories To quality assure the extraction of criminal histories, a small set of random samples of offenders was taken after the analysis to check, via a basic validation, that outputs of the SQL (Structured Query Language) program are accurate outcomes and the Ministry of Justice is confident that this process has been successful.
Level of subjectivity There is relatively little subjectivity in the system. Occasional judgements are required (e.g. where to classify an offence) but these will not significantly influence the results.
Maturity and stability of the data system The system is well established having been used a number of times to produce re-offending statistics for publication. Nonetheless, vigilance continues to be exercised to ensure the validity of the results.
Expertise of those who operate the system Prison and court order data-feeds are continually monitored and improvement work is regularly undertaken to improve the reliability and the accuracy of datasets. The internal processing of the results within the Ministry of Justice has been subject to dip sampling of criminal histories and the statistical model has been extensively tested.
Interpreting trends in the proportion of offenders who commit a serious re-offence against the person Care should be taken when interpreting the severity rate for the following reasons:
- **Time through the CJS** – more serious offences are likely to take a longer time to progress through the Criminal Justice System than less serious offences. The proven re-offending statistics track proven re-offending behaviour for a year upon offenders entering the cohort, plus an additional six months for convictions to be updated on the system. There is a risk that this time scale is not long enough to capture the most serious offences. However, analysis suggests that the number of serious proven re-offences picked up by the measure remains comparatively stable year on year, ensuring performance is comparable over time.
- **Reporting variation** – variation in reporting time between police force areas and courts may also have an impact on how many serious offences are captured during the one-year follow up period. Data on historical trends
The data used to measure re-offending is from the Police National Computer (PNC). Police forces started to enter criminal records locally in 1995. In order to allow time for good practice among police forces in entering data onto the PNC to become embedded, PNC data was used to measure re-offending for the first time in 2000. In the headline bulletin, results are compared to 2000 to highlight long-term trends because it is the earliest data on re-offending that exists on a comparable basis. Results prior to 2000 cannot be compared to results from 2000 onwards for two main reasons:
- Change in data source – re-offences are measured using data from the Police National Computer (which covers recordable offences), whereas data from years before 2000 was measured using the offenders index (which covered a narrower range of offences)
- Change in measurement – the concept being measured from 2000 onwards in these reports is that of using the offences date to measure re-offences (a period of time is allowed for offences to be committed, and a further period allowed for these offences to be proved by caution, reprimand, final warning or court conviction), whereas the concept being measured prior to 2000 was that of using the conviction date to measure re-convictions (any conviction occurring in a set period of time, whether or not the offence occurred in that time period).
However the compendium of re-offending statistics and analysis published in November 2010 provides the most consistent statistical series possible between 1971 and 2006, adjusting for known methodological changes. For more information please refer to Chapter 4.4 at the following link:
www.justice.gov.uk/publications/statistics-and-data/reoffending/compendium-of-reoffending-statistics-and-analysis.htm
Results for 2001 cannot be calculated for offenders on Court Orders because of a problem with archived data on court orders.
Local breakdowns of the headline re-offending rates are available from 2005 onwards. Re-offending data is broken down by locality using the address and post-code information of the offender. Where this information is missing, the location of the processing police force is used instead. This is not a completely reliable indicator of the offender’s home address as offenders may offend in a different locality than where they reside. The completeness of this information has improved over time. In 2000, this information was omitted for 29 per cent of cases, which was considered too high to produce reliable results. By 2005, this was reduced to 16.5 per cent, and there has been a continuing downward trend since then. Statistical Modelling and Coefficients
Introduction The characteristics of proven offenders are likely to be systematically different over time and by sentence type and as the Criminal Justice System targets particular sentences to offenders most likely to benefit from that type. It is therefore important to note that it is not possible to reach firm conclusions about changes in rates over time, nor about the relative effectiveness of different sentence types, from actual proven re-offending rates.
The Ministry of Justice has developed models to address these two issues:
- modelling to adjust the baseline to reflect changes in offender characteristics (see below)
- modelling to match offenders across sentence types to make valid comparisons (see The Compendium of Reoffending Statistics and Analysis 2011 www.justice.gov.uk/publications/statistics-and-data/reoffending/compendium-of-reoffending-statistics-and-analysis.htm)
Modelling to adjust for the varying composition of the cohort of offenders over time If the composition of the cohorts of offenders being compared differs significantly over time so that the type of offenders in one year is inherently more (or less) likely to re-offend, this may result in an apparent rise or fall in the re-offending rates even when there may be no 'real' difference for similar offenders over that time. In order to address this problem, we have adopted the following solution:
- modelling the likelihood of proven re-offending based on known offender characteristics using historic data (which will be defined as the baseline)
- identifying the characteristics of the most recent cohort
- using the model, adjusting the baseline proven re-offending rate to match these characteristics
- comparing this adjusted rate with the current rate to make a more realistic estimate of trends over time.
In previous publications of proven re-offending statistics, this approach has been referred to as the predicted rate of proven re-offending.
Statistical model The 2008 statistical model is an update and improvement on the 2000 and 2005 logistic regression models and includes a range of offender characteristics available from the Police National Computer (PNC), such as age, gender, offence group and criminal history.
The logistic regression model based on the 2008 data identifies a statistically significant set of variables that are related to proven re-offending and based on these provides a probability of proven re-offending for each offender. However, other factors, for which data on these samples are not available, such as drug and alcohol use, employment, accommodation and marital background are likely to be significantly related to re-offending.
This means that the adjusted proven re-offending rates are only valid for terms included in the final model. Any adjusted proven re-offending rates for groups of offenders that have a common characteristic that is not in the final model (e.g. employment status or disposal type) can suffer from statistical biases and are, therefore, unreliable.
For the 2008 model additional developments were included to ensure that the adjusted rate model was a more parsimonious model, more robust against changes in the number of offenders, and that interaction terms and non-linear terms were included where appropriate. The final decision for inclusion or exclusion of particular variables was heavily influenced by their statistical significance (typically p < 0.10).
The Ministry of Justice believes that the method used for the construction of the statistical model for producing adjusted rates is robust and fit for purpose.
Variables included
The following notes provide some further detail on the 2008 model and show the relative impacts of different variables when holding all other variables constant.
Gender Gender is included in the model as a categorical variable separating out males and females. Generally, males are more likely to commit a proven re-offence than females.
Age Age is included in the model for adults as a linear, quadratic and cubed term and is included for juveniles as a categorical variable separating offenders into seven age bands. Generally, younger adults are more likely to commit a proven re-offence than older adults, and older juveniles are more likely to re-offend than younger juveniles.
Index offence The index offence represents the offence that led to the offender entering the cohort. Index offences were classified into 21 broad categories and their relative coefficients are shown in relation to the reference category violence. To ensure the reliability and replicability of the model coefficients, any index offences with low numbers were grouped with the ‘other’ index offence group.
Ethnicity Ethnicity is derived from the PNC and reflects the officer’s view of the offender’s ethnicity. Thus, ethnicity in this model should be taken as a proxy for the actual ethnicity and the results should not be over-interpreted because any biases in the assessment are unknown. Ethnicity was a statistically significant factor, making it an important factor to control for and therefore it was included in the model.
**Copas rate** The Copas rate (Copas and Marshall, 1998) controls for the rate at which an offender has built up convictions throughout their criminal career. The higher the rate, the more convictions an offender has in a given amount of time, and the more likely it is that an offender will be re-convicted. The Copas rate formula is:
[ \\text{copas rate} = \\log_e \\left( \\frac{\\text{Number of court appearances or cautions} + 1}{\\text{Length of criminal career in years} + 10} \\right) ]
For adults the copas rate is included as a linear and quadratic, but for juveniles it is included as a linear term only. As mentioned above, inclusion of variables was heavily influenced by their statistical significance.
**Length of criminal career** An offender’s criminal career is a significant factor in predicting the likelihood of a re-offence and this relationship is quadratic, thus both linear and quadratic terms were included in the model.
**Total number of previous offences** The total number of previous offences is a significant factor in predicting the likelihood of a re-offending. The previous offending variables counted cautions and convictions and were included as linear and logged variables.
**Previous custodial sentences** For adults, the number of previous custodial sentences was implemented as a continuous variable in both linear and quadratic terms. For juveniles, previous custodial sentences were included as a binary term: had the offender received one or more previous custodial sentences, yes or no. The difference in treatment reflects the more limited custodial history juvenile offenders generally possess compared to adult offenders.
**Counts of previous offending by type of offence** For adults, the number of previous offences by type of offence was an improvement over simple ‘yes or no’ variables for recording the presence of prior offences in the relevant categories. For juvenile offenders, simple ‘yes or no’ variables for recording the presence of prior offences in the relevant categories performed better. The difference in treatment reflects the more limited offending history juvenile offenders generally possess compared to adult offenders.
**Interaction terms** Interaction terms are calculated by multiplying two factors together. The inclusion of these terms allows the effect of one variable to vary according to the values of another, improving the quality of predictions. This is important because three factors (gender, age and total number of previous offences) are not completely independent of each other. For adults, interaction terms were also included for drug-misusing offenders as they showed some trends in their proven re-offending behaviour that were different from the more general offending population.
**Model assessment**
The model is assessed by calculating the level of discrimination between offenders that committed a proven re-offence and offenders that did not. The adult logistic regression model achieved a 78.9 per cent overall discrimination level on the 2008 cohort and 72.4 per cent for the juvenile logistic regression model. A level of discrimination of about 70% was deemed to be acceptable and the model should predict results accurately enough for the predicted rate to be used. The discrimination can also be evaluated by calculating the Area Under Curve (AUC) for the Receiver Operator Characteristic curve. Again, the value for the model was .784 for the adult regression model in 2008 and .716 for the youth regression model which means a satisfactory level of discrimination (Hosmer and Lemeshow, 2000, p.162).
**Coefficients of the 2008 statistical model**
The following tables (2 and 3) show the parameter estimates for the various components of the logistic regression model for the predicted one-year proven re-offending rates for adults and young offenders.
Each logistic coefficient is multiplied by the variable value for each offender to calculate a linear prediction. To calculate each offender’s predicted probability of committing a proven re-offence in the follow-up period or a further 6 month waiting period we transform the linear prediction Z using the following formula:
[ \\text{Predicted Probability of Reoffending} = \\frac{\\exp(Z)}{1 + \\exp(Z)} ]
The exponent of the coefficient is the odds ratio of committing a proven re-offence corresponding to the particular coefficient and enables us to make comparisons between different categories. For factors with interactions (e.g. age and gender) the interpretation is more complex.
The significance (p-value) gives us an assessment of how significant each variable is in predicting the likelihood of an offender to commit a proven re-offence within one year. For modelling purposes, a probability value (p-value) of less than 0.05 is considered to be significant. Table 2: List of variables in the logistic regression model applied to the 2008 data on adult offenders and their respective coefficients
| Variables | Coefficient | Logs-odd ratios | P-value | Variables | Coefficient | Logs-odd ratios | P-value | |-----------|-------------|-----------------|---------|-----------|-------------|-----------------|---------| | Constant | 1.940 | 6.958 | 0.000 | Violence | -0.361 | 0.697 | 0.000 | | Gender: | | | | Robbery | 0.462 | 1.620 | 0.000 | | Female | Reference category | | | Theft | 0.173 | 1.189 | 0.000 | | Male | 0.645 | 1.906 | 0.000 | Handling | 0.180 | 1.198 | 0.000 | | Age: | | | | Taking and driving away | 0.253 | 1.288 | 0.000 | | Age | -0.250 | 0.779 | 0.000 | Sexual child | -0.465 | 0.628 | 0.000 | | Age squared | 0.006 | 1.006 | 0.000 | Soliciting/prostitution | 0.253 | 1.288 | 0.000 | | Age cubed | -0.00004 | 1.000 | 0.000 | Domestic burglary | 0.148 | 1.159 | 0.000 | | Male * age interaction | -0.013 | 0.988 | 0.000 | Other burglary | 0.337 | 1.401 | 0.000 | | General criminal career variables: | | | | Theft from vehicles | 0.478 | 1.612 | 0.000 | | Previous offences | -0.006 | 0.994 | 0.000 | Drink driving | -0.154 | 0.857 | 0.000 | | Previous offences (logged) | 0.391 | 1.478 | 0.000 | Criminal damage | 0.226 | 1.254 | 0.000 | | Male * previous offences interaction | -0.003 | 0.997 | 0.000 | Drug supply | -0.400 | 0.670 | 0.000 | | Previous prison sentences | 0.045 | 1.046 | 0.000 | Drug possession | 0.074 | 1.077 | 0.000 | | Previous prison sentences (logged) | -0.060 | 0.942 | 0.000 | Drug test | -1.167 | 0.311 | 0.000 | | Career length | -0.0001 | 1.000 | 0.000 | Absconding and bail | 0.364 | 1.440 | 0.000 | | Career length squared | 0.000 | 1.000 | 0.069 | Number of previous offences: | | | | | Copas rate squared | -0.064 | 0.938 | 0.000 | Public order | 0.052 | 1.053 | 0.000 | | PPO offender | 0.528 | 1.696 | 0.000 | Sexual | 0.035 | 1.036 | 0.000 | | Drug-misusing offender | 1.422 | 4.146 | 0.000 | Domestic burglary | -0.006 | 0.994 | 0.005 | | Ethnicity: | | | | Theft | 0.012 | 1.012 | 0.000 | | White | Reference category | | | Handling | -0.010 | 0.990 | 0.002 | | White other | 0.324 | 1.383 | 0.000 | Absconding and bail | 0.018 | 1.018 | 0.000 | | Black | 0.161 | 1.175 | 0.000 | Taking and driving away | -0.007 | 0.993 | 0.003 | | Pacific | 0.210 | 1.233 | 0.000 | Criminal damage | 0.017 | 1.017 | 0.000 | | Middle East | 0.130 | 1.138 | 0.003 | Drug supply | -0.044 | 0.957 | 0.000 | | Interaction with drug-misusing offenders: | | | | Other | -0.002 | 0.998 | 0.073 | | Previous offences (logged) | -0.156 | 0.855 | 0.000 | Index offence of drug supply | -0.430 | 0.651 | 0.000 | | Index offence of drug possession | -0.550 | 0.577 | 0.000 | Table 3: List of variables in the logistic regression model applied to the 2008 data on young offenders and their respective coefficients
| Variables | Coefficient | Logs-odd ratios | P-value | Variables | Coefficient | Logs-odd ratios | P-value | |-----------|-------------|-----------------|---------|-----------|-------------|-----------------|---------| | Constant | -1.495 | 0.224 | 0.000 | Reference category | Violence | 0.130 | 1.139 | 0.003 | | Gender: | | | | Robbery | 0.178 | 1.195 | 0.000 | | Female | Reference category | Public order or riot | -0.578 | 0.561 | 0.000 | | Male | 0.527 | 1.693 | 0.000 | Sexual offences against children | -1.157 | 0.314 | 0.000 | | Age: | | | | Domestic burglary | 0.233 | 1.262 | 0.000 | | Aged 10-11| Reference category | Other burglary | 0.083 | 1.087 | 0.026 | | Aged 12 | 0.354 | 1.425 | 0.000 | Theft | -0.088 | 0.916 | 0.000 | | Aged 13 | 0.448 | 1.566 | 0.000 | Handling | 0.118 | 1.126 | 0.018 | | Aged 14 | 0.431 | 1.538 | 0.000 | Fraud or forgery | -0.251 | 0.778 | 0.000 | | Aged 15 | 0.186 | 1.105 | 0.000 | Absconding or bail offences | 0.176 | 1.192 | 0.022 | | Aged 16 | -0.124 | 0.883 | 0.017 | Taking and driving away | 0.116 | 1.123 | 0.003 | | Aged 17 | -0.202 | 0.817 | 0.000 | Theft from vehicles | 0.264 | 1.302 | 0.000 | | | | | | Drunk driving | -0.488 | 0.614 | 0.000 | | Interactions between age and gender: | | | | | | | | | Female at any age | Reference category | Any previous offences: | | | | | | | Male aged 10-11 | Reference category | Violence | 0.039 | 1.039 | 0.062 | | Male aged 12 | -0.276 | 0.759 | 0.000 | Robbery | 0.101 | 1.108 | 0.011 | | Male aged 13 | -0.214 | 0.807 | 0.000 | Public order or riot | -0.143 | 1.154 | 0.000 | | Male aged 14 | -0.157 | 0.855 | 0.000 | Domestic burglary | 0.166 | 1.181 | 0.000 | | Male aged 16 | 0.134 | 1.144 | 0.002 | Other burglary | 0.099 | 1.104 | 0.001 | | Male aged 17 | 0.113 | 1.120 | 0.013 | Theft | 0.135 | 1.144 | 0.000 | | General criminal career variables: | | | | | | | | | Career length | 0.000 | 1.000 | 0.000 | Taking and driving away | 0.088 | 1.093 | 0.012 | | Career length squared | 0.000 | 1.000 | 0.000 | Theft from vehicles | 0.125 | 1.133 | 0.012 | | Copas rate | 0.128 | 1.137 | 0.001 | Drunk driving | -0.245 | 0.783 | 0.033 | | Previous offences | -0.036 | 0.964 | 0.000 | Criminal or malicious damage | 0.069 | 1.071 | 0.001 | | Previous offences (logged) | 0.920 | 2.510 | 0.000 | Other | 0.138 | 1.148 | 0.001 | | Previous prison sentence(s) | 0.124 | 1.132 | 0.022 | Miscellaneous | -0.689 | 0.502 | 0.014 | | PPO offender | 0.930 | 2.534 | 0.000 | Breaches | 0.762 | 2.144 | 0.007 | | Ethnicity: | | | | | | | | | White | Reference category | Unknown | -0.823 | 0.439 | 0.000 | | White (other) | 0.196 | 1.217 | 0.000 | | | | | | Black | 0.187 | 1.106 | 0.000 | | | | | | Asian | -0.200 | 0.819 | 0.000 | | | | | | Pacific | -0.468 | 0.626 | 0.001 | | | | | Additional modelling for prison performance
Assessing the performance of individual prisons in reducing re-offending is difficult because the particular characteristics of offenders that are at a particular prison are likely to be the main drivers behind re-offending.
A statistical methodology has been developed to examine prison re-offending rates that not only takes account of offence, offender and prison characteristics, but also takes account of the hierarchical structure of the data; i.e. that offenders are within prisons.
Two separate models were developed: for prisoners receiving sentences of fewer than 12 months and prisoners with sentences of 12 months or over. The separate models for prisoners with sentences of fewer than 12 months and 12 months or more reflects differences in prisoners’ re-offending behaviour by prison sentence length.
The model used for both types of offender was a logistic regression model with mixed effects (fixed and random). The outcome variable is a binary yes/no variable representing whether an offender re-offends or not. Offender characteristics are included as fixed independent variables and the prisons are included as a random effect component which allows each prison to interact with the fixed effects differently.
The variables included in the model were similar to those used to develop the adjusted baseline described above: age, ethnicity, index offence, previous offences, previous prison sentences, copas scores, and criminal career, as well as the random effects component of prisons. The goodness-of-fit by AUC was satisfactory, above 0.77 in all cases.
Considerable preliminary analysis has been undertaken investigating the relative important of offence, offender and prison-level variables in explaining custodial re-offending. This analysis has overwhelmingly shown that offence and offender-level variables shape re-offending whereas prison-level variables refine re-offending behaviour. For this reason, the model uses offender and offence-level variables and only models prison-level effects using a single random effects component.
This model generates an expected probability of re-offending for each offender. When aggregated up to the prison it produces an expected proportion of offenders who re-offend. This can be compared with the actual rate of re-offending.
Where the model-predicted re-offending rate was statistically significantly different to actual re-offending rates, two possible explanations are plausible:
1. Missing characteristics: it is possible that there are underlying offence, offender or prison characteristics affecting re-offending behaviour that are not included in the current model; or,
2. A genuine difference: there is something specific to these prisons that make them better/worse than predicted.
Additional modelling for probation performance Results in the headline measure are compared to a baseline rate, adjusted for changes in the offender profile. This relies on an estimate of the relationship between offender characteristics and proven re-offending behaviour over twelve-months. An equivalent estimate has been carried out for the proven re-offending behaviour specifically of offenders commencing court orders. This uses the same variables as the headline measure plus additional variables to ensure that the actual and predicted rates are identical for every probation trust in the baseline period (2008). The tables accompanying the report present the adjusted baseline for each trust.
Differences between the prison and probation trusts models and the model for the adjusted baseline for the headline measure
- The adjusted baseline for the headline measure applies to all offenders; the prison and probation models only apply to offenders discharged from custody or given a Court Order.
- The adjusted baseline for the headline measure is created using a fixed effects model using only offender and offence level variables; the probation model does the same, but the prison models use offender and offence level variables and also include a random component to reflect that prisoners are located within prisons.
- The adjusted baseline for the headline measure and for the probation model is derived using data from a baseline year (2008). The observed re-offending is equal to the predicted re-offending for the baseline year; the model coefficients are then applied to subsequent years and the predicted rates begins to differ from the actual rates. Provided the baseline year model is frequently refreshed, this ensures that any deviations of the actual re-offending rate from the predicted rate are due to system changes and not due to changes in the cohort make up. This approach enables us to assess progress in reducing re-offending.
Whereas, the prison model are generated from scratch every year and assess if any prison or probation trust differs from the national average. As with the previous approach, the observed re-offending rate is still equal to the predicted re-offending for the prison population as a whole. It will not necessarily be the case for individual prisons. This approach provides an idea of which prisons have significantly lower (or higher) re-offending rates than predicted.
Work is underway to develop an equivalent model for probation trusts to the one used for prisons. Appendix A: List of serious offences
Serious violence against the person
1. Murder:
1. Of persons aged 1 year or over.
2. Of infants under 1 year of age.
2. Attempted murder.
3. Manslaughter, etc:
1. Manslaughter.
2. Infanticide.
3. Child destruction.
4. Wounding or other act endangering life:
01. Wounding, etc. with intent to do grievous bodily harm, etc. or to resist apprehension.
02. Shooting at naval or revenue vessels.
03. Attempting to choke, suffocate, etc. with intent to commit an indictable offence (garrotting).
04. Using chloroform, etc. to commit or assist in committing an indictable offence.
05. Burning, maiming, etc. by explosion.
06. Causing explosions or casting corrosive fluids with intent to do grievous bodily harm.
07. Impeding the saving of life from shipwreck.
08. Placing, etc. explosives in or near ships or buildings with intent to do bodily harm, etc.
09. Endangering life or causing harm by administering poison.
10. Causing danger by causing anything to be on road, interfering with a vehicle or traffic equipment.
11. Possession, etc. of explosives with intent to endanger life.
12. Possession of firearms, etc. with intent to endanger life or injure property, etc. (Group I).
13. Possession of firearms, etc. with intent to endanger life or injure property, etc. (Group II).
14. Possession of firearms, etc. with intent to endanger life or injure property, etc. (Group III).
15. Using, etc. firearms or imitation firearms with intent to resist arrest, etc. (Group I).
16. Using, etc. firearms or imitation firearms with intent to resist arrest, etc. (Group II).
17. Using, etc. firearms or imitation firearms with intent to resist arrest, etc. (Group III). [Group I - Firearms, etc. other than as described in Group II or III. Group II - Shotguns as defined in s.1 (3)(a) of the Firearms Act 1968. Group III - Air weapons as defined in s.1 (3)(b) of the Firearms Act 1968]
18. Use etc. of chemical weapons.
19. Use of premises or equipment for producing chemical weapons.
20. Use, threat to use, production or possession of a nuclear weapon.
21. Weapons related acts overseas.
22. Use of noxious substances or things to cause harm or intimidate.
23. Performing an aviation function or ancillary function when ability to carry out function is impaired because of drink or drugs.
24. Endangering safety at sea/aerodromes.
25. Torture.
5. Other wounding, etc:
1. Wounding or inflicting grievous bodily harm (inflicting bodily injury with or without weapon).
6. Racially aggravated wounding or inflicting grievous bodily harm (inflicting bodily injury with or without weapon).
7. Religiously aggravated malicious wounding or GBH.
8. Racially or religiously aggravated malicious wounding or grievous bodily harm.
Sexual offences
017. Sexual assault on a male (previously indecent assault on a male):
018. Indecent assault on male person under 16 years.
019. Indecent assault on male person 16 years or over.
020. Assault on a male by penetration.
021. Assault of a male child under 13 by penetration.
022. Sexual assault on a male.
023. Sexual assault of a male child under 13.
024. Rape:
025. Man having unlawful sexual intercourse with a woman who is a defective.
026. Male member of staff of hospital or mental nursing home having unlawful sexual intercourse with female patient.
027. Man having unlawful sexual intercourse with mentally disordered female patient who is subject to his care.
028. Rape of a female aged under 16.
029. Rape of a female aged 16 or over.
030. Rape of a male aged under 16.
031. Rape of a male aged 16 or over.
032. Attempted rape of a female aged under 16.
033. Attempted rape of a female aged 16 or over.
034. Attempted rape of a male aged under 16.
035. Attempted rape of a male aged 16 or over.
036. Rape of female child under 13 by a male.
037. Rape of a male child under 13 by a male.
038. Attempted rape of a female child under 13 by a male.
039. Attempted rape of a male child under 13 by a male.
040. Sexual assault on female (previously indecent assault on a female):
041. On females under 16 years of age.
042. On females aged 16 years and over.
043. Assault on a female by penetration.
044. Assault on a female child under 13 by penetration.
045. Sexual assault on a female.
046. Sexual assault on a female child under 13.
047. Sexual activity (male and female) (including with a child under 13) (previously unlawful intercourse with a girl under 13):
048. Causing or inciting a female child under 13 to engage in sexual activity - penetration.
049. Causing or inciting a female child under 13 to engage in sexual activity - no penetration.
050. Causing or inciting a male child under 13 to engage in sexual activity - penetration.
051. Causing or inciting a male child under 13 to engage in sexual activity - no penetration.
052. Sexual activity with a female child under 13 - offender aged 18 or over - penetration.
053. Sexual activity with a male child under 13 - offender aged 18 or over - penetration.
054. Causing or inciting a female child under 13 to engage in sexual activity - offender aged 18 or over - penetration.
055. Causing or inciting a male child under 13 to engage in sexual activity - offender aged 18 or over - penetration.
056. Engaging in sexual activity in the presence of a child under 13 (offender aged 18 or over).
057. Causing a child under 13 to watch a sexual act (offender aged 18 or over).
058. Sexual activity with a female child under 13 - offender aged under 18.
059. Sexual activity with a male child under 13 - offender aged under 18.
060. Causing of inciting a female child under 13 to engage in sexual activity - offender under 18.
061. Causing or inciting a male child under 13 to engage in sexual activity - offender under 18.
062. Engaging in sexual activity in the presence of a child under 13 - offender under 18.
063. Causing a child under 13 to watch a sexual act - offender under 18.
064. Sexual activity with a female under 13 - offender aged 18 or over - no penetration.
065. Sexual activity with a male child under 13 - offender aged 18 or over - no penetration.
066. Causing or inciting a female child under 13 to engage in sexual activity - offender aged 18 or over - no penetration.
067. Causing or inciting a male child under 13 to engage in sexual activity - offender aged 18 or over - no penetration.
068. Sexual activity with a female child under 16 - offender aged 18 or over - no penetration.
069. Sexual activity with a male child under 16 - offender aged 18 or over - no penetration.
070. Causing or inciting a female child under 16 to engage in sexual activity - offender aged 18 or over - no penetration.
071. Causing or inciting a male child under 16 to engage in sexual activity - offender aged 18 or over - no penetration.
072. Sexual activity (male and female) (including with a child under 16) (previously unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl under 16):
073. Unlawful sexual intercourse with girl under 16 (offences committed prior to 1 May 2004).
074. Causing a female person to engage in sexual activity without consent - penetration
075. Causing a male person to engage in sexual activity without consent - penetration
076. Causing a female person to engage in sexual activity without consent - no penetration.
077. Causing a male person to engage in sexual activity without consent - no penetration.
078. Sexual activity with a female child under 16 (offender aged 18 or over) - penetration
079. Sexual activity with a male child under 16 (offender aged 18 or over) - penetration
080. Causing or inciting a female child under 16 to engage in sexual activity (offender aged 18 or over) - penetration
081. Causing of inciting a male child under 16 to engage in sexual activity (offender aged 18 or over) - penetration
082. Engaging in sexual activity in the presence of a child under 16 (offender aged 18 or over).
083. Causing a child under 16 to watch a sexual act (offender aged 18 or over).
084. Sexual activity with a female child under 16 - offender aged 18 or over - no penetration.
085. Sexual activity with a male child under 16 - offender aged 18 or over - no penetration.
086. Causing or inciting a female child under 16 to engage in sexual activity (offender aged 18 or over) - no penetration.
087. Causing or inciting a male child under 16 to engage in sexual activity (offender aged 18 or over) - no penetration.
088. Sexual activity etc. with a person with a mental disorder:
089. Sexual activity with a male person with a mental disorder impeding choice – penetration.
090. Sexual activity with a female person with a mental disorder impeding choice – penetration.
091. Sexual activity with a male person with a mental disorder impeding choice - no penetration.
092. Sexual activity with a female person with a mental disorder impeding choice - no penetration.
093. Causing or inciting a male person with a mental disorder impeding choice to engage in sexual activity – penetration.
094. Causing or inciting a female person with a mental disorder impeding choice to engage in sexual activity – penetration.
095. Causing or inciting a male person with a mental disorder impeding choice to engage in sexual activity – penetration.
096. Causing or inciting a female person with a mental disorder impeding choice to engage in sexual activity - no penetration.
097. Engaging in sexual activity in the presence of a person with a mental disorder impeding choice.
098. Causing a person with a mental disorder impeding choice to watch a sexual act.
099. Inducement, threat or deception to procure sexual activity with a person with a mental disorder – penetration.
100. Inducement, threat or deception to procure sexual activity with a person with a mental disorder - no penetration.
101. Causing a person with a mental disorder to engage in sexual activity by inducement, threat or deception - penetration.
102. Causing a person with a mental disorder to engage in sexual activity by inducement, threat or deception - no penetration.
103. Engaging in sexual activity in the presence, procured by inducement, threat or deception, of a person with a mental disorder.
104. Causing a person with a mental disorder to watch a sexual act by inducement, threat or deception.
105. Care workers: Sexual activity with a male person with a mental disorder - penetration.
106. Care workers: Sexual activity with a female person with a mental disorder - penetration.
107. Care workers: Sexual activity with a male person with a mental disorder - no penetration.
108. Care workers: Sexual activity with a female person with a mental disorder - no penetration.
109. Care workers: Causing or inciting sexual activity (person with a mental disorder) - penetration.
110. Care workers: Causing or inciting sexual activity (person with a mental disorder) - no penetration.
111. Care workers: Sexual activity in the presence of a person with a mental disorder.
112. Care workers: Causing a person with a mental disorder impeding choice to watch a sexual act.
113. Abuse of children through prostitution and pornography (previously child prostitution and pornography):
114. Arranging or facilitating the commission of a child sex offence.
115. Paying for sex with a female child under 13 - penetration
116. Paying for sex with a male child under 13 - penetration
117. Paying for sex with a female child under 16 - no penetration
118. Paying for sex with a male child under 16 - no penetration
119. Paying for sex with a female child aged 16 or 17.
120. Paying for sex with a male child aged 16 or 17.
121. Causing or inciting child prostitution or pornography - child aged 13-17.
122. Controlling a child prostitute or a child involved in pornography - child aged 13-17.
123. Arranging or facilitating child prostitution or pornography - child aged 13-17.
124. Causing or inciting child prostitution or pornography - child under 13.
125. Controlling a child prostitute or child involved in pornography - child under 13.
126. Arranging or facilitating child prostitution or pornography - child under 13.
127. Paying for sex with a female child aged under 16 - penetration
128. Paying for sex with a male child aged under 16 - penetration
129. Trafficking for sexual exploitation:
130. Arranging or facilitating arrival of a person into the UK for sexual exploitation (trafficking).
131. Arranging or facilitating travel of a person within the UK for sexual exploitation (trafficking).
132. Arranging or facilitating departure of a person from the UK for sexual exploitation (trafficking).
Taking and driving away and related offences
37. Aggravated vehicle taking:
38. Where, owing to the driving of the vehicle, an accident occurs causing the death of any person.
Other motoring offences
4. Manslaughter, etc: 4. Causing death by dangerous driving. 8. (Offences) Causing death by careless or inconsiderate driving (Offences due to commence in Autumn 2007).
Drink driving offences
4. Manslaughter, etc: 6. Causing death by careless driving when under the influence of drink or drugs. Serious acquisitive offences
Burglary
1. Burglary in a dwelling with intent to commit or the commission of an offence triable only on indictment.
2. Burglary in a dwelling with violence or the threat of violence.
3. Other burglary in a dwelling.
4. Aggravated burglary in a dwelling (including attempts)
Robbery
1. Robbery
2. Assault with intent to rob.
Taking and driving away
1. Aggravated taking where the vehicle was driven dangerously on a road or other public place
2. Aggravated taking where owing to the driving of the vehicle an accident occurred causing injury to any person or damage to any property other than the vehicle
Theft from or of vehicles
1. Stealing from motor vehicles.
2. Stealing from other vehicles.
3. Theft of motor vehicle.
4. Unauthorised taking of a motor vehicle Appendix B: Glossary of Terms
Re-offending terms
**Cohort** - this is the group of individuals whose re-offending is measured.
**Index offence** - the index offence is the proven offence that leads to an offender being included in the cohort.
**Index disposal** - the index disposal of the offender is the type of sentence the offender received for their index offence.
**Start point (also known as the index date)** - this is the set point in time from when re-offences are measured.
**Follow up period** - this is the length of time proven re-offending is measured over.
**Waiting period** - this is the additional time beyond the follow up period to allow for offences committed towards the end of the follow up period to be proved by a court conviction, caution, reprimand or final warning.
**Adjusted baseline** - proven re-offending is related to the characteristics of offenders which means that any overall rate of proven re-offending will depend, in part, on the characteristics of offenders coming into the system (just as the examination pass rate of a school will be related to the characteristics of its pupils). We use a modelling technique to produce a baseline figure adjusted to match the characteristics of the cohort we are comparing. For more details see the chapter on Statistical modelling and coefficients.
**Reconviction** – where an offender is convicted at court for an offence committed within a set follow up period and convicted within either the follow up period or waiting period
**Proven re-offence** – where an offender is convicted at court or receives some other form of criminal justice sanction for an offence committed within a set follow up period and disposed of within either the follow up period or waiting period.
**Cohort definitions used in the Proven Re-offending statistic quarterly bulletin in England and Wales publication**
The proven re-offending cohort consists of all offenders discharged from custody, otherwise sanctioned at court, receiving a caution, reprimand or warning or tested positive for opiates or cocaine in each year. This cohort’s criminal history is collated and criminal behaviour is tracked over the following one year. Any offence committed in this one-year period which is proven by a court conviction or out-of-court disposal (either in the one-year period, or in a further six months waiting period) counts as a proven re-offence.
The latest available publication is the Proven Re-offending statistic quarterly bulletin in England and Wales; Ministry of Justice, October 2011.
**Cohort definitions used in the Local Measure of Re-offending quarterly bulletin publication**
The local adult re-offending measure takes a snapshot of all offenders, aged 18 or over, who are under probation supervision at the end of a quarter, and combines four such snapshots together.
This cohort’s criminal history is collated and criminal behaviour is tracked over the following three months. Any offence committed in this three month period which is proven by a court conviction or out-of-court disposal (either in the three month period, or in a further three months waiting period) counts as a proven re-offence.
Results from this publication are available at [www.justice.gov.uk/publications/statistics-and-data/reoffending/local-adult-reoffending.htm](http://www.justice.gov.uk/publications/statistics-and-data/reoffending/local-adult-reoffending.htm)
**Cohort definitions used in the previous Adult re-convictions in England and Wales publication**
The adult re-conviction cohort consists of adults discharged from custody or commencing a court order under probation supervision in the first quarter of each year. This cohort’s criminal history is collated and criminal behaviour is tracked over the following one year. Any offence committed in this one-year period which is proven by a court conviction (either in the one-year period, or in a further six months waiting period) counts as a reconviction.
The last publication in this series is the Adult re-convictions: results from the 2009 cohort; Ministry of Justice, March 2011.
[www.justice.gov.uk/publications/statistics-and-data/reoffending/adults.htm](http://www.justice.gov.uk/publications/statistics-and-data/reoffending/adults.htm)
**Cohort definitions used in the previous Re-offending of juveniles in England and Wales publication**
The juvenile reoffending cohort is formed of juvenile offenders discharged from custody, otherwise sanctioned at court, or receiving a reprimand or warning in January to March of each year. This cohort’s criminal history is collated and criminal behaviour is tracked over the following one year. Any offence committed in this one-year period which is proven by a court conviction or out-of-court disposal (either in the one-year period, or in a further six months waiting period) counts as proven reoffending.
The last publication in this series is the Reoffending of juveniles: results from the 2009 cohort; Ministry of Justice, March 2011.
[http://www.justice.gov.uk/publications/statistics-and-data/reoffending/juveniles.htm](http://www.justice.gov.uk/publications/statistics-and-data/reoffending/juveniles.htm) Disposals (Sentences)
Fine
A financial penalty imposed following conviction.
Court orders
Court orders include community sentences, community orders and suspended sentence orders supervised by the Probation Service. They do not include any pre or post release supervision.
Criminal Justice Act 2003 (CJA03)
For offences committed on or after 4 April 2005, the new community order replaced all existing community sentences for adults. The Act also introduced a new suspended sentence order for offences which pass the custody threshold. It also changed the release arrangements for prisoners. See Appendix A of Offender Management Caseload Statistics96 for more information.
Community order
For offences committed on or after 4 April 2005, the new community order introduced under the CJA 2003 replaced all existing community sentences for those aged 18 years and over. This term refers to all court orders except suspended sentence orders and deferred sentences which may have a custodial component to the sentence. The court must add at least one (but could potentially comprise of all 12) requirements depending on the offences and the offender. The requirements are:
- unpaid work (formerly community service/community punishment) – a requirement to complete between 40 and 300 hours’ unpaid work;
- activity – for example, to attend basic skills classes;
- programme – there are several designed to reduce the prospects of reoffending;
- prohibited activity – a requirement not do so something that is likely to lead to further offender or nuisance;
- curfew – which is electronically monitored;
- exclusion – this is not used frequently as there is no reliable electronic monitoring yet available;
- residence – requirement to reside only where approved by probation officer;
- mental health treatment (requires offender’s consent); • drug rehabilitation (requires offender’s consent); • alcohol treatment (requires offender’s consent); • supervision – meetings with probation officer to address needs/offending behaviour; and, • attendance centre – three hours of activity, between a minimum of 12 hours and a maximum of 36 in total.
Typically, the more serious the offence and the more extensive the offender’s needs, the more requirements there will be. Most orders will comprise one or two requirements but there are packages of several requirements available where required. The court tailors the order as appropriate and is guided by the Probation Service through a pre-sentence report.
Suspended Sentence Order (SSO) The Criminal Justice Act 2003 introduced a new suspended sentence order which is made up of the same requirements as a community order and, in the absence of breach is served wholly in the community supervised by the Probation Service. It consists of an ‘operational period’ (the time for which the custodial sentence is suspended) and a ‘supervision period’ (the time during which any requirements take effect). Both may be between six months and two years and the ‘supervision period’ cannot be longer than the ‘operational period’, although it may be shorter. Failure to comply with the requirements of the order or commission of another offence will almost certainly result in a custodial sentence.
Pre CJA03 Court Orders - Community sentences: Community punishment order (CPO): the offender is required to undertake unpaid community work.
Community rehabilitation order (CRO): a community sentence which may have additional requirements such as residence, probation centre attendance or treatment for drug, alcohol or mental health problems.
Community punishment and rehabilitation order (CPRO): a community sentence consisting of probation supervision alongside community punishment, with additional conditions like those of a community rehabilitation order.
Drug treatment and testing order (DTTO): a community sentence targeted at offenders with drug misuse problems.
Custody - the offender is awarded a sentence to be served in prison or YOI (Youth Offenders Institute). If the offender was given a sentence of 12 months or over, or was aged under 22 on release, the offender is supervised by the Probation Service on release. It is important to note that the sentence length awarded will be longer than the time served. For more information please refer to Appendix A of the Offender Management Caseload Statistics.
**Prison categories**
**Category B and Category C** prisons hold sentenced prisoners of their respective categories, including life sentenced prisoners. The regime focuses on programmes that address offending behaviour and provide education, vocational training and purposeful work for prisoners who will normally spend several years in one prison.
**High Security Prisons hold Category A and B prisoners.** Category A prisoners are managed by a process of dispersal, and these prisons also hold a proportion of Category B prisoners for whom they provide a similar regime to a Category B prison. The Category B prisoners held in a High Security Prison are not necessarily any more dangerous or difficult to manage than those in category B prisons.
**Female prisons.** As the name implies, they hold women prisoners. Because of the smaller numbers, they are not divided into the same number of categories although there are variations in security levels.
**Local prisons** serve the courts in the area. Historically their main function was to hold unconvicted and unsentenced prisoners and, once a prisoner had been sentenced, to allocate them on to a Category B, C or D prison as appropriate to serve their sentence. However, pressure on places means that many shorter term prisoners serve their entire sentence in a local prison, while longer term prisoners also complete some offending behaviour and training programmes there before moving on to lower security conditions. All local prisons operate to category B security standards.
**Open prisons** have much lower levels of physical security and only hold Category D prisoners. Many prisoners in open prisons will be allowed to go out of the prison on a daily basis to take part in voluntary or paid work in the community in preparation for their approaching release.
**Prisoner Categories**
These categories are based on a combination of the type of crime committed, the length of sentence, the likelihood of escape, and the danger to the public if they did escape. The four categories are:
**Category A** prisoners are those whose escape would be highly dangerous to the public or national security
**Category B** prisoners are those who do not require maximum security, but for whom escape needs to be made very difficult
**Category C** prisoners are those who cannot be trusted in open conditions but who are unlikely to try to escape
**Category D** prisoners are those who can be reasonably trusted not to try to escape, and are given the privilege of an open prison. Short sentences – under twelve months
Those sentenced to **under twelve months** spend the first half of their sentence in prison and are then released and considered ‘at risk’ for the remaining period. This means they are under no positive obligations and do not report to the probation service but, if they commit a further imprisonable offence during the at risk period, they can be made to serve the remainder of the sentence in addition to the punishment for the new offence. The exception to this is those aged 18 to 20 who have a minimum of three months’ supervision on release.
Sentences of 12 months or over
The Criminal Justice Act 2003 created a distinction between **standard determinate sentences** and **public protection sentences**. Offenders sentenced to a standard determinate sentence serve the first half in prison and the second half in the community on licence.
Miscellaneous terms
**National Probation Service**
The National Probation Service generally deals with those aged 18 years and over. (Those under 18 are mostly dealt with by Youth Offending Teams, answering to the Youth Justice Board.) They are responsible for supervising offenders who are given community sentences and suspended sentence orders by the courts, as well as offenders given custodial sentences, both pre and post their release.
**Police National Computer**
The Police National Computer (PNC) is the police’s administrative IT system used by all police forces in England and Wales and managed by the National Policing Improvement Agency. As with any large scale recording system the PNC is subject to possible errors with data entry and processing. The Ministry of Justice maintains a database based on weekly extracts of selected data from the PNC in order to compile statistics and conduct research on reoffending and criminal histories. The PNC largely covers recordable offences – these are all indictable and triable-either-way offences plus many of the more serious summary offences. All figures derived from the Ministry of Justice’s PNC database, and in particular those for the most recent months, are likely to be revised as more information is recorded by the police.
**Recordable offences**
Recordable offences are those that the police are required to record on the Police National Computer. They include all offences for which a custodial sentence can be given plus a range of other offences defined as recordable in legislation. They exclude a range of less serious summary offences, for example television licence evasion, driving without insurance, speeding and vehicle tax offences.
**Indictable and summary offences** - Summary offences are triable only by a magistrates’ court. This group includes motoring offences, common assault and criminal damage up to £5,000. More serious offences are classed either as **triable either way** (these can be tried either at the Crown Court or at a magistrates’ court and include criminal damage where the value is £5,000 or greater, theft and burglary) or **indictable** (the most serious offences that must be tried at the Crown Court. These ‘indictable-only’ offences include murder, manslaughter, rape and robbery).
**Offence Group** - A split of offences into twelve separate groups. A more detailed split of the ten indictable offence groups (violence against the person, sexual offences, burglary, robbery, theft and handling and stolen goods, fraud and forgery, criminal damage, drug offences, other indictable offences (excluding motoring), indictable motoring) and the two summary offence groups (summary non-motoring and summary motoring offence types). Appendix C: Comparison of the three measures of re-offending
Figure A1 below compares how the three measures of re-offending (the headline proven re-offending measure, the early estimates of re-offending and local adult re-offending) are constructed. It shows the period over which the re-offending cohort is formed, the time over which re-offending is measured, the additional time allowed for re-offending to be proven, and the time taken to collect and analyse the data, and then to publish.
Figure A1: how the three re-offending measures are constructed
| Measure | Cohort formation | Re-offences | Re-offences proven | Data collection and analysis | Publication | |--------------------------|------------------|-------------|--------------------|-----------------------------|-------------| | Headline measure | Jan-Mar Apr-Jun | Jul-Sep Oct-Dec | Jan-Mar Apr-Jun | Jul-Sep Oct-Dec | Oct-11 | | Early Estimates | Jan-Mar Apr-Jun | Jul-Sep Oct-Dec | Jan-Mar Apr-Jun | Jul-Sep Oct-Dec | Oct-11 | | Local Re-offending | Jan-Mar Apr-Jun | Jul-Sep Oct-Dec | Jan-Mar Apr-Jun | Jul-Sep Oct-Dec | Nov-11 |
Cohort formation Headline measure and early estimates: offenders enter the cohort when they receive a caution (adults), a final warning or reprimand (juveniles), are given a non-custodial conviction, are released from custody or test positive for cocaine or opiates in the cohort formation period shown.
Local adult re-offending: this uses a snapshot of all offenders aged 18 or over, who are under probation supervision at the end of a quarter, and combines four such snapshots together.
Re-offences Headline measure: A re-offence is counted if the offence occurs within the "Re-offences" period shown. This is within 12 months of entering the cohort.
Early estimates and local adult re-offending: A re-offence is counted if the offence occurs within 3 months of entering the cohort for the early estimates measure and within 3 months following each of the four caseload snapshots for the local re-offending measure.
Re-offences proven Headline measure: For a re-offence to be counted it must also be proven within the "Re-offences proven" period shown. This is within 6 months of the re-offence.
Early estimates and local adult re-offending: For a re-offence to be counted it must also be proven within the "Re-offences proven" period shown. This is within 3 months of the re-offence. CONTACT DETAILS AND FURTHER INFORMATION For queries, comments or further information, please contact:
Nick Mavron, Justice Statistics Analytical Services Ministry of Justice 7th floor 102 Petty France London SW1H 9AJ Email: [email protected]
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/4805-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 44,
"total-input-tokens": 88145,
"total-output-tokens": 27000,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
84,
1
],
[
84,
1015,
2
],
[
1015,
2693,
3
],
[
2693,
5449,
4
],
[
5449,
7749,
5
],
[
7749,
10018,
6
],
[
10018,
12829,
7
],
[
12829,
16442,
8
],
[
16442,
17898,
9
],
[
17898,
20555,
10
],
[
20555,
23126,
11
],
[
23126,
25408,
12
],
[
25408,
28454,
13
],
[
28454,
31314,
14
],
[
31314,
33696,
15
],
[
33696,
36187,
16
],
[
36187,
38687,
17
],
[
38687,
41180,
18
],
[
41180,
45301,
19
],
[
45301,
47933,
20
],
[
47933,
50603,
21
],
[
50603,
53173,
22
],
[
53173,
55654,
23
],
[
55654,
58346,
24
],
[
58346,
60613,
25
],
[
60613,
63620,
26
],
[
63620,
67155,
27
],
[
67155,
69856,
28
],
[
69856,
72500,
29
],
[
72500,
75093,
30
],
[
75093,
77976,
31
],
[
77976,
81193,
32
],
[
81193,
84645,
33
],
[
84645,
85643,
34
],
[
85643,
86446,
35
],
[
86446,
88782,
36
],
[
88782,
91646,
37
],
[
91646,
93493,
38
],
[
93493,
95930,
39
],
[
95930,
98556,
40
],
[
98556,
101067,
41
],
[
101067,
102189,
42
],
[
102189,
104643,
43
],
[
104643,
104907,
44
]
]
} |
d70539a1e649ccac46bf8ca60cf951751dc5a0ca | Proven re-offending statistics: definitions and measurement
Published October 2012 Contents
Proven re-offending statistics quarterly bulletin 3 Early estimates of proven re-offending statistics 11 Local adult re-offending statistics quarterly bulletin 14 Data quality 16 Statistical modelling and coefficients 26 Appendix A: List of serious offences 34 Appendix B: Glossary of terms 39 Appendix C: Comparison of the three measures of re-offending 47 Contact details and further information 48 Proven re-offending statistics quarterly bulletin
Background
The Ministry of Justice launched a statistical consultation on improvements to the transparency and accessibility of our information in 2010 and a response to the consultation was published in March 2011. One aspect of the consultation was the measurement of proven re-offending. Responses have supported the proposals to move to a single framework for measuring re-offending where adult and youth data can be provided at the national and local level on a consistent basis. The response to the consultation is available here:
www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/consultations/improvements-moj-statistics-consultation-response.pdf
Prior to this consultation there were six different measures of proven re-offending:
- national adult proven re-offending;
- local adult proven re-offending;
- national youth proven re-offending;
- local youth proven re-offending;
- prolific and other priority offending (PPO); and
- drug-misusing proven offending.
The current framework for measuring proven re-offending integrates these approaches into a single framework. This allows users to:
- form a clear picture of proven re-offending at national and local levels;
- compare adult and youth results, and enable other work on transition between the youth and adult system;
- understand how results for different offender groups (such as those managed by the prison and probation services, those under the PPO schemes, drug-misusing offenders, first time entrants, etc.) fit into the overall picture on proven re-offending; and
- continue to analyse proven re-offending behaviour for particular types of offender. Measurement
The underlying principle of measuring re-offending (or recidivism, which is the most commonly used term internationally) is that someone who has received some form of criminal justice sanction (such as a conviction or a caution) goes on to commit another offence within a set time period.
Measuring true re-offending is difficult. Official records are taken from either the police or courts, but they will underestimate the true level of re-offending because only a proportion of crime is detected and sanctioned and not all crimes and sanctions are recorded on one central system. Other methods of measuring re-offending, such as self report studies, are likely to also underestimate the rate.
Following the Ministry of Justice consultation on Improvements to Ministry of Justice Statistics (2010), a **proven re-offence is defined** as any offence committed in a one year follow-up period and receiving a court conviction, caution, reprimand or warning in the one year follow-up or a further six month waiting period. The data source is the extract of the Police National Computer (PNC) held by the Ministry of Justice.
Definitions for the measurement of proven re-offending
**Cohort** This is the group of individuals whose re-offending is measured. For the Proven Re-offending Statistics Quarterly Bulletin, this is defined as all offenders in any one year who received a caution (for adults), a final warning or reprimand (for juveniles), a non-custodial conviction, or were discharged from custody.
Offenders who were discharged from custody or secure accommodation (juveniles only) or commenced a Court Order are matched to the PNC database. A proportion of cases are lost in this process because they cannot be matched (see the section below titled “Matching offender records” for further details). Additionally, offenders who appear multiple times in the cohort are only included once (see the section below titled “Multiple offender entries” for further details).
The group of offenders whose offending behaviour is proven is likely to be a sub-group of all active offenders. The Offending, Crime and Justice Survey (2003)(^1) estimated that around one in ten people in England and Wales aged between ten and 65 had committed an offence in the previous 12 months,
(^1) The Offending, Crime and Justice Survey (2003) was a random probability survey of 10,079 people aged from ten to 65 and asked people about their offending history. Like any such survey, its accuracy is dependent upon the level of honesty with which respondents completed the survey. which translates into approximately 3.8 million people. This compares to 632,000 offenders in the 2002 cohort used to measure proven re-offending, underlining that the offenders whose proven re-offending behaviour is presented in the Proven Re-offending Statistics Quarterly Bulletin are a small and probably unrepresentative sample of the population of all active offenders.
**Index disposal (sentence type)** The index disposal of the offender is the type of sentence the offender received for their index offence. For the Proven Re-offending Statistics Quarterly Bulletin, this is defined as custody, court order, other disposal resulting from a conviction at court, such as a fine or discharge, caution (adult offenders), reprimand or final warning (young offenders).
**Index offence** The index offence is the proven offence that leads to an offender being included in the cohort. An offence is only counted as an index offence if it is:
- recordable (see below);
- committed in England and Wales;
- prosecuted by the police; and
- not a breach offence.
There are around 3,000 offence codes on the PNC and these have been classified into the following 21 groups:
- violence (non serious)
- violence (serious)
- robbery
- public order or riot
- sexual
- sexual (child)
- soliciting or prostitution
- domestic burglary
- other burglary
- theft
- handling • fraud and forgery • absconding or bail offences • taking and driving away and related offences • theft from vehicles • other motoring offences • drink driving offences • criminal or malicious damage • drugs import/export/production/supply • drugs possession/small scale supply • other
Start point (index date) This is the set point in time from when proven re-offences are measured. For the Proven Re-offending Statistics Quarterly Bulletin, this is defined as the date of prison discharge, date of court conviction for non-custodial sentences, date of receipt for a caution, reprimand or final warning or the date of a positive drug test.
Follow-up period This is the length of time proven re-offending is measured over. For the Proven Re-offending Statistics Quarterly Bulletin, this is defined as 12 months from the start point.
Waiting period This is the additional time beyond the follow-up period to allow for offences which are committed towards the end of the follow-up period to be proven by a court, resulting in a conviction, caution, reprimand or final warning. For the Proven Re-offending Statistics Quarterly Bulletin, this is six months.
Figure 1 below illustrates why different offences for an example offender are included or excluded in the proven re-offending measure. Events A to E all occur in the one year follow-up period, but events F and G are outside this period, so would not be counted. Events A to D are all counted because they were all proven within the one year follow-up period or the further six month waiting period, but event E, even though the offence took place in the one year follow-up period, would not be counted, as the conviction did not occur within either the one year follow-up period, or the further six month waiting period. The offender has, therefore, committed seven proven offences during the one year follow-up period (two for event A, one for event B, three for event C, and one for event D).
**Proven re-offence**
Offences are counted as proven re-offences if they meet all of the following criteria:
- They are recordable. Not all offences are on the PNC and more recordable offences are entered than non-recordable offences. Analysis comparing offences proven at court with offences recorded on the PNC suggests the most cost common offences that are not recorded relates to motor vehicles, e.g. using a motor vehicle whilst uninsured against third party risks, speeding offences, keeping a vehicle on the highway without a driving licence or television licence evasion.
- They were committed in England or Wales.
- They are offences that were prosecuted by the police. PNC data is collected and input by the police and offences prosecuted by the police are likely to be recorded more comprehensively on the PNC than offences that are prosecuted by other organisations. For example, benefit fraud is prosecuted by the Department for Work and Pensions. Therefore, benefit fraud offences may be poorly represented on the PNC.
- Offences are only counted if they are proven through caution (for adults), reprimands or final warnings (for juveniles) and court convictions. Offences that are not proven, or which meet with other responses from the Criminal Justice System, are not counted. The Offending, Crime and Justice Survey (2003) estimated that six per cent of all offences resulted in any contact with the Criminal Justice System.
- The offence is not a breach offence, i.e. breach of a court order, since we are only interested in new offences.
**Adjusted baseline (predicted rate)** Proven re-offending is related to the characteristics of offenders which means that any overall rate of proven re-offending will depend, in part, on the characteristics of offenders coming into the system (just as the examination pass rate of a school will be related to the characteristics of its pupils). We use a modelling technique to produce a baseline figure adjusted to match the characteristics of the cohort we are comparing. For more details on this, refer to the chapter on “Statistical modelling and coefficients”.
**Measures of proven re-offending** Proven re-offending data are presented in the following ways:
- The number of offenders.
- The proportion of offenders who are proven re-offenders.
- The average number of proven re-offences among re-offenders.
- The average number of proven re-offences among all offenders including those who committed no proven re-offences (previously the frequency rate).
- The proportion of proven offenders who committed a proven serious re-offence against the person. Refer to Annex A for details on what counts as a serious offence.
- The proportion of proven offenders who committed a proven serious acquisitive re-offence. Refer to Annex A for details on what counts as a serious acquisitive offence.
- The proportion of offenders who are proven to re-offend, adjusted to control for changes in offender characteristics. This measure is different from the other measures in that it does not come from actual re-offences, but from a statistical model created for the baseline year of 2008. This gives a better indication of actual change against a baseline. Refer to the chapter on “Statistical modelling and coefficients” for further details.
**Multiple offender entries** Each offender is tracked over a fixed period of time and any proven offence committed in this period is counted as a proven re-offence. A multiple offender entry refers to an offender who, after entering the cohort in a given year, commits a re-offence and is either cautioned, discharged from prison or gets a non-custodial conviction in the same cohort year. This re-offence could also be included as a second entry for this offender into the cohort.
Figure 2: Example of an offender with multiple offender entries
| Offender Cautioned | Re-offence 1 | Offender starts a community sentence | Re-offence 2 | Offender sentenced to 3mnths in prison then released | Re-offence 3 | |--------------------|-------------|--------------------------------------|-------------|-----------------------------------------------------|-------------| | | | | | | |
1 year cohort period
To date, publications have avoided the double counting of these multiple offender entries (MOE) by only counting an individual once based on their first proven offence in the relevant time period. In the illustration above, the caution would be counted as the index disposal and the further two proven offences would be counted as re-offences. This avoids double counting of proven re-offences.
In this publication the main tables (tables 1 to 17) in the report have been produced on the basis of the 'first proven offence in the relevant time period' which led to an offender being included. This provides a picture of proven re-offending which is consistent with previous publications and tracks an offender, irrespective of the disposal they receive, to when they commit a proven re-offence.
The measure of proven re-offending now covers all offenders in any one year instead of the first quarter of a calendar year as in previous proven re-offending publications. The result is many more offenders with multiple entries.
In addition, including cautions to identify a proven offence means many offenders’ first offence will be associated with a caution since cautions account for around a third of adult offenders in one year. Table 1 shows the number of offenders in each cohort period by their number of entries.
Table 1: Number of offenders and their respective number of entries for 2000, 2002 to 2010 cohorts
| Multiple Offender Entries | 2000 | 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | |---------------------------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------| | 1 | 512,551 | 522,376 | 544,032 | 551,265 | 582,840 | 622,096 | 638,495 | 610,329 | 578,644 | 535,394 | | 2x | 75,311 | 77,813 | 81,651 | 78,969 | 81,120 | 87,589 | 91,695 | 88,207 | 83,785 | 79,067 | | 3x | 19,565 | 21,208 | 22,073 | 20,855 | 20,926 | 21,974 | 23,757 | 23,662 | 22,125 | 21,466 | | 4x | 6,195 | 6,689 | 7,074 | 6,835 | 6,725 | 6,807 | 7,652 | 7,917 | 7,360 | 7,425 | | 5x | 1,998 | 2,314 | 2,392 | 2,357 | 2,355 | 2,425 | 2,795 | 2,911 | 2,938 | 2,909 | | 6 to 10x | 1,240 | 1,510 | 1,689 | 1,641 | 1,505 | 1,513 | 1,966 | 2,341 | 2,308 | 2,368 | | Greater than 10x | 164 | 155 | 129 | 131 | 119 | 115 | 114 | 160 | 202 | 193 | | Total MOEs | 104,473 | 109,689 | 115,008 | 110,788 | 112,750 | 120,423 | 127,979 | 125,198 | 118,718 | 113,428 | | % of total cohort | 16.9% | 17.4% | 17.5% | 16.7% | 16.2% | 16.2% | 16.7% | 17.0% | 17.0% | 17.5% |
The number of offenders with multiple entries has remained fairly constant over time - the proportion of the total that had multiple offender entries has remained at about 16 to 17 per cent between 2000 and 2010. Proven re-offending by index disposal, probation trust and prison
In order to measure proven re-offending on a consistent and representative basis by offender management groups, it is necessary to distinguish between the disposal (sentence) types that led to an offender being included. Doing this allows the cohort to be defined according to the relative start point of an offender’s interaction with the prison (released from custody) or probation services (court order commencement).
Tables 18 to 21 provide re-offending rates by disposal (sentence) types. These are produced on the basis of an individual’s first disposal (sentence) in that category. In the illustration above the individual would appear once in the caution category, once in the community order category and once in the custody category. These tables will include an overall prison and probation proven re-offending rate which will be the figures we quote publicly. However, these figures should not be used when comparing proven re-offending rates across different disposals to compare effectiveness. Instead the ‘Compendium of Re-offending Statistics and Analysis 2011’ (at the link below) should be referred to as this analysis controls for offender characteristics in order to give a more reliable estimate of the relative effectiveness of different disposals.
www.justice.gov.uk/statistics/reoffending/compendium-of-reoffending-statistics-and-analysis
Tables 22 to 25 provide re-offending rates by individual prison and probation trust. These are produced on the basis of an individual’s first disposal from each specified prison or probation trust. If the individual offender is discharged from two different prisons in the year they will appear in both of the prison’s re-offending rates. The same applies for offenders commencing court orders in more than one probation trust within the year. This is to allow prisons and probation services to track their caseload of offenders. Early estimates of proven re-offending statistics
Background
Responses from the consultation and from earlier engagement with representatives of front-line offender management services supported the proposal to produce early estimates of proven re-offending using shorter follow-up and waiting periods. This is intended to provide offender managers feedback on the proven re-offending trends of offenders they are working with in time for them to adjust or build on offender management operational policy. This section of the new bulletin addresses these issues.
Early estimates of proven re-offending are presented for four particular offender groups who are subject to specific offender management arrangements. These are offenders managed by the probation service, Prolific and other Priority Offenders (PPO) who are managed by a partnership of local front-line services, drug-misusing offenders who are managed by Drug Action Teams, and young offenders who are managed by Youth Offending Teams.
Proven re-offending for the early estimates is measured in exactly the same way as for the headline proven re-offending measure except that the follow-up period and waiting period are both three months each. (For the headline measure of proven re-offending they are 12 months and six months, respectively.)
The headline figures and early estimates differ in the following ways:
- Early estimates of proven re-offending rates are considerably lower than in the headline publication. This is because they cover a shorter time period.
- The shorter follow-up period and waiting period allow rates to be calculated for more recent groups of proven offenders.
- Early estimates of proven re-offending rates provide local offender management services with information on proven re-offending trends for the offenders they are working with. The headline re-offending publication presents the public with information on a wide range of proven re-offending trends and provides proven re-offending rates by a variety of breakdowns, such as age, gender, disposal, etc.
- The shorter follow-up period and waiting period provides insufficient time for many serious re-offences to be committed and convicted. For this reason, early estimates of proven re-offending rates do not include information on serious re-offending.
- Results in the headline measure are compared to a baseline rate, adjusted for changes in the offender profile. This relies on an estimate of the relationship between offender characteristics and proven re-offending behaviour over 12 months. An equivalent estimate has been carried out for the proven re-offending behaviour of offenders commencing court order over three months. This uses the same variables as the headline measure plus additional variables to ensure that the actual and predicted rates are identical for every probation trust in the baseline period (2008). The tables accompanying the early estimates present the adjusted baseline for each trust, and the text identifies those trusts where the actual rate is significantly higher or lower than the predicted rate in the most recent results available.
Measurement
Coverage Results are provided for four types of offenders: probation offenders by probation trust, PPO offenders by upper-tier local authority, drug-misusing offenders by Drug Action Team, and young offenders by Youth Offending Team.
Cohort For probation offenders, the cohort is made up of all offenders who commenced a court order within a 12 month period. For PPO offenders, the cohort is made up of all offenders identified as a PPO who were discharged from custody, convicted at court, received a caution (adults), reprimand or final warning (juveniles) or tested positive for opiates or cocaine within a 12 month period. For drug-misusing offenders, the cohort is made up of all offenders identified as drug-misusing who were discharged from custody, convicted at court, received a caution or tested positive for opiates or cocaine within a 12 month period. For juveniles, the cohort is made up of all young offenders who were discharged from custody, convicted at court or received a reprimand or final warning within a 12 month period.
Start point (index date) Same as for the headline proven re-offending figures presented in the Re-offending Statistics Quarterly Bulletin.
Follow-up period This is the length of time proven re-offending is measured over. For the Early Estimates of Proven Re-offending, this is defined as three months from the start point.
Waiting period This is the additional time beyond the follow-up period to allow for offences which are committed towards the end of the follow-up period to be proven by a court, resulting in a conviction, caution, reprimand or final warning. For the Early Estimates of Proven Re-offending Statistics, this is three months.
Proven re-offence Same as for the headline proven re-offending figures presented in the Re-offending Statistics Quarterly Bulletin. Adjusted baseline (predicted rate) Proven re-offending is related to the characteristics of offenders which means that any overall rate of proven re-offending will depend, in part, on the characteristics of offenders coming into the system (just as the examination pass rate of a school will be related to the characteristics of its pupils). We use a modelling technique to produce a baseline figure adjusted to match the characteristics of the cohort we are comparing. For more details on this, refer to the chapter on “Statistical modelling and coefficients”.
Multiple offender entries Same as for the headline proven re-offending figures presented in the Re-offending Statistics Quarterly Bulletin. Local adult re-offending statistics quarterly bulletin
Background
Proven re-offending results from this measure have been published by the Ministry of Justice since February 2009 at Government Office Region, probation trust and local authority level. This data is used to measure probation performance and the Ministry of Justice will continue to produce these measures while offender management systems still require them. The Local Adult Re-offending Statistics Quarterly Bulletin can be found on the Ministry of Justice website at the following link:
www.justice.gov.uk/statistics/reoffending/local-adult-reoffending
The local proven re-offending data measure the re-offending of all offenders on the probation caseload. This includes offenders on licence and serving court orders.
Local proven re-offending rates use the same follow-up period and waiting period to those for the early estimates. However, there are several key differences between the local measure and the early estimates. These include:
- The sample of offenders - local rates are estimated using all offenders on the probation caseload, including those on licence and those serving court orders. Offenders on the caseload are identified through four ‘snapshots’ of the caseload, which are taken each quarter. Offenders are included if they are on the caseload even if they have been on licence or serving the court order for longer than 12 months. The early estimates are based on offenders who commence a court order within a 12 month period.
- Local rates define the period reported on by the period of re-offending. The early estimates refer to the year of the index disposal.
Measurement
Cohort All offenders on the probation caseload taken from four quarterly snapshots.
Start point The date of the snapshot.
Follow-up period This is the length of time proven re-offending is measured over. For the Local Adult Re-offending Statistics Quarterly Bulletin, this is defined as three months from the start point. **Waiting period** This is the additional time beyond the follow-up period to allow for offences which are committed towards the end of the follow-up period to be proven by a court, resulting in a conviction, caution, reprimand or final warning. For the Local Adult Re-offending Statistics Quarterly Bulletin, this is three months.
**Proven re-offence** Same as for the headline proven re-offending figures presented in the Re-offending Statistics Quarterly Bulletin.
**Adjusted baseline (predicted rate)** The predicted rate is the proportion of offenders we would expect to re-offend given the known characteristics of the offenders in the snapshot and re-offending rates in the baseline period. More detail on the predicted rate, and the statistical model used to calculate it, is provided in Appendix B of the Local Adult Re-offending Statistics Bulletin. Data quality
The data required for measuring proven re-offending are based on a range of data sources (prison data, probation data, identification of drug-misusing offenders, identification of prolific and other priority offenders, young offenders in secure accommodation, and criminal records from the Police National Computer) from a range of agencies (the National Offender Management Service, probation trusts, the Youth Justice Board, Drug Action Teams, local authorities and the National Police Improvement Agency). These figures have been derived from administrative IT systems which, as with any large scale recording system, are subject to possible errors with data entry and processing.
Police National Computer data
Information regarding the proven re-offending behaviour of offenders has been compiled using the Ministry of Justice’s extract from the Police National Computer (PNC). The process involves matching offender details from the prison and probation data to the personal details recorded on the PNC. A proportion of cases cannot be matched and the figures presented in Table 2 below are expressed as a percentage of the offenders that are matched. Like any large scale recording system, the PNC is subject to errors with data entry and recording. The PNC is regularly updated so that further analysis at a later date will generate revised figures.
The quality of the information recorded on the PNC is generally assumed to be relatively high as it is an operational system on which the police depend, but analysis can reveal errors that are typical when handling administrative datasets of this scale. The extent of error or omitted records on the PNC is difficult to estimate because it is a unique data-source. As a result, there is not always an obvious source of data to provide a baseline from which to assess data quality. For some types of results, however, comparisons can be made. For example, the trend in receptions into prison in each month is very similar using the PNC and prisons data (see below for details). Although the number of receptions recorded on the PNC is consistently slightly lower because prisons data include cases on remand whereas the PNC does not. Another example is the number of cases that are given a custodial sentence, broken down by offence type, which is similar using the PNC and the Court Proceedings Database with a match rate of 97 per cent.
A number of improvements are routinely carried out:
- Updates to the coding and classification of offences and court disposals, including the reduction of uncoded offences, the reduction in the use of miscellaneous offence codes and the clarification of the coding of breach offences;
- Updates to the methods used to identify the primary offence, where several offences are dealt with on the same occasion, and the methods used to identify the primary disposal, where an offence attracts more than one court disposal; and
- Removal of some duplication of records within the database resulting in improvements to the efficiency and reliability of the matching process.
Prison data
Prison establishments record details for individual inmates on the prison IT system (Prison-NOMIS or LIDS). The information recorded includes details such as date of birth, gender, religion, nationality, ethnic origin, custody type, offence, reception and discharge dates and, for sentenced prisoners, sentence length. The data from individual prison establishments then feeds through to a central computer database, called the Inmate Information System (IIS).
In May 2009, the National Offender Management Service (NOMS) began the roll-out of a new case management system for prisons (Prison-NOMIS). During the phased roll-out, data collection issues emerged that affected the supply of data for statistical purposes from July 2009 to February 2010. Specifically, statistical information on sentence length and offence group are not available on any of our prison datasets for this period.
In order to ensure the fullest possible set of data from July 2009 to February 2010, sentence lengths were estimated for those prisoners received or discharged before the problems were resolved. At the point when the problems were resolved, a small number of prison establishments were still using the old LIDS case management system; data for prisoners received or discharged from these prisons was assumed to be unaffected.
For those prisoners received or discharged from prisons operating Prison-NOMIS, efforts were made to populate their record with the correct sentence length using other data extracts. For example, many prisoners discharged in January 2010 were originally received into prison prior to July 2009, so their sentence length was taken from unaffected datasets before the problems began. Similarly, the majority of those received in early 2010 were still in prison in March 2010 when the problems were resolved, so the sentence length from the corrected prison population data was used.
Where it was not possible to populate a sentence length using other datasets, prisoners were allocated a sentence length band based on the number of days they spent in custody (taking account of early release schemes where relevant).
As a check on the methodology, an alternative estimation process was designed and the number of discharges in each sentence length band for the second half of 2009 was compared using the two methods.
A number of estimation methods were considered and tested on the 2008 data (prior to the data problems) to see which yielded estimates closest to the actual 2008 data. This identified the following method:
1. Calculate data for the first half of the year as a proportion of the full calendar year, for each year from 2001 to 2008; separately for each sentence length band or offence group (the two key breakdowns to be estimated).
2. Apply the average of these proportions to the January to June 2009 data to estimate the 2009 annual totals; separately for each sentence length band or offence group.
3. Scale the estimated numbers in each sentence length band or offence group to sum to the annual total recorded in the raw data (where the totals are known to be correct).
The maximum difference between the two approaches was 2.6 per cent in the band ‘12 months to less than 4 years’; for all other bands the difference was less than 1 per cent.
**Indeterminate sentence prisoners**
In addition to the above, data on the discharge of prisoners on indeterminate sentence (prisoners given a life sentence or an Indeterminate sentence for Public Protection (IPP) is provided from the Public Protection Unit Database (PPUD). This holds data jointly owned by the Offender Management and Public Protection Group (OMPPG) in NOMS and the Parole Board.
PPUD records details of all indeterminate sentence prisoners at the point of conviction, those engaged in the Generic Parole Process and prisoners (determinate and indeterminate) who have been recalled from licence. It also covers those who have received a restricted hospital order/direction from a Crown Court, and those remand and convicted prisoners who have been transferred from prison/detention centres to psychiatric hospital under the relevant sections of mental health legislation.
All decisions taken by the NOMS casework sections and the Parole Board are recorded on the system.
Personal information recorded includes (but is not limited to) name, date of birth, gender, identifying numbers, ethnicity, last known address, probation area and sentencing information.
OMPPG and the Parole Board run monthly and ad hoc reports to cleanse data that are not otherwise identified by data validation routines built into the system.
**Probation data**
Since 2005, detailed information on the supervision of offenders (at the individual offender level) has been submitted by probation trusts on a monthly basis. These monthly ‘probation listings’ include information on offenders starting probation supervision. Between 2002 and 2005, this information was submitted quarterly, and prior to 2002 a different data collection system was in place, which meant that information on caseload had to be calculated based on the number of people starting supervision and the number of terminations.
The quality of the information recorded on the probation data is generally assumed to be relatively high as it is a direct extract from an operational system upon which the probation service depends for managing offenders locally. The extract consists of a small number of key fields for which completion is mandatory. Probation trusts have their own IT departments which manage their own data validation processes and when the data is received centrally it is subject to another set of data validation processes. Trends from the data are consistent with comparable time-series from the Courts Proceeding Database. Any large scale recording systems are subject to possible errors with data entry and processing, but there are no known issues regarding the probation commencements data.
**Identification of drug-misusing offenders**
There are four ways a drug-misusing offender can be identified:
- Individuals who have tested positive for heroin or crack/cocaine following an arrest or charge for ‘trigger’ offences (largely acquisitive crime offences) as part of the Drug Interventions Programme (DIP) are included as adult proven offenders.
- Any offender that received an OASys assessment whilst on licence or on a community sentence and are either recorded as being subject to a current Drug Treatment and Testing Order (DTTO) or Drug Rehabilitation Requirement (DRR), or are assessed as having a criminogenic drug need.
- Any offender identified as requiring further drug interventions by Counselling, Assessment, Referral, Advice, Throughcare (CARAT) teams in prison, and now being released into the community.
- Any offender identified by local Criminal Justice Integrated Teams (CJITs) as requiring further intervention for their drug use and offending as part of DIP.
**Drug Interventions Programme**
The Drug Interventions Programme (DIP) was introduced in April 2003 with the aim of developing and integrating measures for directing adult drug-misusing offenders into drug treatment and reducing offending behaviour. The programme comprises of a number of interrelated interventions:
- Drug testing in police custody for specified Class A drugs – heroin, cocaine and crack cocaine – for individuals arrested for trigger offences (primarily offences related to acquisitive crime). • Assessment following a positive test to establish the extent of the individual's drug-misuse, and whether the individual might benefit from further assessment, assistance or treatment.
• Conditional cautioning which may include a DIP drug rehabilitative condition, tailored to the offender’s drug use and offending.
• Restriction on bail for adults who have tested positive and whose offence is a drug offence or is drug-related.
• CJITs manage offenders who have been referred to treatment and co-ordinate agencies and services so they offer access to joined-up treatment and support. They maintain strong links with both the National Probation Service and Prison Service to ensure the continuity of care whilst the offender is within the Criminal Justice System.
Legislative changes have broadened the scope of the programme:
• A major expansion of DIP took place in April 2006 to move the point of drug testing from the point of charge to the point of arrest and to introduce required (rather than voluntary) assessments. This change broadened the scope and size of the cohort coming into contact with DIP.
• The latest changes took effect from April 2011, when the authorisation to conduct drug testing on arrest was extended across England and Wales. Drug testing on arrest previously occurred only in ‘intensive’ DIP areas, which had high levels of acquisitive crime.
Data sources Records of those who test positive are logged onto the Drugs Intervention Management Information System (DIMIS), which is managed by the Home Office. An extract of positive drug test records for the relevant period is used for a match to the PNC.
Offenders identified as drug-misusers via CARAT teams and CJITs are also recorded onto DIMIS, from which an extract is taken for the relevant period to match to the PNC. OASys records are collated centrally within the Ministry of Justice in the OASys Data, Evaluation and Analysis Team (O-DEAT) database, from which an extract is taken for the relevant period to match to the PNC.
Identification of prolific and other priority offenders
The Prolific and other Priority Offenders Programme (PPO) aims to use a multi-agency approach to focus on a very small, but hard core group of prolific/persistent offenders who commit disproportionate amounts of crime and cause disproportionate harm to their local communities. Full implementation of all three strands had commenced by the beginning of February 2005. In 2009, all local areas were asked to review their PPO schemes to ensure that the programme remained squarely focused on those offenders that were of most concern to the communities in which they live.
The identification of a PPO is undertaken at a local level involving police, local authorities, prison and probation services and youth offending teams. The factors that influence the decision of whether an offender is included in the PPO programme are:
- the nature and volume of crimes they commit;
- the nature and volume of other harm they cause; and
- the detrimental impact they have on their community.
This process will typically involve police, prison and probation information systems and other tools available.
The size of the PPO caseload at a local level is influenced by a range of factors, including the number of offenders who meet the locally agreed selection criteria and the capacity of local partner agencies to provide the intensive management of offenders under PPO supervision.
PPO cohort data are derived from JTRACK, which is a management information and tracking tool used by practitioners in various criminal justice agencies to record details of the offenders being managed as PPOs in a local area. JTRACK relies on the accurate input of data by local users to ensure that the details of the caseload on the system reflect the caseload being managed. An extract of the caseload from JTRACK is taken for the relevant period to match to the PNC.
**Young offenders in secure accommodation**
Information about secure training centres (STCs) and secure children's homes (SCHs) comes from the Youth Justice Board's (YJB) Secure Accommodation Clearing House System (SACHS) database. The under 18 year olds in Young Offender Institutes (YOIs) is also from SACHS, whereas information about young people aged 18 and held in YOIs is supplied by the Prison Service and private YOIs.
The quality of the information recorded on the SACHS database is generally assumed to be relatively high as it is a direct extract from an operational system which is used to place young people in custody. The extract uses a number of key fields for which completion is mandatory when booking a young person into custody.
**Data processing and analysis**
The data underpinning the results are considered by Ministry of Justice to be broadly robust. Considerable work has been carried out ensuring data quality, and the data have been used for research publications. Scrutiny of the data source continues in order to ensure the data remains reliable.
The National Audit Office (NAO) identified risk factors in its review of the reporting of PSA targets (NAO, 2005). The remainder of this section addresses these.
Matching offender records
This process involves matching data on prison discharges and court order commencements to the PNC database. The process uses automated matching routines that look at offenders’ surnames, initials, and dates of birth, using direct name matching along with a variety of ‘sounds like’ algorithms. The matching algorithm also searches through PNC held information on alias names and dates of birth for offenders. However, not all offenders are matched and a thorough analysis of bias in the matching system has yet to be undertaken. Table 2 below shows that the overall matching rates between 2000 and 2010 have remained high.
Table 2: Matching rates for the different data sources for 2000, 2002 to 2010 cohorts
| | 2000 | 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | |----------------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------| | **Prison** | | | | | | | | | | | | Prison discharges | 87,083| 87,338| 85,920| 86,970| 84,897| 83,725| 87,340| 95,824| 94,114| 91,044| | Automatically matched to the PNC | 80,572| 81,211| 80,121| 81,125| 79,398| 78,285| 81,874| 90,021| 88,745| 87,845| | Matched to an index date | 73,610| 76,121| 73,327| 73,390| 71,246| 68,185| 69,741| 76,668| 74,169| 65,278| | Percentage matched to the PNC | 92.5% | 93.0% | 93.3% | 93.3% | 93.5% | 93.5% | 93.7% | 93.9% | 94.3% | 96.5% | | Percentage matched to the PNC and index offences (not breach etc.) | 84.8% | 86.0% | 85.3% | 84.4% | 83.9% | 81.4% | 79.9% | 80.0% | 78.8% | 71.7% | | **Court Orders** | | | | | | | | | | | | Court order starts | 136,023| 154,621| 158,750| 164,831| 163,681| 176,346| 187,386| 189,643| 191,784| 186,417| | Automatically matched to the PNC | 123,540| 142,838| 148,257| 154,075| 158,416| 172,906| 184,740| 187,253| 190,128| 185,112| | Matched to an index date | 105,685| 115,108| 119,446| 122,927| 130,307| 148,072| 159,279| 163,519| 167,378| 164,579| | Percentage matched to the PNC | 90.8% | 92.4% | 93.4% | 93.5% | 96.8% | 98.0% | 98.6% | 98.7% | 99.1% | 99.3% | | Percentage matched to the PNC and index offences (not breach etc.) | 77.7% | 74.4% | 75.2% | 74.6% | 79.6% | 84.0% | 85.0% | 86.2% | 87.3% | 88.3% | | **YJB** | | | | | | | | | | | | YJB discharges | - | 1,337 | 1,612 | 1,521 | 1,551 | 1,564 | 1,553 | 1,647 | 1,626 | 1,770 | | Automatically matched to the PNC | - | 1,226 | 1,502 | 1,425 | 1,448 | 1,464 | 1,463 | 1,537 | 1,564 | 1,682 | | Matched to an index date | - | 680 | 818 | 785 | 860 | 769 | 780 | 845 | 817 | 916 | | Percentage matched to the PNC | - | 91.7% | 93.2% | 93.7% | 93.4% | 93.6% | 94.2% | 93.3% | 96.2% | 95.0% | | Percentage matched to the PNC and index offences (not breach etc.) | - | 50.9% | 50.7% | 51.6% | 51.6% | 49.2% | 50.2% | 51.3% | 50.2% | 51.8% |
The total number of offenders matched to the PNC is substantially higher than the final figure for the cohorts – for example, in 2010 there were 274,639 matched offenders, but a final cohort size of 230,773. The main reasons for these discrepancies are:
- Conviction dates for the beginning of the community, suspended or custodial sentence do not match the conviction date within seven days of the criminal records from the PNC database;
- The index offence was not dealt with by a Home Office police force – this ensures that only offences in England and Wales are counted;
- Exclusion of all offenders where the index offence is a breach, since we are only interested in new offences; and Exclusion of multiple offender entries (see section above titled “Multiple offender entries” for further details).
Counting rules
The counting rules for choosing which prison discharges to include offer a variety of choices. For instance, it makes little sense to include offenders deported on release or who have died. These counting rules were enumerated and discussed to ensure a more accurate and consistent count and are reviewed on an annual basis to ensure a consistent approach.
Complexity of data processing and analysis
The data processing involved for measuring re-offending is complex. To analyse re-offending behaviour by previous offending or disposal history requires the extraction of criminal histories that can span a number of decades, and the subsequent matching of these histories against the probation caseload files and prison discharges in order to generate a dataset.
The extraction of the criminal histories
To quality assure the extraction of criminal histories, a small set of random samples of offenders was taken after the analysis to check, via a basic validation, that outputs of the SQL (Structured Query Language) program were accurate. The Ministry of Justice is confident that this process has been successful.
Level of subjectivity
There is relatively little subjectivity in the system. Occasional judgements are required (e.g. where to classify an offence), but these will not significantly influence the results.
Maturity and stability of the data system
The system is well established having been used a number of times to produce re-offending statistics for publication. Nonetheless, vigilance continues to be exercised to ensure the validity of the results.
Expertise of those who operate the system
Prison and court order data-feeds are continually monitored and improvement work is regularly undertaken to improve the reliability and the accuracy of datasets. The internal processing of the results within the Ministry of Justice has been subject to dip sampling of criminal histories and the statistical model has been extensively tested. Interpreting trends in the proportion of offenders who commit a serious re-offence against the person
Care should be taken when interpreting the severity rate for the following reasons:
- **Time through the Criminal Justice System** – more serious offences are likely to take a longer time to progress through the Criminal Justice System than less serious offences. The proven re-offending statistics track proven re-offending behaviour for a year upon offenders entering the cohort, plus an additional six months for convictions to be updated on the system. There is a risk that this time scale is not long enough to capture the most serious offences. However, analysis suggests that the number of serious proven re-offences picked up by the measure remains comparatively stable year on year, ensuring performance is comparable over time.
- **Reporting variation** – variation in reporting time between police force areas and courts may also have an impact on how many serious offences are captured during the one year follow-up period.
Data on historical trends
The data used to measure proven re-offending is from the PNC. Police forces started to enter criminal records locally in 1995. In order to allow time for good practice among police forces in entering data onto the PNC to become embedded, PNC data was used to measure proven re-offending for the first time in 2000. In the headline bulletin, results are compared to 2000 to highlight long-term trends because it is the earliest data on proven re-offending that exists on a comparable basis. Results prior to 2000 cannot be compared to results from 2000 onwards for two main reasons:
- Change in data source – re-offences are measured using data from the PNC (which covers recordable offences), whereas data from years before 2000 were measured using the offenders index (which covered a narrower range of offences).
- Change in measurement – the concept being measured from 2000 onwards in these reports is that of using the offence date to measure re-offences (a period of time is allowed for offences to be committed, and a further period allowed for these offences to be proved by caution, reprimand, final warning or court conviction), whereas the concept being measured prior to 2000 was that of using the conviction date to measure re-convictions (any conviction occurring in a set period of time, whether or not the offence occurred in that time period).
However the ‘Compendium of Re-offending Statistics and Analysis 2010’, published in November 2010, provides the most consistent statistical series possible between 1971 and 2006, adjusting for known methodological changes. For more information, please refer to Chapter 4.4 at the following link: Results for 2001 cannot be calculated for offenders on court orders because of a problem with archived data on court orders. Local breakdowns of the headline proven re-offending rates are available from 2005 onwards. Proven re-offending data are broken down by locality using the address and post-code information of the offender. Where this information is missing, the location of the processing police force is used instead. This is not a completely reliable indicator of the offender’s home address as offenders may offend in a different locality than where they reside. The completeness of this information has improved over time. In 2000, this information was omitted for 29 per cent of cases, which was considered too high to produce reliable results. By 2005, this was reduced to 16.5 per cent, and there has been a continuing downward trend since then. Statistical modelling and coefficients
Introduction
The characteristics of proven offenders are likely to be systematically different over time and by sentence type as the Criminal Justice System targets particular sentences to offenders most likely to benefit from that type. It is therefore important to note that it is not possible to reach firm conclusions about changes in rates over time, nor about the relative effectiveness of different sentence types, from actual proven re-offending rates.
The Ministry of Justice has developed models to address these two issues:
- modelling to adjust the baseline to reflect changes in offender characteristics (see below).
- modelling to match offenders across sentence types to make valid comparisons. Refer to the ‘Compendium of Re-offending Statistics and Analysis 2011’ at the link below for this analysis:
www.justice.gov.uk/statistics/reoffending/compendium-of-reoffending-statistics-and-analysis
Modelling to adjust for the varying composition of the cohort of offenders over time
If the composition of the cohorts of offenders being compared differs significantly over time so that the type of offenders in one year is inherently more (or less) likely to re-offend, this may result in an apparent rise or fall in the proven re-offending rates even when there may be no ‘real’ difference for similar offenders over that time. In order to address this problem, we have adopted the following solution:
- modelling the likelihood of proven re-offending based on known offender characteristics using historic data (which will be defined as the baseline);
- identifying the characteristics of the most recent cohort;
- using the model, adjusting the baseline proven re-offending rate to match these characteristics; and
- comparing this adjusted rate with the current rate to make a more realistic estimate of trends over time.
In previous publications of proven re-offending statistics, this approach has been referred to as the predicted rate of proven re-offending. Statistical model
The 2008 statistical model is an update and improvement on the 2000 and 2005 logistic regression models and includes a range of offender characteristics available from the PNC, such as age, gender, offence group and criminal history.
The logistic regression model based on the 2008 data identifies a statistically significant set of variables that are related to proven re-offending and based on these provides a probability of proven re-offending for each offender. However, other factors, for which data on these samples are not available, such as drug and alcohol use, employment, accommodation and marital background are likely to be significantly related to re-offending.
This means that the adjusted proven re-offending rates are only valid for terms included in the final model. Any adjusted proven re-offending rates for groups of offenders that have a common characteristic that is not in the final model (e.g. employment status or disposal type) can suffer from statistical biases and are, therefore, unreliable.
For the 2008 model additional developments were included to ensure that the adjusted rate model was a more parsimonious model, more robust against changes in the number of offenders, and that interaction terms and non-linear terms were included where appropriate. The final decision for inclusion or exclusion of particular variables was heavily influenced by their statistical significance (typically p < 0.10).
The Ministry of Justice believes that the method used for the construction of the statistical model for producing adjusted rates is robust and fit for purpose.
Variables included
The following notes provide some further detail on the 2008 model and show the relative impacts of different variables when holding all other variables constant.
Gender Gender is included in the model as a categorical variable separating out males and females. Generally, males are more likely to commit a proven re-offence than females.
Age Age is included in the model for adults as a linear, quadratic and cubed term and is included for juveniles as a categorical variable separating offenders into seven age bands. Generally, younger adults are more likely to commit a proven re-offence than older adults, and older juveniles are more likely to re-offend than younger juveniles. Index offence The index offence represents the offence that led to the offender entering the cohort. Index offences were classified into 21 broad categories and their relative coefficients are shown in relation to the reference category ‘violence’. To ensure the reliability and replicability of the model coefficients, any index offences with low numbers were grouped with the ‘other’ index offence group.
Ethnicity Ethnicity is derived from the PNC and reflects the officer’s view of the offender’s ethnicity. Thus, ethnicity in this model should be taken as a proxy for the actual ethnicity and the results should not be over-interpreted because any biases in the assessment are unknown. Ethnicity was a statistically significant factor, making it an important factor to control for and, therefore, it was included in the model.
Copas rate The Copas rate (Copas and Marshall, 1998) controls for the rate at which an offender has built up convictions throughout their criminal career. The higher the rate, the more convictions an offender has in a given amount of time, and the more likely it is that an offender will be re-convicted.
The Copas rate formula is:
[ \\text{copas rate} = \\log_e \\left( \\frac{\\text{Number of court appearances or cautions} + 1}{\\text{Length of criminal career in years} + 10} \\right) ]
For adults the Copas rate is included as a linear and quadratic, but for juveniles it is included as a linear term only. As mentioned above, inclusion of variables was heavily influenced by their statistical significance.
Length of criminal career An offender’s criminal career is a significant factor in predicting the likelihood of a re-offence and this relationship is quadratic, thus both linear and quadratic terms were included in the model.
Total number of previous offences The total number of previous offences is a significant factor in predicting the likelihood of re-offending. The previous offending variables counted cautions and convictions and were included as linear and logged variables.
Previous custodial sentences For adults, the number of previous custodial sentences was implemented as a continuous variable in both linear and quadratic terms. For juveniles, previous custodial sentences were included as a binary term: had the offender received one or more previous custodial sentences, yes or no. The difference in treatment reflects the more limited custodial history juvenile offenders generally possess compared to adult offenders.
Counts of previous offending by type of offence For adults, the number of previous offences by type of offence was an improvement over simple yes/no variables for recording the presence of prior offences in the relevant categories. For juvenile offenders, simple yes/no variables for recording the presence of prior offences in the relevant categories performed better. The difference in treatment reflects the more limited offending history juvenile offenders generally possess compared to adult offenders.
**Interaction terms**
Interaction terms are calculated by multiplying two factors together. The inclusion of these terms allows the effect of one variable to vary according to the values of another, improving the quality of predictions. This is important because three factors (gender, age and total number of previous offences) are not completely independent of each other.
For adults, interaction terms were also included for drug-misusing offenders as they showed some trends in their proven re-offending behaviour that were different from the more general offending population.
**Model assessment**
The model is assessed by calculating the level of discrimination between offenders that committed a proven re-offence and offenders that did not. The adult logistic regression model achieved a 78.9 per cent overall discrimination level on the 2008 cohort and 72.4 per cent for the juvenile logistic regression model. A level of discrimination of about 70 per cent was deemed to be acceptable and the model should predict results accurately enough for the predicted rate to be used. The discrimination can also be evaluated by calculating the Area Under Curve (AUC) for the Receiver Operator Characteristic curve. Again, the value for the model was 0.784 for the adult regression model in 2008 and 0.716 for the youth regression model which means a satisfactory level of discrimination (Hosmer and Lemeshow, 2000, p.162).
**Coefficients of the 2008 statistical model**
The following tables (3 and 4) show the parameter estimates for the various components of the logistic regression model for the predicted one year proven re-offending rates for adults and young offenders.
Each logistic coefficient is multiplied by the variable value for each offender to calculate a linear prediction. To calculate each offender’s predicted probability of committing a proven re-offence in the follow-up period or a further six month waiting period we transform the linear prediction $Z$ using the following formula:
$$\\text{Predicted Probability of Reoffending} = \\frac{\\exp(Z)}{1 + \\exp(Z)}$$
The exponent of the coefficient is the odds ratio of committing a proven re-offence corresponding to the particular coefficient and enables us to make comparisons between different categories. For factors with interactions (e.g. age and gender) the interpretation is more complex. The significance (p-value) gives us an assessment of how significant each variable is in predicting the likelihood of an offender to commit a proven re-offence within one year. For modelling purposes, a probability value (p-value) of less than 0.05 is considered to be significant.
Table 3: List of variables in the logistic regression model applied to the 2008 data on adult offenders and their respective coefficients
| Variables | Coefficient | Logs-odd ratios | P-value | Variables | Coefficient | Logs-odd ratios | P-value | |----------------------------------|-------------|-----------------|---------|----------------------------------|-------------|-----------------|---------| | Constant | 1.940 | 6.958 | 0.000 | Reference category | | | | | Gender: | | | | Violence | -0.361 | 0.697 | 0.000 | | Female | Reference category | | | Robbery | 0.482 | 1.620 | 0.000 | | Male | 0.645 | 1.906 | 0.000 | Theft | 0.173 | 1.189 | 0.000 | | Age: | | | | Handling | 0.180 | 1.198 | 0.000 | | Age | -0.250 | 0.779 | 0.000 | Taking and driving away | -0.465 | 0.628 | 0.000 | | Age squared | 0.006 | 1.006 | 0.000 | Sexual child | 0.253 | 1.288 | 0.000 | | Age cubed | -0.00004 | 1.000 | 0.000 | Domestic burglary | 0.148 | 1.159 | 0.000 | | Male * age interaction | -0.013 | 0.988 | 0.000 | Other burglary | 0.337 | 1.401 | 0.000 | | General criminal career variables:| | | | Theft from vehicles | 0.478 | 1.612 | 0.000 | | Previous offences | -0.006 | 0.994 | 0.000 | Drink driving | -0.154 | 0.857 | 0.000 | | Previous offences (logged) | 0.391 | 1.478 | 0.000 | Criminal damage | 0.226 | 1.254 | 0.000 | | Male * previous offences interaction | -0.003 | 0.997 | 0.000 | Drug supply | -0.400 | 0.670 | 0.000 | | Previous prison sentences | 0.045 | 1.046 | 0.000 | Drug possession | 0.074 | 1.077 | 0.000 | | Previous prison sentences (logged)| -0.060 | 0.942 | 0.000 | Drug test | -1.167 | 0.311 | 0.000 | | Career length | -0.0001 | 1.000 | 0.000 | Fraud forgery | -0.213 | 0.808 | 0.000 | | Career length squared | 0.000 | 1.000 | 0.069 | Absconding and bail | 0.364 | 1.440 | 0.000 | | Copas rate | 0.385 | 1.469 | 0.000 | Number of previous offences: | | | | | Copas rate squared | -0.064 | 0.938 | 0.000 | Public order | 0.052 | 1.053 | 0.000 | | PPO offender | 0.528 | 1.696 | 0.000 | Sexual | 0.035 | 1.036 | 0.000 | | Drug-misusing offender | 1.422 | 4.146 | 0.000 | Domestic burglary | -0.006 | 0.994 | 0.005 | | Ethnicity: | | | | Theft | 0.012 | 1.012 | 0.000 | | White | Reference category | | | Handling | -0.010 | 0.990 | 0.002 | | Unknown | -0.663 | 0.516 | 0.000 | Taking and driving away | -0.007 | 0.993 | 0.003 | | White other | 0.324 | 1.383 | 0.000 | Criminal damage | 0.017 | 1.017 | 0.000 | | Black | 0.161 | 1.175 | 0.000 | Drug supply | -0.044 | 0.957 | 0.000 | | Pacific | 0.210 | 1.233 | 0.000 | Drug possession | 0.013 | 1.013 | 0.000 | | Middle East | 0.130 | 1.138 | 0.003 | Other | -0.002 | 0.998 | 0.073 |
Interaction with drug-misusing offenders:
| Previous offences (logged) | -0.156 | 0.855 | 0.000 | | Index offence of drug supply | -0.430 | 0.651 | 0.000 | | Index offence of drug possession | -0.550 | 0.577 | 0.000 | Table 4: List of variables in the logistic regression model applied to the 2008 data on young offenders and their respective coefficients
| Variables | Coefficient | Logs-odd ratios | P-value | Variables | Coefficient | Logs-odd ratios | P-value | |-----------|-------------|-----------------|---------|-----------|-------------|-----------------|---------| | Constant | -1.495 | 0.224 | 0.000 | Index offence: | Reference category | | | | Gender: | | | | Robbery | 0.130 | 1.139 | 0.003 | | Female | Reference category | | | Public order or riot | 0.178 | 1.195 | 0.000 | | Male | 0.527 | 1.693 | 0.000 | Sexual offences | -0.578 | 0.561 | 0.000 | | Age: | | | | Sexual offences against children | -1.157 | 0.314 | 0.000 | | Aged 10-11| Reference category | | | Domestic burglary | 0.233 | 1.262 | 0.000 | | Aged 12 | 0.354 | 1.425 | 0.000 | Other burglary | -0.083 | 1.087 | 0.026 | | Aged 13 | 0.448 | 1.566 | 0.000 | Theft | -0.088 | 0.916 | 0.000 | | Aged 14 | 0.431 | 1.538 | 0.000 | Robbery | 0.101 | 1.106 | 0.011 | | Aged 15 | 0.186 | 1.195 | 0.000 | Public order or riot | 0.143 | 1.154 | 0.000 | | Aged 16 | -0.124 | 0.883 | 0.017 | Domestic burglary | 0.166 | 1.181 | 0.000 | | Aged 17 | -0.202 | 0.817 | 0.000 | Other burglary | 0.099 | 1.104 | 0.001 | | Interactions between age and gender: | | | | Theft | 0.135 | 1.144 | 0.000 | | Female at any age | Reference category | | | Handling | 0.107 | 1.113 | 0.009 | | Male aged 10-11 | Reference category | | | Absconding or bail offences | 0.096 | 1.101 | 0.032 | | Male aged 12 | -0.276 | 0.759 | 0.000 | Taking and driving away | -0.088 | 1.093 | 0.012 | | Male aged 13 | -0.214 | 0.807 | 0.000 | Theft from vehicles | 0.125 | 1.133 | 0.012 | | Male aged 14 | -0.157 | 0.855 | 0.000 | Drunk driving | -0.245 | 0.783 | 0.033 | | Male aged 16 | 0.134 | 1.144 | 0.002 | Criminal or malicious damage | 0.069 | 1.071 | 0.001 | | Male aged 17 | 0.113 | 1.120 | 0.013 | Other | 0.138 | 1.148 | 0.001 | | General criminal career variables: | | | | Miscellaneous | -0.689 | 0.502 | 0.014 | | Career length squared | 0.000 | 1.000 | 0.000 | Breaches | 0.762 | 2.144 | 0.007 | | Copas rate | 0.128 | 1.137 | 0.001 | | | | | | Previous offences | -0.036 | 0.964 | 0.000 | | | | | | Previous offences (logged) | 0.920 | 2.510 | 0.000 | | | | | | Previous prison sentence(s) | 0.124 | 1.132 | 0.022 | | | | | | PPO offender | 0.930 | 2.534 | 0.000 | | | | | | Ethnicity: | | | | | | | | | White | Reference category | | | | | | | | Unknown | -0.823 | 0.439 | 0.000 | | | | | | White (other) | 0.196 | 1.217 | 0.000 | | | | | | Black | 0.187 | 1.206 | 0.000 | | | | | | Asian | -0.200 | 0.819 | 0.000 | | | | | | Pacific | -0.468 | 0.626 | 0.001 | | | | | Additional modelling for prison performance
Assessing the performance of individual prisons in reducing re-offending is difficult because the particular characteristics of offenders that are at a particular prison are likely to be the main drivers behind re-offending.
A statistical methodology has been developed to examine prison re-offending rates that not only takes account of offence and offender characteristics, but also takes account of the hierarchical structure of the data, i.e. that offenders are within prisons.
Two separate models were developed: for prisoners receiving sentences of fewer than 12 months and prisoners with sentences of 12 months or over. The separate models for prisoners with sentences of fewer than 12 months and 12 months or more reflects differences in prisoners’ re-offending behaviour by prison sentence length.
The model used for both types of offender was a logistic regression model with mixed effects (fixed and random). The outcome variable is a binary yes/no variable representing whether an offender re-offends or not. Offender characteristics are included as fixed independent variables and the prisons are included as a random effect component which allows each prison to interact with the fixed effects differently.
The variables included in the model were similar to those used to develop the adjusted baseline described above: age, ethnicity, index offence, previous offences, previous prison sentences, Copas scores, and criminal career, as well as the random effects component of prisons. The goodness-of-fit by AUC was satisfactory, above 0.77 in all cases.
Considerable preliminary analysis has been undertaken investigating the relative important of offence, offender and prison level variables in explaining custodial re-offending. This analysis has overwhelmingly shown that offence and offender level variables shape re-offending whereas prison-level variables refine re-offending behaviour. For this reason, the model uses offender and offence level variables and only models prison level effects using a single random effects component.
This model generates an expected probability of re-offending for each offender. When aggregated up to the prison it produces an expected proportion of offenders who re-offend. This can be compared with the actual rate of re-offending.
Where the model-predicted re-offending rate was statistically significantly different to actual re-offending rates, two possible explanations are plausible:
1. Missing characteristics: it is possible that there are underlying offence, offender or prison characteristics affecting re-offending behaviour that are not included in the current model; or
2. A genuine difference: there is something specific to these prisons that make them better/worse than predicted.
Additional modelling for probation performance
Results in the headline measure are compared to a baseline rate, adjusted for changes in the offender profile. This relies on an estimate of the relationship between offender characteristics and proven re-offending behaviour over 12 months. An equivalent estimate has been carried out for the proven re-offending behaviour specifically of offenders commencing court orders. This uses the same variables as the headline measure plus additional variables to ensure that the actual and predicted rates are identical for every probation trust in the baseline period (2008). The tables accompanying the report present the adjusted baseline for each trust.
Differences between the prison and probation trusts models and the model for the adjusted baseline for the headline measure
- The adjusted baseline for the headline measure applies to all offenders; the prison and probation models only apply to offenders discharged from custody or given a court order.
- The adjusted baseline for the headline measure is created using a fixed effects model using only offender and offence level variables; the probation model does the same, but the prison models use offender and offence level variables and also include a random component to reflect that prisoners are located within prisons.
- The adjusted baseline for the headline measure and for the probation model is derived using data from a baseline year (2008). The observed re-offending is equal to the predicted re-offending for the baseline year; the model coefficients are then applied to subsequent years and the predicted rates begins to differ from the actual rates. Provided the baseline year model is frequently refreshed, this ensures that any deviations of the actual re-offending rate from the predicted rate are due to system changes and not due to changes in the cohort make up. This approach enables us to assess progress in reducing re-offending. Whereas, the prison model is generated from scratch every year and assesses if any prison differs from the national average. As with the previous approach, the observed re-offending rate is still equal to the predicted re-offending for the prison population as a whole. It will not necessarily be the case for individual prisons. This approach provides an idea of which prisons have significantly lower (or higher) re-offending rates than predicted.
- Work is underway to develop an equivalent model for probation trusts to the one used for prisons. Appendix A: List of serious offences
Serious violence against the person
1. Murder:
1. Of persons aged 1 year or over.
2. Of infants under 1 year of age.
2. Attempted murder.
3. Manslaughter, etc.:
1. Manslaughter.
2. Infanticide.
3. Child destruction.
4. Wounding or other act endangering life:
01. Wounding, etc. with intent to do grievous bodily harm, etc. or to resist apprehension.
02. Shooting at naval or revenue vessels.
03. Attempting to choke, suffocate, etc. with intent to commit an indictable offence (garrotting).
04. Using chloroform, etc. to commit or assist in committing an indictable offence.
05. Burning, maiming, etc. by explosion.
06. Causing explosions or casting corrosive fluids with intent to do grievous bodily harm.
07. Impeding the saving of life from shipwreck.
08. Placing, etc. explosives in or near ships or buildings with intent to do bodily harm, etc.
09. Endangering life or causing harm by administering poison.
10. Causing danger by causing anything to be on road, interfering with a vehicle or traffic equipment.
11. Possession, etc. of explosives with intent to endanger life.
12. Possession of firearms, etc. with intent to endanger life or injure property, etc. (Group I).
13. Possession of firearms, etc. with intent to endanger life or injure property, etc. (Group II).
14. Possession of firearms, etc. with intent to endanger life or injure property, etc. (Group III).
15. Using, etc. firearms or imitation firearms with intent to resist arrest, etc. (Group I).
16. Using, etc. firearms or imitation firearms with intent to resist arrest, etc. (Group II).
17. Using, etc. firearms or imitation firearms with intent to resist arrest, etc. (Group III). [Group I - Firearms, etc. other than as described in Group II or III. Group II - Shotguns as defined in s.1 (3)(a) of the Firearms Act 1968. Group III - Air weapons as defined in s.1 (3)(b) of the Firearms Act 1968]
18. Use etc. of chemical weapons.
19. Use of premises or equipment for producing chemical weapons.
20. Use, threat to use, production or possession of a nuclear weapon.
21. Weapons related acts overseas.
22. Use of noxious substances or things to cause harm or intimidate.
23. Performing an aviation function or ancillary function when ability to carry out function is impaired because of drink or drugs.
24. Endangering safety at sea/aerodromes.
25. Torture.
5. Other wounding, etc.:
1. Wounding or inflicting grievous bodily harm (inflicting bodily injury with or without weapon).
6. Racially aggravated wounding or inflicting grievous bodily harm (inflicting bodily injury with or without weapon).
7. Religiously aggravated malicious wounding or GBH.
8. Racially or religiously aggravated malicious wounding or grievous bodily harm.
Sexual offences
017. Sexual assault on a male (previously indecent assault on a male):
018. Indecent assault on male person under 16 years.
019. Indecent assault on male person 16 years or over.
020. Assault on a male by penetration.
021. Assault of a male child under 13 by penetration.
022. Sexual assault on a male.
023. Sexual assault of a male child under 13.
024. Rape:
025. Man having unlawful sexual intercourse with a woman who is a defective.
026. Male member of staff of hospital or mental nursing home having unlawful sexual intercourse with female patient.
027. Man having unlawful sexual intercourse with mentally disordered female patient who is subject to his care.
028. Rape of a female aged under 16.
029. Rape of a female aged 16 or over.
030. Rape of a male aged under 16.
031. Rape of a male aged 16 or over.
032. Attempted rape of a female aged under 16.
033. Attempted rape of a female aged 16 or over.
034. Attempted rape of a male aged under 16.
035. Attempted rape of a male aged 16 or over.
036. Rape of female child under 13 by a male.
037. Rape of a male child under 13 by a male.
038. Attempted rape of a female child under 13 by a male.
039. Attempted rape of a male child under 13 by a male.
040. Sexual assault on female (previously indecent assault on a female):
041. On females under 16 years of age.
042. On females aged 16 years and over.
043. Assault on a female by penetration.
044. Assault on a female child under 13 by penetration.
045. Sexual assault on a female.
046. Sexual assault on a female child under 13.
047. Sexual activity (male and female) (including with a child under 13) (previously unlawful intercourse with a girl under 13):
048. Causing or inciting a female child under 13 to engage in sexual activity - penetration.
049. Causing or inciting a female child under 13 to engage in sexual activity - no penetration.
050. Causing or inciting a male child under 13 to engage in sexual activity - penetration.
051. Causing or inciting a male child under 13 to engage in sexual activity - no penetration.
052. Sexual activity with a female child under 13 - offender aged 18 or over - penetration.
053. Sexual activity with a male child under 13 - offender aged 18 or over - penetration.
054. Causing or inciting a female child under 13 to engage in sexual activity - offender aged 18 or over – penetration.
055. Causing or inciting a male child under 13 to engage in sexual activity - offender aged 18 or over - penetration.
056. Engaging in sexual activity in the presence of a child under 13 (offender aged 18 or over).
057. Causing a child under 13 to watch a sexual act (offender aged 18 or over).
058. Sexual activity with a female child under 13 - offender aged under 18.
059. Sexual activity with a male child under 13 - offender aged under 18.
060. Causing of inciting a female child under 13 to engage in sexual activity - offender under 18.
061. Causing or inciting a male child under 13 to engage in sexual activity - offender under 18.
062. Engaging in sexual activity in the presence of a child under 13 - offender under 18.
063. Causing a child under 13 to watch a sexual act - offender under 18.
064. Sexual activity with a female under 13 - offender aged 18 or over - no penetration.
065. Sexual activity with a male child under 13 - offender aged 18 or over - no penetration.
066. Causing or inciting a female child under 13 to engage in sexual activity - offender aged 18 or over - no penetration.
067. Causing or inciting a male child under 13 to engage in sexual activity - offender aged 18 or over - no penetration.
068. Sexual activity with a female child under 16 - offender aged 18 or over - no penetration.
069. Sexual activity with a male child under 16 - offender aged 18 or over - no penetration.
070. Causing or inciting a female child under 16 to engage in sexual activity - offender aged 18 or over - no penetration.
071. Causing or inciting a male child under 16 to engage in sexual activity - offender aged 18 or over - no penetration.
072. Sexual activity (male and female) (including with a child under 16) (previously unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl under 16):
073. Unlawful sexual intercourse with girl under 16 (offences committed prior to 1 May 2004).
074. Causing a female person to engage in sexual activity without consent – penetration.
075. Causing a male person to engage in sexual activity without consent – penetration.
076. Causing a female person to engage in sexual activity without consent - no penetration.
077. Causing a male person to engage in sexual activity without consent - no penetration.
078. Sexual activity with a female child under 16 (offender aged 18 or over) – penetration.
079. Sexual activity with a male child under 16 (offender aged 18 or over) – penetration.
080. Causing or inciting a female child under 16 to engage in sexual activity (offender aged 18 or over) - penetration
081. Causing of inciting a male child under 16 to engage in sexual activity (offender aged 18 or over) – penetration.
082. Engaging in sexual activity in the presence of a child under 16 (offender aged 18 or over).
083. Causing a child under 16 to watch a sexual act (offender aged 18 or over).
084. Sexual activity with a female child under 16 - offender aged 18 or over - no penetration.
085. Sexual activity with a male child under 16 - offender aged 18 or over - no penetration.
086. Causing or inciting a female child under 16 to engage in sexual activity (offender aged 18 or over) - no penetration.
087. Causing or inciting a male child under 16 to engage in sexual activity (offender aged 18 or over) - no penetration.
088. Sexual activity etc. with a person with a mental disorder:
089. Sexual activity with a male person with a mental disorder impeding choice – penetration.
090. Sexual activity with a female person with a mental disorder impeding choice – penetration.
091. Sexual activity with a male person with a mental disorder impeding choice - no penetration.
092. Sexual activity with a female person with a mental disorder impeding choice - no penetration.
093. Causing or inciting a male person with a mental disorder impeding choice to engage in sexual activity – penetration.
094. Causing or inciting a female person with a mental disorder impeding choice to engage in sexual activity – penetration.
095. Causing or inciting a male person with a mental disorder impeding choice to engage in sexual activity – penetration.
096. Causing or inciting a female person with a mental disorder impeding choice to engage in sexual activity - no penetration.
097. Engaging in sexual activity in the presence of a person with a mental disorder impeding choice.
098. Causing a person with a mental disorder impeding choice to watch a sexual act.
099. Inducement, threat or deception to procure sexual activity with a person with a mental disorder – penetration.
100. Inducement, threat or deception to procure sexual activity with a person with a mental disorder - no penetration.
101. Causing a person with a mental disorder to engage in sexual activity by inducement, threat or deception - penetration.
102. Causing a person with a mental disorder to engage in sexual activity by inducement, threat or deception - no penetration.
103. Engaging in sexual activity in the presence, procured by inducement, threat or deception, of a person with a mental disorder.
104. Causing a person with a mental disorder to watch a sexual act by inducement, threat or deception.
105. Care workers: Sexual activity with a male person with a mental disorder - penetration.
106. Care workers: Sexual activity with a female person with a mental disorder - penetration.
107. Care workers: Sexual activity with a male person with a mental disorder - no penetration.
108. Care workers: Sexual activity with a female person with a mental disorder - no penetration.
109. Care workers: Causing or inciting sexual activity (person with a mental disorder) - penetration.
110. Care workers: Causing or inciting sexual activity (person with a mental disorder) - no penetration.
111. Care workers: Sexual activity in the presence of a person with a mental disorder.
112. Care workers: Causing a person with a mental disorder impeding choice to watch a sexual act.
113. Abuse of children through prostitution and pornography (previously child prostitution and pornography):
114. Arranging or facilitating the commission of a child sex offence.
115. Paying for sex with a female child under 13 - penetration
116. Paying for sex with a male child under 13 - penetration
117. Paying for sex with a female child under 16 - no penetration.
118. Paying for sex with a male child under 16 - no penetration.
119. Paying for sex with a female child aged 16 or 17.
120. Paying for sex with a male child aged 16 or 17.
121. Causing or inciting child prostitution or pornography - child aged 13-17.
122. Controlling a child prostitute or a child involved in pornography - child aged 13-17.
123. Arranging or facilitating child prostitution or pornography - child aged 13-17.
124. Causing or inciting child prostitution or pornography - child under 13.
125. Controlling a child prostitute or child involved in pornography - child under 13.
126. Arranging or facilitating child prostitution or pornography - child under 13.
127. Paying for sex with a female child aged under 16 – penetration.
128. Paying for sex with a male child aged under 16 – penetration.
129. Trafficking for sexual exploitation:
130. Arranging or facilitating arrival of a person into the UK for sexual exploitation (trafficking).
131. Arranging or facilitating travel of a person within the UK for sexual exploitation (trafficking).
132. Arranging or facilitating departure of a person from the UK for sexual exploitation (trafficking).
Taking and driving away and related offences
37. Aggravated vehicle taking:
38. Where, owing to the driving of the vehicle, an accident occurs causing the death of any person.
Other motoring offences
4. Manslaughter, etc.: 4. Causing death by dangerous driving. 8. (Offences) Causing death by careless or inconsiderate driving (Offences due to commence in Autumn 2007).
Drink driving offences
4. Manslaughter, etc.: 6. Causing death by careless driving when under the influence of drink or drugs.
Serious acquisitive offences
Burglary
1. Burglary in a dwelling with intent to commit or the commission of an offence triable only on indictment.
2. Burglary in a dwelling with violence or the threat of violence.
3. Other burglary in a dwelling.
4. Aggravated burglary in a dwelling (including attempts).
Robbery
1. Robbery.
2. Assault with intent to rob.
Taking and driving away
1. Aggravated taking where the vehicle was driven dangerously on a road or other public place.
2. Aggravated taking where owing to the driving of the vehicle an accident occurred causing injury to any person or damage to any property other than the vehicle.
Theft from or of vehicles
1. Stealing from motor vehicles.
2. Stealing from other vehicles.
3. Theft of motor vehicle.
4. Unauthorised taking of a motor vehicle. Appendix B: Glossary of terms
Re-offending terms
**Cohort** – this is the group of individuals whose re-offending is measured.
**Index offence** – the index offence is the proven offence that leads to an offender being included in the cohort.
**Index disposal** – the index disposal of the offender is the type of sentence the offender received for their index offence.
**Start point (index date)** – this is the set point in time from when re-offences are measured.
**Follow-up period** – this is the length of time proven re-offending is measured over.
**Waiting period** – this is the additional time beyond the follow-up period to allow for offences committed towards the end of the follow-up period to be proved by a court conviction, caution, reprimand or final warning.
**Adjusted to baseline** – proven re-offending is related to the characteristics of offenders which means that any overall rate of proven re-offending will depend, in part, on the characteristics of offenders coming into the system (just as the examination pass rate of a school will be related to the characteristics of its pupils). We use a modelling technique to produce a baseline figure adjusted to match the characteristics of the cohort we are comparing.
**Re-conviction** – where an offender is convicted at court for an offence committed within a set follow-up period and convicted within either the follow-up period or waiting period.
**Proven re-offence** – where an offender is convicted at court or receives some other form of criminal justice sanction for an offence committed within a set follow-up period and disposed of within either the follow-up period or waiting period.
**Cohort definition used in the Proven Re-offending Statistics Quarterly Bulletin** – the proven re-offending cohort consists of all offenders discharged from custody, otherwise sanctioned at court, receiving a caution, reprimand or warning or tested positive for opiates or cocaine in each year. This cohort’s criminal history is collated and criminal behaviour is tracked over the following one year. Any offence committed in this one year period which is proven by a court conviction or out-of-court disposal (either in the one year period, or in a further six months waiting period) counts as a proven re-offence. The latest available publication is the Proven Re-offending Statistics Quarterly Bulletin in England and Wales; Ministry of Justice, October 2012. Cohort definition used in the Local Adult Re-offending Quarterly Bulletin – the local adult re-offending measure takes a snapshot of all offenders, aged 18 or over, who are under probation supervision at the end of a quarter, and combines four such snapshots together. This cohort’s criminal history is collated and criminal behaviour is tracked over the following three months. Any offence committed in this three month period which is proven by a court conviction or out-of-court disposal (either in the three month period, or in a further three months waiting period) counts as a proven re-offence. The latest available publication is the Local Adult Re-offending: 1 April 2011 – 31 March 2012, England and Wales; Ministry of Justice, August 2012.
Disposal (sentence type)
Fine – a financial penalty imposed following conviction.
Court orders – court orders include community sentences, community orders and suspended sentence orders supervised by the Probation Service. They do not include any pre or post release supervision.
Criminal Justice Act 2003 (CJA03) – for offences committed on or after 4 April 2005, the new community order replaced all existing community sentences for adults. The Act also introduced a new suspended sentence order for offences which pass the custody threshold. It also changed the release arrangements for prisoners. See Appendix A of Offender Management Caseload Statistics 2009 for more information.
Community order – for offences committed on or after 4 April 2005, the new community order introduced under the CJA 2003 replaced all existing community sentences for those aged 18 years and over. This term refers to all court orders except suspended sentence orders and deferred sentences which may have a custodial component to the sentence. The court must add at least one, but could potentially add all 12 requirements depending on the offences and the offender. The requirements are:
- unpaid work (formerly community service/community punishment) – a requirement to complete between 40 and 300 hours’ unpaid work;
- activity – for example, to attend basic skills classes;
- programme – there are several designed to reduce the prospects of re-offending;
- prohibited activity – a requirement not do so something that is likely to lead to further offence or nuisance;
- curfew – which is electronically monitored; • exclusion – this is not used frequently as there is no reliable electronic monitoring yet available;
• residence – requirement to reside only where approved by probation officer;
• mental health treatment (requires offender’s consent);
• drug rehabilitation (requires offender’s consent);
• alcohol treatment (requires offender’s consent);
• supervision – meetings with probation officer to address needs/offending behaviour; and
• attendance centre – between a minimum of 12 hours and a maximum of 36 in total which includes three hours of activity.
Typically, the more serious the offence and the more extensive the offender’s needs, the more requirements there will be. Most orders will comprise of one or two requirements, but there are packages of several requirements available where required. The court tailors the order as appropriate and is guided by the Probation Service through a pre-sentence report.
**Suspended sentence order (SSO)** – the CJA 2003 introduced a new suspended sentence order which is made up of the same requirements as a community order and, in the absence of breach is served wholly in the community supervised by the Probation Service. It consists of an ‘operational period’ (the time for which the custodial sentence is suspended) and a ‘supervision period’ (the time during which any requirements take effect). Both may be between six months and two years and the ‘supervision period’ cannot be longer than the ‘operational period’, although it may be shorter. Failure to comply with the requirements of the order or commission of another offence will almost certainly result in a custodial sentence.
**Pre CJA03 Court Orders – Community sentences**
**Community punishment order (CPO)** – the offender is required to undertake unpaid community work.
**Community rehabilitation order (CRO)** - a community sentence which may have additional requirements such as residence, probation centre attendance or treatment for drug, alcohol or mental health problems.
**Community punishment and rehabilitation order (CPRO)** – a community sentence consisting of probation supervision alongside community punishment, with additional conditions like those of a community rehabilitation order. Drug treatment and testing order (DTTO) – a community sentence targeted at offenders with drug-misuse problems.
Custody – the offender is awarded a sentence to be served in prison or a Young Offenders Institute (YOI). If the offender is given a sentence of 12 months or over, or is aged under 22 on release, the offender is supervised by the Probation Service on release. It is important to note that the sentence lengths and youth disposals awarded will be longer than the time served in custody. For more information please refer to Appendix A of Offender Management Caseload Statistics 2009.
Short sentences (under 12 months) – those sentenced to under 12 months (made under the Criminal Justice Act 1991) spend the first half of their sentence in prison and are then released and considered ‘at risk’ for the remaining period. This means they are under no positive obligations and do not report to the Probation Service, but if they commit a further imprisonable offence during the ‘at risk’ period, they can be made to serve the remainder of the sentence in addition to the punishment for the new offence. The exception to this is those aged 18 to 20 who have a minimum of three month’s supervision on release.
Sentences of 12 months or over – the CJA03 created a distinction between standard determinate sentences and public protection sentences. Offenders sentenced to a standard determinate sentence serve the first half in prison and the second half in the community on licence.
Youth disposal (sentence type)
Reprimand or warning – a reprimand is a formal verbal warning given by a police officer to a juvenile offender who admits they are guilty for a minor first offence. A final warning is similar to a reprimand, but can be used for either the first or second offence, and includes an assessment of the juvenile to determine the causes of their offending behaviour and a programme of activities is designed to address them.
First-tier penalties
Discharge – a juvenile offender is given an absolute discharge when they admit guilt, or are found guilty, with no further action taken. An offender given a conditional discharge also receives no immediate punishment, but is given a set period during which, if they commit a further offence, they can be brought back to court and re-sentenced.
- Fine – the size of the fine depends on the offence committed and the offender’s financial circumstances. In the case of juveniles under 16, the fine is the responsibility of the offender’s parent or carer.
- Referral order – this is given to juveniles pleading guilty and for whom it is their first time at court (unless the offence is so serious it merits a custodial sentence or it is of a relatively minor nature). The offender is required to attend a Youth Offender Panel to agree a contract, aimed to repair the harm caused by the offence and address the causes of the offending behaviour.
- **Reparation order** – the offender is required to repair the harm caused by their offence either directly to the victim or indirectly to the community.
**Youth Rehabilitation Order** – a community sentence for juvenile offenders, which came into effect on 30 November 2009 as part of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008. It combines a number of sentences into one generic sentence and is the standard community sentence used for the majority of children and young people who offend. The following requirements can be attached to a Youth Rehabilitation Order (YRO):
- activity requirement
- curfew requirement
- exclusion requirement
- local authority residence requirement
- education requirement
- mental health treatment requirement
- unpaid work requirement
- drug testing requirement
- intoxicating substance misuse requirement
- supervision requirement
- electronic monitoring requirement
- prohibited activity requirement
- drug treatment requirement
- residence requirement
- programme requirement
- attendance centre requirement
- intensive supervision and surveillance
- intensive fostering The following community sentences are replaced by the YRO, but will continue to exist for those that committed an offence before 30 November 2009. The YRO is only available for those that committed an offence on or after the 30 November 2009.
- action plan order
- curfew order
- supervision order
- supervision order and conditions
- community punishment order
- community punishment and rehabilitation order
- attendance centre order
- drug treatment and testing order
- exclusion order
- community rehabilitation order
**Prison categories**
**Category B and category C prisons** hold sentenced prisoners of their respective categories, including life sentenced prisoners. The regime focuses on programmes that address offending behaviour and provide education, vocational training and purposeful work for prisoners who will normally spend several years in one prison.
**High security prisons** hold category A and B prisoners. Category A prisoners are managed by a process of dispersal, and these prisons also hold a proportion of category B prisoners for whom they provide a similar regime to a category B prison. The category B prisoners held in a High Security Prison are not necessarily any more dangerous or difficult to manage than those in category B prisons.
**Female prisons**, as the name implies, hold female prisoners. Because of the smaller numbers, they are not divided into the same number of categories although there are variations in security levels.
**Local prisons** serve the courts in the area. Historically their main function was to hold un-convicted and un-sentenced prisoners and, once a prisoner had been sentenced, to allocate them on to a category B, C or D prison as appropriate to serve their sentence. However, pressure on places means that many shorter term prisoners serve their entire sentence in a local prison, while longer term prisoners also complete some offending behaviour and training programmes there before moving on to lower security conditions. All local prisons operate to category B security standards.
**Open prisons** have much lower levels of physical security and only hold category D prisoners. Many prisoners in open prisons will be allowed to go out of the prison on a daily basis to take part in voluntary or paid work in the community in preparation for their approaching release.
**Miscellaneous terms**
**Drug-misusing offenders**
There are four ways a drug-misusing offender can be identified:
- Individuals who have tested positive for heroin or crack/cocaine following an arrest or charge for ‘trigger’ offences (largely acquisitive crime offences) as part of the Drug Interventions Programme (DIP) are included as adult proven offenders.
- Any offender that received an OASys assessment whilst on licence or on a community sentence and are either recorded as being subject to a current Drug Treatment and Testing Order (DTTO) or Drug Rehabilitation Requirement (DRR), or are assessed as having a criminogenic drug need.
- Any offender identified as requiring further drug interventions by Counselling, Assessment, Referral, Advice, Throughcare (CARAT) teams in prison, and now being released into the community.
- Any offender identified by local Criminal Justice Integrated Teams (CJITs) as requiring further intervention for their drug use and offending as part of DIP.
**National Probation Service** – the National Probation Service generally deals with those aged 18 years and over. (Those under 18 are mostly dealt with by Youth Offending Teams, answering to the Youth Justice Board.) They are responsible for supervising offenders who are given community sentences and suspended sentence orders by the courts, as well as offenders given custodial sentences, both pre and post their release.
**Police National Computer** – the Police National Computer (PNC) is the police’s administrative IT system used by all police forces in England and Wales and managed by the National Policing Improvement Agency. As with any large scale recording system the PNC is subject to possible errors with data entry and processing. The MoJ maintains a database based on weekly extracts of selected data from the PNC in order to compile statistics and conduct research on re-offending and criminal histories. The PNC largely covers recordable offences – these are all indictable and triable-either-way offences plus many of the more serious summary offences. All figures derived from the MoJ’s PNC database, and in particular those for the most recent months, are likely to be revised as more information is recorded by the police. Prolific and other priority offenders – the Prolific and other Priority Offenders Programme (PPO) aims to use a multi-agency approach to focus on a very small, but hard core group of prolific/persistent offenders who commit disproportionate amounts of crime and cause disproportionate harm to their local communities. The identification of a PPO is undertaken at a local level involving police, local authorities, prison and probation services and youth offending teams. The factors that influence the decision of whether an offender is included in the PPO programme are:
- the nature and volume of crimes they commit;
- the nature and volume of other harm they cause; and
- the detrimental impact they have on their community.
Recordable offences – recordable offences are those that the police are required to record on the PNC. They include all offences for which a custodial sentence can be given plus a range of other offences defined as recordable in legislation. They exclude a range of less serious summary offences, for example television licence evasion, driving without insurance, speeding and vehicle tax offences.
Indictable and summary offences – summary offences are triable only by a magistrates’ court. This group includes motoring offences, common assault and criminal damage up to £5,000. More serious offences are classed either as triable-either-way (these can be tried either at the Crown Court or at a magistrates’ court and include criminal damage where the value is £5,000 or greater, theft and burglary) or indictable-only (the most serious offences that must be tried at the Crown Court; these ‘indictable-only’ offences include murder, manslaughter, rape and robbery). The term indictable offences is used to refer to all triable-either-way and ‘indictable-only’ offences.
Offence group – a split of offences into 21 separate groups. A more detailed split of the 10 indictable offence groups (violence against the person, sexual offences, burglary, robbery, theft and handling and stolen goods, fraud and forgery, criminal damage, drug offences, other indictable offences (excluding motoring), indictable motoring) and the two summary offence groups (summary non-motoring and summary motoring offence types). Appendix C: Comparison of the three measures of re-offending
Figure A1 below compares how the three measures of re-offending (the headline proven re-offending measure, the early estimates of re-offending and local adult re-offending) are constructed. It shows the period over which the re-offending cohort is formed, the time over which re-offending is measured, the additional time allowed for re-offending to be proven, and the time taken to collect and analyse the data, and then to publish.
Figure A1: how the three re-offending measures are constructed
| Measure | Cohort formation | Re-offences | Re-offences proven | Data collection and analysis | Publication | |--------------------------|------------------|-------------|--------------------|------------------------------|-------------| | **2009 Headline Measure** | | | | | Oct-11 | | **2010 Early Estimates** | | | | | Oct-11 | | **Local Re-offending** | | | | | Nov-11 |
Cohort formation Headline measure and early estimates: offenders enter the cohort when they receive a caution (adults), a final warning or reprimand (juveniles), are given a non-custodial conviction, are released from custody or test positive for cocaine or opiates in the cohort formation period shown.
Local adult re-offending: this uses a snapshot of all offenders aged 18 or over, who are under probation supervision at the end of a quarter, and combines four such snapshots together.
Re-offences Headline measure: A re-offence is counted if the offence occurs within the "Re-offences" period shown. This is within 12 months of entering the cohort.
Early estimates and local adult re-offending: A re-offence is counted if the offence occurs within three months of entering the cohort for the early estimates measure and within three months following each of the four caseload snapshots for the local re-offending measure.
Re-offences proven Headline measure: For a re-offence to be counted it must also be proven within the "Re-offences proven" period shown. This is within six months of the re-offence.
Early estimates and local adult re-offending: For a re-offence to be counted it must also be proven within the "Re-offences proven" period shown. This is within three months of the re-offence. Contact details and further information
For queries, comments or further information, please contact:
**Nick Mavron**\
Justice Statistics Analytical Services\
Ministry of Justice\
7th floor\
102 Petty France\
London\
SW1H 9AJ
Email: [email protected]
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/4806-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 48,
"total-input-tokens": 94964,
"total-output-tokens": 28021,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
84,
1
],
[
84,
495,
2
],
[
495,
2156,
3
],
[
2156,
4742,
4
],
[
4742,
6105,
5
],
[
6105,
7399,
6
],
[
7399,
9430,
7
],
[
9430,
11698,
8
],
[
11698,
15373,
9
],
[
15373,
17336,
10
],
[
17336,
19784,
11
],
[
19784,
22314,
12
],
[
22314,
23017,
13
],
[
23017,
25015,
14
],
[
25015,
25877,
15
],
[
25877,
28708,
16
],
[
28708,
31520,
17
],
[
31520,
33986,
18
],
[
33986,
36464,
19
],
[
36464,
38971,
20
],
[
38971,
41329,
21
],
[
41329,
45332,
22
],
[
45332,
47428,
23
],
[
47428,
50157,
24
],
[
50157,
51018,
25
],
[
51018,
53044,
26
],
[
53044,
55369,
27
],
[
55369,
58045,
28
],
[
58045,
60738,
29
],
[
60738,
66121,
30
],
[
66121,
69738,
31
],
[
69738,
72430,
32
],
[
72430,
75056,
33
],
[
75056,
77651,
34
],
[
77651,
80534,
35
],
[
80534,
83756,
36
],
[
83756,
87210,
37
],
[
87210,
89022,
38
],
[
89022,
91466,
39
],
[
91466,
93828,
40
],
[
93828,
96058,
41
],
[
96058,
98859,
42
],
[
98859,
100083,
43
],
[
100083,
102007,
44
],
[
102007,
104684,
45
],
[
104684,
106925,
46
],
[
106925,
109434,
47
],
[
109434,
109715,
48
]
]
} |
70f6c88d8c1fc062bb91be9bf0ab859edacba60a | Proven re-offending statistics: definitions and measurement
Published October 2012 Contents
Proven re-offending statistics quarterly bulletin 3 Early estimates of proven re-offending statistics 11 Local adult re-offending statistics quarterly bulletin 14 Data quality 16 Statistical modelling and coefficients 26 Appendix A: List of serious offences 34 Appendix B: Glossary of terms 39 Appendix C: Comparison of the three measures of re-offending 47 Contact details and further information 48 Proven re-offending statistics quarterly bulletin
Background
The Ministry of Justice launched a statistical consultation on improvements to the transparency and accessibility of our information in 2010 and a response to the consultation was published in March 2011. One aspect of the consultation was the measurement of proven re-offending. Responses have supported the proposals to move to a single framework for measuring re-offending where adult and youth data can be provided at the national and local level on a consistent basis. The response to the consultation is available here:
www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/consultations/improvements-moj-statistics-consultation-response.pdf
Prior to this consultation there were six different measures of proven re-offending:
- national adult proven re-offending;
- local adult proven re-offending;
- national youth proven re-offending;
- local youth proven re-offending;
- prolific and other priority offending (PPO); and
- drug-misusing proven offending.
The current framework for measuring proven re-offending integrates these approaches into a single framework. This allows users to:
- form a clear picture of proven re-offending at national and local levels;
- compare adult and youth results, and enable other work on transition between the youth and adult system;
- understand how results for different offender groups (such as those managed by the prison and probation services, those under the PPO schemes, drug-misusing offenders, first time entrants, etc.) fit into the overall picture on proven re-offending; and
- continue to analyse proven re-offending behaviour for particular types of offender. Measurement
The underlying principle of measuring re-offending (or recidivism, which is the most commonly used term internationally) is that someone who has received some form of criminal justice sanction (such as a conviction or a caution) goes on to commit another offence within a set time period.
Measuring true re-offending is difficult. Official records are taken from either the police or courts, but they will underestimate the true level of re-offending because only a proportion of crime is detected and sanctioned and not all crimes and sanctions are recorded on one central system. Other methods of measuring re-offending, such as self report studies, are likely to also underestimate the rate.
Following the Ministry of Justice consultation on Improvements to Ministry of Justice Statistics (2010), a proven re-offence is defined as any offence committed in a one year follow-up period and receiving a court conviction, caution, reprimand or warning in the one year follow-up or a further six month waiting period. The data source is the extract of the Police National Computer (PNC) held by the Ministry of Justice.
Definitions for the measurement of proven re-offending
Cohort This is the group of individuals whose re-offending is measured. For the Proven Re-offending Statistics Quarterly Bulletin, this is defined as all offenders in any one year who received a caution (for adults), a final warning or reprimand (for juveniles), a non-custodial conviction, or were discharged from custody.
Offenders who were discharged from custody or secure accommodation (juveniles only) or commenced a Court Order are matched to the PNC database. A proportion of cases are lost in this process because they cannot be matched (see the section below titled “Matching offender records” for further details). Additionally, offenders who appear multiple times in the cohort are only included once (see the section below titled “Multiple offender entries” for further details).
The group of offenders whose offending behaviour is proven is likely to be a sub-group of all active offenders. The Offending, Crime and Justice Survey (2003)(^1) estimated that around one in ten people in England and Wales aged between ten and 65 had committed an offence in the previous 12 months,
(^1) The Offending, Crime and Justice Survey (2003) was a random probability survey of 10,079 people aged from ten to 65 and asked people about their offending history. Like any such survey, its accuracy is dependent upon the level of honesty with which respondents completed the survey. which translates into approximately 3.8 million people. This compares to 632,000 offenders in the 2002 cohort used to measure proven re-offending, underlining that the offenders whose proven re-offending behaviour is presented in the Proven Re-offending Statistics Quarterly Bulletin are a small and probably unrepresentative sample of the population of all active offenders.
**Index disposal (sentence type)** The index disposal of the offender is the type of sentence the offender received for their index offence. For the Proven Re-offending Statistics Quarterly Bulletin, this is defined as custody, court order, other disposal resulting from a conviction at court, such as a fine or discharge, caution (adult offenders), reprimand or final warning (young offenders).
**Index offence** The index offence is the proven offence that leads to an offender being included in the cohort. An offence is only counted as an index offence if it is:
- recordable (see below);
- committed in England and Wales;
- prosecuted by the police; and
- not a breach offence.
There are around 3,000 offence codes on the PNC and these have been classified into the following 21 groups:
- violence (non serious)
- violence (serious)
- robbery
- public order or riot
- sexual
- sexual (child)
- soliciting or prostitution
- domestic burglary
- other burglary
- theft
- handling • fraud and forgery • absconding or bail offences • taking and driving away and related offences • theft from vehicles • other motoring offences • drink driving offences • criminal or malicious damage • drugs import/export/production/supply • drugs possession/small scale supply • other
Start point (index date) This is the set point in time from when proven re-offences are measured. For the Proven Re-offending Statistics Quarterly Bulletin, this is defined as the date of prison discharge, date of court conviction for non-custodial sentences, date of receipt for a caution, reprimand or final warning or the date of a positive drug test.
Follow-up period This is the length of time proven re-offending is measured over. For the Proven Re-offending Statistics Quarterly Bulletin, this is defined as 12 months from the start point.
Waiting period This is the additional time beyond the follow-up period to allow for offences which are committed towards the end of the follow-up period to be proven by a court, resulting in a conviction, caution, reprimand or final warning. For the Proven Re-offending Statistics Quarterly Bulletin, this is six months.
Figure 1 below illustrates why different offences for an example offender are included or excluded in the proven re-offending measure. Events A to E all occur in the one year follow-up period, but events F and G are outside this period, so would not be counted. Events A to D are all counted because they were all proven within the one year follow-up period or the further six month waiting period, but event E, even though the offence took place in the one year follow-up period, would not be counted, as the conviction did not occur within either the one year follow-up period, or the further six month waiting period. The offender has, therefore, committed seven proven offences during the one year follow-up period (two for event A, one for event B, three for event C, and one for event D).
**Proven re-offence**
Offences are counted as proven re-offences if they meet all of the following criteria:
- They are recordable. Not all offences are on the PNC and more recordable offences are entered than non-recordable offences. Analysis comparing offences proven at court with offences recorded on the PNC suggests the most cost common offences that are not recorded relates to motor vehicles, e.g. using a motor vehicle whilst uninsured against third party risks, speeding offences, keeping a vehicle on the highway without a driving licence or television licence evasion.
- They were committed in England or Wales.
- They are offences that were prosecuted by the police. PNC data is collected and input by the police and offences prosecuted by the police are likely to be recorded more comprehensively on the PNC than offences that are prosecuted by other organisations. For example, benefit fraud is prosecuted by the Department for Work and Pensions. Therefore, benefit fraud offences may be poorly represented on the PNC.
- Offences are only counted if they are proven through caution (for adults), reprimands or final warnings (for juveniles) and court convictions. Offences that are not proven, or which meet with other responses from the Criminal Justice System, are not counted. The Offending, Crime and Justice Survey (2003) estimated that six per cent of all offences resulted in any contact with the Criminal Justice System.
- The offence is not a breach offence, i.e. breach of a court order, since we are only interested in new offences.
**Adjusted baseline (predicted rate)** Proven re-offending is related to the characteristics of offenders which means that any overall rate of proven re-offending will depend, in part, on the characteristics of offenders coming into the system (just as the examination pass rate of a school will be related to the characteristics of its pupils). We use a modelling technique to produce a baseline figure adjusted to match the characteristics of the cohort we are comparing. For more details on this, refer to the chapter on “Statistical modelling and coefficients”.
**Measures of proven re-offending** Proven re-offending data are presented in the following ways:
- The number of offenders.
- The proportion of offenders who are proven re-offenders.
- The average number of proven re-offences among re-offenders.
- The average number of proven re-offences among all offenders including those who committed no proven re-offences (previously the frequency rate).
- The proportion of proven offenders who committed a proven serious re-offence against the person. Refer to Annex A for details on what counts as a serious offence.
- The proportion of proven offenders who committed a proven serious acquisitive re-offence. Refer to Annex A for details on what counts as a serious acquisitive offence.
- The proportion of offenders who are proven to re-offend, adjusted to control for changes in offender characteristics. This measure is different from the other measures in that it does not come from actual re-offences, but from a statistical model created for the baseline year of 2008. This gives a better indication of actual change against a baseline. Refer to the chapter on “Statistical modelling and coefficients” for further details.
**Multiple offender entries** Each offender is tracked over a fixed period of time and any proven offence committed in this period is counted as a proven re-offence. A multiple offender entry refers to an offender who, after entering the cohort in a given year, commits a re-offence and is either cautioned, discharged from prison or gets a non-custodial conviction in the same cohort year. This re-offence could also be included as a second entry for this offender into the cohort.
**Figure 2: Example of an offender with multiple offender entries**
| Offender Cautioned | Re-offence 1 | Offender starts a community sentence | Re-offence 2 | Offender sentenced to 3mnths in prison then released | Re-offence 3 | |--------------------|-------------|-------------------------------------|-------------|-----------------------------------------------------|-------------| | | | | | | |
1 year cohort period
To date, publications have avoided the double counting of these multiple offender entries (MOE) by only counting an individual once based on their first proven offence in the relevant time period. In the illustration above, the caution would be counted as the index disposal and the further two proven offences would be counted as re-offences. This avoids double counting of proven re-offences.
In this publication the main tables (tables 1 to 17) in the report have been produced on the basis of the 'first proven offence in the relevant time period' which led to an offender being included. This provides a picture of proven re-offending which is consistent with previous publications and tracks an offender, irrespective of the disposal they receive, to when they commit a proven re-offence.
The measure of proven re-offending now covers all offenders in any one year instead of the first quarter of a calendar year as in previous proven re-offending publications. The result is many more offenders with multiple entries.
In addition, including cautions to identify a proven offence means many offenders’ first offence will be associated with a caution since cautions account for around a third of adult offenders in one year. Table 1 shows the number of offenders in each cohort period by their number of entries.
**Table 1: Number of offenders and their respective number of entries for 2000, 2002 to 2010 cohorts**
| Multiple Offender Entries | 2000 | 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | |---------------------------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------| | 1 | 512,551 | 522,376 | 544,032 | 551,265 | 582,840 | 622,096 | 638,495 | 610,329 | 578,644 | 535,394 | | 2x | 75,311 | 77,813 | 81,651 | 78,969 | 81,120 | 88,207 | 83,785 | 79,067 | | | | 3x | 19,565 | 21,208 | 22,073 | 20,855 | 20,926 | 21,974 | 23,757 | 23,662 | 22,125 | 21,466 | | 4x | 6,195 | 6,689 | 7,074 | 6,835 | 6,725 | 6,807 | 7,652 | 7,917 | 7,360 | 7,425 | | 5x | 1,998 | 2,314 | 2,392 | 2,357 | 2,355 | 2,425 | 2,795 | 2,911 | 2,938 | 2,909 | | 6 to 10x | 1,240 | 1,510 | 1,689 | 1,641 | 1,505 | 1,513 | 1,966 | 2,341 | 2,308 | 2,368 | | Greater than 10x | 164 | 155 | 129 | 131 | 119 | 115 | 114 | 160 | 202 | 193 | | Total MOEs | 104,473 | 109,689 | 115,008 | 110,788 | 112,750 | 120,423 | 127,979 | 125,198 | 118,718 | 113,428 | | % of total cohort | 16.9% | 17.4% | 17.5% | 16.7% | 16.2% | 16.2% | 16.7% | 17.0% | 17.0% | 17.5% |
The number of offenders with multiple entries has remained fairly constant over time - the proportion of the total that had multiple offender entries has remained at about 16 to 17 per cent between 2000 and 2010. Proven re-offending by index disposal, probation trust and prison
In order to measure proven re-offending on a consistent and representative basis by offender management groups, it is necessary to distinguish between the disposal (sentence) types that led to an offender being included. Doing this allows the cohort to be defined according to the relative start point of an offender’s interaction with the prison (released from custody) or probation services (court order commencement).
Tables 18 to 21 provide re-offending rates by disposal (sentence) types. These are produced on the basis of an individual’s first disposal (sentence) in that category. In the illustration above the individual would appear once in the caution category, once in the community order category and once in the custody category. These tables will include an overall prison and probation proven re-offending rate which will be the figures we quote publicly. However, these figures should not be used when comparing proven re-offending rates across different disposals to compare effectiveness. Instead the ‘Compendium of Re-offending Statistics and Analysis 2011’ (at the link below) should be referred to as this analysis controls for offender characteristics in order to give a more reliable estimate of the relative effectiveness of different disposals.
www.justice.gov.uk/statistics/reoffending/compendium-of-reoffending-statistics-and-analysis
Tables 22 to 25 provide re-offending rates by individual prison and probation trust. These are produced on the basis of an individual’s first disposal from each specified prison or probation trust. If the individual offender is discharged from two different prisons in the year they will appear in both of the prison’s re-offending rates. The same applies for offenders commencing court orders in more than one probation trust within the year. This is to allow prisons and probation services to track their caseload of offenders. Early estimates of proven re-offending statistics
Background
Responses from the consultation and from earlier engagement with representatives of front-line offender management services supported the proposal to produce early estimates of proven re-offending using shorter follow-up and waiting periods. This is intended to provide offender managers feedback on the proven re-offending trends of offenders they are working with in time for them to adjust or build on offender management operational policy. This section of the new bulletin addresses these issues.
Early estimates of proven re-offending are presented for four particular offender groups who are subject to specific offender management arrangements. These are offenders managed by the probation service, Prolific and other Priority Offenders (PPO) who are managed by a partnership of local front-line services, drug-misusing offenders who are managed by Drug Action Teams, and young offenders who are managed by Youth Offending Teams.
Proven re-offending for the early estimates is measured in exactly the same way as for the headline proven re-offending measure except that the follow-up period and waiting period are both three months each. (For the headline measure of proven re-offending they are 12 months and six months, respectively.)
The headline figures and early estimates differ in the following ways:
- Early estimates of proven re-offending rates are considerably lower than in the headline publication. This is because they cover a shorter time period.
- The shorter follow-up period and waiting period allow rates to be calculated for more recent groups of proven offenders.
- Early estimates of proven re-offending rates provide local offender management services with information on proven re-offending trends for the offenders they are working with. The headline re-offending publication presents the public with information on a wide range of proven re-offending trends and provides proven re-offending rates by a variety of breakdowns, such as age, gender, disposal, etc.
- The shorter follow-up period and waiting period provides insufficient time for many serious re-offences to be committed and convicted. For this reason, early estimates of proven re-offending rates do not include information on serious re-offending.
- Results in the headline measure are compared to a baseline rate, adjusted for changes in the offender profile. This relies on an estimate of the relationship between offender characteristics and proven re-offending behaviour over 12 months. An equivalent estimate has been carried out for the proven re-offending behaviour of offenders commencing court order over three months. This uses the same variables as the headline measure plus additional variables to ensure that the actual and predicted rates are identical for every probation trust in the baseline period (2008). The tables accompanying the early estimates present the adjusted baseline for each trust, and the text identifies those trusts where the actual rate is significantly higher or lower than the predicted rate in the most recent results available.
Measurement
Coverage Results are provided for four types of offenders: probation offenders by probation trust, PPO offenders by upper-tier local authority, drug-misusing offenders by Drug Action Team, and young offenders by Youth Offending Team.
Cohort For probation offenders, the cohort is made up of all offenders who commenced a court order within a 12 month period. For PPO offenders, the cohort is made up of all offenders identified as a PPO who were discharged from custody, convicted at court, received a caution (adults), reprimand or final warning (juveniles) or tested positive for opiates or cocaine within a 12 month period. For drug-misusing offenders, the cohort is made up of all offenders identified as drug-misusing who were discharged from custody, convicted at court, received a caution or tested positive for opiates or cocaine within a 12 month period. For juveniles, the cohort is made up of all young offenders who were discharged from custody, convicted at court or received a reprimand or final warning within a 12 month period.
Start point (index date) Same as for the headline proven re-offending figures presented in the Re-offending Statistics Quarterly Bulletin.
Follow-up period This is the length of time proven re-offending is measured over. For the Early Estimates of Proven Re-offending, this is defined as three months from the start point.
Waiting period This is the additional time beyond the follow-up period to allow for offences which are committed towards the end of the follow-up period to be proven by a court, resulting in a conviction, caution, reprimand or final warning. For the Early Estimates of Proven Re-offending Statistics, this is three months.
Proven re-offence Same as for the headline proven re-offending figures presented in the Re-offending Statistics Quarterly Bulletin. Adjusted baseline (predicted rate) Proven re-offending is related to the characteristics of offenders which means that any overall rate of proven re-offending will depend, in part, on the characteristics of offenders coming into the system (just as the examination pass rate of a school will be related to the characteristics of its pupils). We use a modelling technique to produce a baseline figure adjusted to match the characteristics of the cohort we are comparing. For more details on this, refer to the chapter on “Statistical modelling and coefficients”.
Multiple offender entries Same as for the headline proven re-offending figures presented in the Re-offending Statistics Quarterly Bulletin. Local adult re-offending statistics quarterly bulletin
Background
Proven re-offending results from this measure have been published by the Ministry of Justice since February 2009 at Government Office Region, probation trust and local authority level. This data is used to measure probation performance and the Ministry of Justice will continue to produce these measures while offender management systems still require them. The Local Adult Re-offending Statistics Quarterly Bulletin can be found on the Ministry of Justice website at the following link:
www.justice.gov.uk/statistics/reoffending/local-adult-reoffending
The local proven re-offending data measure the re-offending of all offenders on the probation caseload. This includes offenders on licence and serving court orders.
Local proven re-offending rates use the same follow-up period and waiting period to those for the early estimates. However, there are several key differences between the local measure and the early estimates. These include:
- The sample of offenders - local rates are estimated using all offenders on the probation caseload, including those on licence and those serving court orders. Offenders on the caseload are identified through four ‘snapshots’ of the caseload, which are taken each quarter. Offenders are included if they are on the caseload even if they have been on licence or serving the court order for longer than 12 months. The early estimates are based on offenders who commence a court order within a 12 month period.
- Local rates define the period reported on by the period of re-offending. The early estimates refer to the year of the index disposal.
Measurement
Cohort All offenders on the probation caseload taken from four quarterly snapshots.
Start point The date of the snapshot.
Follow-up period This is the length of time proven re-offending is measured over. For the Local Adult Re-offending Statistics Quarterly Bulletin, this is defined as three months from the start point. **Waiting period** This is the additional time beyond the follow-up period to allow for offences which are committed towards the end of the follow-up period to be proven by a court, resulting in a conviction, caution, reprimand or final warning. For the Local Adult Re-offending Statistics Quarterly Bulletin, this is three months.
**Proven re-offence** Same as for the headline proven re-offending figures presented in the Re-offending Statistics Quarterly Bulletin.
**Adjusted baseline (predicted rate)** The predicted rate is the proportion of offenders we would expect to re-offend given the known characteristics of the offenders in the snapshot and re-offending rates in the baseline period. More detail on the predicted rate, and the statistical model used to calculate it, is provided in Appendix B of the Local Adult Re-offending Statistics Bulletin. Data quality
The data required for measuring proven re-offending are based on a range of data sources (prison data, probation data, identification of drug-misusing offenders, identification of prolific and other priority offenders, young offenders in secure accommodation, and criminal records from the Police National Computer) from a range of agencies (the National Offender Management Service, probation trusts, the Youth Justice Board, Drug Action Teams, local authorities and the National Police Improvement Agency). These figures have been derived from administrative IT systems which, as with any large scale recording system, are subject to possible errors with data entry and processing.
Police National Computer data
Information regarding the proven re-offending behaviour of offenders has been compiled using the Ministry of Justice’s extract from the Police National Computer (PNC). The process involves matching offender details from the prison and probation data to the personal details recorded on the PNC. A proportion of cases cannot be matched and the figures presented in Table 2 below are expressed as a percentage of the offenders that are matched. Like any large scale recording system, the PNC is subject to errors with data entry and recording. The PNC is regularly updated so that further analysis at a later date will generate revised figures.
The quality of the information recorded on the PNC is generally assumed to be relatively high as it is an operational system on which the police depend, but analysis can reveal errors that are typical when handling administrative datasets of this scale. The extent of error or omitted records on the PNC is difficult to estimate because it is a unique data-source. As a result, there is not always an obvious source of data to provide a baseline from which to assess data quality. For some types of results, however, comparisons can be made. For example, the trend in receptions into prison in each month is very similar using the PNC and prisons data (see below for details). Although the number of receptions recorded on the PNC is consistently slightly lower because prisons data include cases on remand whereas the PNC does not. Another example is the number of cases that are given a custodial sentence, broken down by offence type, which is similar using the PNC and the Court Proceedings Database with a match rate of 97 per cent.
A number of improvements are routinely carried out:
- Updates to the coding and classification of offences and court disposals, including the reduction of uncoded offences, the reduction in the use of miscellaneous offence codes and the clarification of the coding of breach offences;
- Updates to the methods used to identify the primary offence, where several offences are dealt with on the same occasion, and the methods used to identify the primary disposal, where an offence attracts more than one court disposal; and
- Removal of some duplication of records within the database resulting in improvements to the efficiency and reliability of the matching process.
**Prison data**
Prison establishments record details for individual inmates on the prison IT system (Prison-NOMIS or LIDS). The information recorded includes details such as date of birth, gender, religion, nationality, ethnic origin, custody type, offence, reception and discharge dates and, for sentenced prisoners, sentence length. The data from individual prison establishments then feeds through to a central computer database, called the Inmate Information System (IIS).
In May 2009, the National Offender Management Service (NOMS) began the roll-out of a new case management system for prisons (Prison-NOMIS). During the phased roll-out, data collection issues emerged that affected the supply of data for statistical purposes from July 2009 to February 2010. Specifically, statistical information on sentence length and offence group are not available on any of our prison datasets for this period.
In order to ensure the fullest possible set of data from July 2009 to February 2010, sentence lengths were estimated for those prisoners received or discharged before the problems were resolved. At the point when the problems were resolved, a small number of prison establishments were still using the old LIDS case management system; data for prisoners received or discharged from these prisons was assumed to be unaffected.
For those prisoners received or discharged from prisons operating Prison-NOMIS, efforts were made to populate their record with the correct sentence length using other data extracts. For example, many prisoners discharged in January 2010 were originally received into prison prior to July 2009, so their sentence length was taken from unaffected datasets before the problems began. Similarly, the majority of those received in early 2010 were still in prison in March 2010 when the problems were resolved, so the sentence length from the corrected prison population data was used.
Where it was not possible to populate a sentence length using other datasets, prisoners were allocated a sentence length band based on the number of days they spent in custody (taking account of early release schemes where relevant).
As a check on the methodology, an alternative estimation process was designed and the number of discharges in each sentence length band for the second half of 2009 was compared using the two methods.
A number of estimation methods were considered and tested on the 2008 data (prior to the data problems) to see which yielded estimates closest to the actual 2008 data. This identified the following method:
1. Calculate data for the first half of the year as a proportion of the full calendar year, for each year from 2001 to 2008; separately for each sentence length band or offence group (the two key breakdowns to be estimated).
2. Apply the average of these proportions to the January to June 2009 data to estimate the 2009 annual totals; separately for each sentence length band or offence group.
3. Scale the estimated numbers in each sentence length band or offence group to sum to the annual total recorded in the raw data (where the totals are known to be correct).
The maximum difference between the two approaches was 2.6 per cent in the band ‘12 months to less than 4 years’; for all other bands the difference was less than 1 per cent.
**Indeterminate sentence prisoners**
In addition to the above, data on the discharge of prisoners on indeterminate sentence (prisoners given a life sentence or an Indeterminate sentence for Public Protection (IPP) is provided from the Public Protection Unit Database (PPUD). This holds data jointly owned by the Offender Management and Public Protection Group (OMPPG) in NOMS and the Parole Board.
PPUD records details of all indeterminate sentence prisoners at the point of conviction, those engaged in the Generic Parole Process and prisoners (determinate and indeterminate) who have been recalled from licence. It also covers those who have received a restricted hospital order/direction from a Crown Court, and those remand and convicted prisoners who have been transferred from prison/detention centres to psychiatric hospital under the relevant sections of mental health legislation.
All decisions taken by the NOMS casework sections and the Parole Board are recorded on the system.
Personal information recorded includes (but is not limited to) name, date of birth, gender, identifying numbers, ethnicity, last known address, probation area and sentencing information.
OMPPG and the Parole Board run monthly and ad hoc reports to cleanse data that are not otherwise identified by data validation routines built into the system.
**Probation data**
Since 2005, detailed information on the supervision of offenders (at the individual offender level) has been submitted by probation trusts on a monthly basis. These monthly ‘probation listings’ include information on offenders starting probation supervision. Between 2002 and 2005, this information was submitted quarterly, and prior to 2002 a different data collection system was in place, which meant that information on caseload had to be calculated based on the number of people starting supervision and the number of terminations.
The quality of the information recorded on the probation data is generally assumed to be relatively high as it is a direct extract from an operational system upon which the probation service depends for managing offenders locally. The extract consists of a small number of key fields for which completion is mandatory. Probation trusts have their own IT departments which manage their own data validation processes and when the data is received centrally it is subject to another set of data validation processes. Trends from the data are consistent with comparable time-series from the Courts Proceeding Database. Any large scale recording systems are subject to possible errors with data entry and processing, but there are no known issues regarding the probation commencements data.
**Identification of drug-misusing offenders**
There are four ways a drug-misusing offender can be identified:
- Individuals who have tested positive for heroin or crack/cocaine following an arrest or charge for ‘trigger’ offences (largely acquisitive crime offences) as part of the Drug Interventions Programme (DIP) are included as adult proven offenders.
- Any offender that received an OASys assessment whilst on licence or on a community sentence and are either recorded as being subject to a current Drug Treatment and Testing Order (DTTO) or Drug Rehabilitation Requirement (DRR), or are assessed as having a criminogenic drug need.
- Any offender identified as requiring further drug interventions by Counselling, Assessment, Referral, Advice, Throughcare (CARAT) teams in prison, and now being released into the community.
- Any offender identified by local Criminal Justice Integrated Teams (CJITs) as requiring further intervention for their drug use and offending as part of DIP.
**Drug Interventions Programme**
The Drug Interventions Programme (DIP) was introduced in April 2003 with the aim of developing and integrating measures for directing adult drug-misusing offenders into drug treatment and reducing offending behaviour. The programme comprises of a number of interrelated interventions:
- Drug testing in police custody for specified Class A drugs – heroin, cocaine and crack cocaine – for individuals arrested for trigger offences (primarily offences related to acquisitive crime). • Assessment following a positive test to establish the extent of the individual's drug-misuse, and whether the individual might benefit from further assessment, assistance or treatment.
• Conditional cautioning which may include a DIP drug rehabilitative condition, tailored to the offender’s drug use and offending.
• Restriction on bail for adults who have tested positive and whose offence is a drug offence or is drug-related.
• CJITs manage offenders who have been referred to treatment and co-ordinate agencies and services so they offer access to joined-up treatment and support. They maintain strong links with both the National Probation Service and Prison Service to ensure the continuity of care whilst the offender is within the Criminal Justice System.
Legislative changes have broadened the scope of the programme:
• A major expansion of DIP took place in April 2006 to move the point of drug testing from the point of charge to the point of arrest and to introduce required (rather than voluntary) assessments. This change broadened the scope and size of the cohort coming into contact with DIP.
• The latest changes took effect from April 2011, when the authorisation to conduct drug testing on arrest was extended across England and Wales. Drug testing on arrest previously occurred only in ‘intensive’ DIP areas, which had high levels of acquisitive crime.
Data sources Records of those who test positive are logged onto the Drugs Intervention Management Information System (DIMIS), which is managed by the Home Office. An extract of positive drug test records for the relevant period is used for a match to the PNC.
Offenders identified as drug-misusers via CARAT teams and CJITs are also recorded onto DIMIS, from which an extract is taken for the relevant period to match to the PNC. OASys records are collated centrally within the Ministry of Justice in the OASys Data, Evaluation and Analysis Team (O-DEAT) database, from which an extract is taken for the relevant period to match to the PNC.
Identification of prolific and other priority offenders
The Prolific and other Priority Offenders Programme (PPO) aims to use a multi-agency approach to focus on a very small, but hard core group of prolific/persistent offenders who commit disproportionate amounts of crime and cause disproportionate harm to their local communities. Full implementation of all three strands had commenced by the beginning of February 2005. In 2009, all local areas were asked to review their PPO schemes to ensure that the programme remained squarely focused on those offenders that were of most concern to the communities in which they live.
The identification of a PPO is undertaken at a local level involving police, local authorities, prison and probation services and youth offending teams. The factors that influence the decision of whether an offender is included in the PPO programme are:
- the nature and volume of crimes they commit;
- the nature and volume of other harm they cause; and
- the detrimental impact they have on their community.
This process will typically involve police, prison and probation information systems and other tools available.
The size of the PPO caseload at a local level is influenced by a range of factors, including the number of offenders who meet the locally agreed selection criteria and the capacity of local partner agencies to provide the intensive management of offenders under PPO supervision.
PPO cohort data are derived from JTRACK, which is a management information and tracking tool used by practitioners in various criminal justice agencies to record details of the offenders being managed as PPOs in a local area. JTRACK relies on the accurate input of data by local users to ensure that the details of the caseload on the system reflect the caseload being managed. An extract of the caseload from JTRACK is taken for the relevant period to match to the PNC.
**Young offenders in secure accommodation**
Information about secure training centres (STCs) and secure children's homes (SCHs) comes from the Youth Justice Board's (YJB) Secure Accommodation Clearing House System (SACHS) database. The under 18 year olds in Young Offender Institutes (YOIs) is also from SACHS, whereas information about young people aged 18 and held in YOIs is supplied by the Prison Service and private YOIs.
The quality of the information recorded on the SACHS database is generally assumed to be relatively high as it is a direct extract from an operational system which is used to place young people in custody. The extract uses a number of key fields for which completion is mandatory when booking a young person into custody.
**Data processing and analysis**
The data underpinning the results are considered by Ministry of Justice to be broadly robust. Considerable work has been carried out ensuring data quality, and the data have been used for research publications. Scrutiny of the data source continues in order to ensure the data remains reliable.
The National Audit Office (NAO) identified risk factors in its review of the reporting of PSA targets (NAO, 2005). The remainder of this section addresses these.
Matching offender records
This process involves matching data on prison discharges and court order commencements to the PNC database. The process uses automated matching routines that look at offenders’ surnames, initials, and dates of birth, using direct name matching along with a variety of ‘sounds like’ algorithms. The matching algorithm also searches through PNC held information on alias names and dates of birth for offenders. However, not all offenders are matched and a thorough analysis of bias in the matching system has yet to be undertaken. Table 2 below shows that the overall matching rates between 2000 and 2010 have remained high.
Table 2: Matching rates for the different data sources for 2000, 2002 to 2010 cohorts
| | 2000 | 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | |----------------------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------| | **Prison** | | | | | | | | | | | | Prison discharges | 87,083| 87,338| 85,920| 86,970| 84,897| 83,725| 87,340| 95,824| 94,114| 91,044| | Automatically matched to the PNC | 80,572| 81,211| 80,121| 81,125| 79,398| 78,285| 81,874| 90,021| 88,745| 87,845| | Matched to an index date | 73,610| 76,121| 73,327| 73,390| 71,246| 68,185| 69,741| 76,668| 74,169| 65,278| | Percentage matched to the PNC | 92.5% | 93.0% | 93.3% | 93.3% | 93.5% | 93.5% | 93.7% | 93.9% | 94.3% | 96.5% | | Percentage matched to the PNC and index offences (not breach etc.) | 84.8% | 86.0% | 85.3% | 84.4% | 83.9% | 81.4% | 79.9% | 80.0% | 78.8% | 71.7% | | **Court Orders** | | | | | | | | | | | | Court order starts | 136,023| 154,621| 158,750| 164,831| 163,681| 176,346| 187,386| 189,643| 191,784| 186,417| | Automatically matched to the PNC | 123,540| 142,838| 148,257| 154,075| 158,416| 172,906| 184,740| 187,253| 190,128| 185,112| | Matched to an index date | 105,685| 115,108| 119,446| 122,927| 130,307| 148,072| 159,279| 163,519| 167,378| 164,579| | Percentage matched to the PNC | 90.8% | 92.4% | 93.4% | 93.5% | 96.8% | 98.0% | 98.6% | 98.7% | 99.1% | 99.3% | | Percentage matched to the PNC and index offences (not breach etc.) | 77.7% | 74.4% | 75.2% | 74.6% | 79.6% | 84.0% | 85.0% | 86.2% | 87.3% | 88.3% | | **YJB** | | | | | | | | | | | | YJB discharges | - | 1,337 | 1,612 | 1,521 | 1,551 | 1,564 | 1,553 | 1,647 | 1,626 | 1,770 | | Automatically matched to the PNC | - | 1,226 | 1,502 | 1,425 | 1,448 | 1,464 | 1,463 | 1,537 | 1,564 | 1,682 | | Matched to an index date | - | 680 | 818 | 785 | 860 | 769 | 780 | 845 | 817 | 916 | | Percentage matched to the PNC | - | 91.7% | 93.2% | 93.7% | 93.4% | 93.6% | 94.2% | 93.3% | 96.2% | 95.0% | | Percentage matched to the PNC and index offences (not breach etc.) | - | 50.9% | 50.7% | 51.6% | 51.6% | 49.2% | 50.2% | 51.3% | 50.2% | 51.8% |
The total number of offenders matched to the PNC is substantially higher than the final figure for the cohorts – for example, in 2010 there were 274,639 matched offenders, but a final cohort size of 230,773. The main reasons for these discrepancies are:
- Conviction dates for the beginning of the community, suspended or custodial sentence do not match the conviction date within seven days of the criminal records from the PNC database;
- The index offence was not dealt with by a Home Office police force – this ensures that only offences in England and Wales are counted;
- Exclusion of all offenders where the index offence is a breach, since we are only interested in new offences; and Exclusion of multiple offender entries (see section above titled “Multiple offender entries” for further details).
Counting rules
The counting rules for choosing which prison discharges to include offer a variety of choices. For instance, it makes little sense to include offenders deported on release or who have died. These counting rules were enumerated and discussed to ensure a more accurate and consistent count and are reviewed on an annual basis to ensure a consistent approach.
Complexity of data processing and analysis
The data processing involved for measuring re-offending is complex. To analyse re-offending behaviour by previous offending or disposal history requires the extraction of criminal histories that can span a number of decades, and the subsequent matching of these histories against the probation caseload files and prison discharges in order to generate a dataset.
The extraction of the criminal histories
To quality assure the extraction of criminal histories, a small set of random samples of offenders was taken after the analysis to check, via a basic validation, that outputs of the SQL (Structured Query Language) program were accurate. The Ministry of Justice is confident that this process has been successful.
Level of subjectivity
There is relatively little subjectivity in the system. Occasional judgements are required (e.g. where to classify an offence), but these will not significantly influence the results.
Maturity and stability of the data system
The system is well established having been used a number of times to produce re-offending statistics for publication. Nonetheless, vigilance continues to be exercised to ensure the validity of the results.
Expertise of those who operate the system
Prison and court order data-feeds are continually monitored and improvement work is regularly undertaken to improve the reliability and the accuracy of datasets. The internal processing of the results within the Ministry of Justice has been subject to dip sampling of criminal histories and the statistical model has been extensively tested. Interpreting trends in the proportion of offenders who commit a serious re-offence against the person
Care should be taken when interpreting the severity rate for the following reasons:
- **Time through the Criminal Justice System** – more serious offences are likely to take a longer time to progress through the Criminal Justice System than less serious offences. The proven re-offending statistics track proven re-offending behaviour for a year upon offenders entering the cohort, plus an additional six months for convictions to be updated on the system. There is a risk that this time scale is not long enough to capture the most serious offences. However, analysis suggests that the number of serious proven re-offences picked up by the measure remains comparatively stable year on year, ensuring performance is comparable over time.
- **Reporting variation** – variation in reporting time between police force areas and courts may also have an impact on how many serious offences are captured during the one year follow-up period.
Data on historical trends
The data used to measure proven re-offending is from the PNC. Police forces started to enter criminal records locally in 1995. In order to allow time for good practice among police forces in entering data onto the PNC to become embedded, PNC data was used to measure proven re-offending for the first time in 2000. In the headline bulletin, results are compared to 2000 to highlight long-term trends because it is the earliest data on proven re-offending that exists on a comparable basis. Results prior to 2000 cannot be compared to results from 2000 onwards for two main reasons:
- **Change in data source** – re-offences are measured using data from the PNC (which covers recordable offences), whereas data from years before 2000 were measured using the offenders index (which covered a narrower range of offences).
- **Change in measurement** – the concept being measured from 2000 onwards in these reports is that of using the offence date to measure re-offences (a period of time is allowed for offences to be committed, and a further period allowed for these offences to be proved by caution, reprimand, final warning or court conviction), whereas the concept being measured prior to 2000 was that of using the conviction date to measure re-convictions (any conviction occurring in a set period of time, whether or not the offence occurred in that time period).
However the ‘Compendium of Re-offending Statistics and Analysis 2010’, published in November 2010, provides the most consistent statistical series possible between 1971 and 2006, adjusting for known methodological changes. For more information, please refer to Chapter 4.4 at the following link: Results for 2001 cannot be calculated for offenders on court orders because of a problem with archived data on court orders. Local breakdowns of the headline proven re-offending rates are available from 2005 onwards. Proven re-offending data are broken down by locality using the address and post-code information of the offender. Where this information is missing, the location of the processing police force is used instead. This is not a completely reliable indicator of the offender’s home address as offenders may offend in a different locality than where they reside. The completeness of this information has improved over time. In 2000, this information was omitted for 29 per cent of cases, which was considered too high to produce reliable results. By 2005, this was reduced to 16.5 per cent, and there has been a continuing downward trend since then. Statistical modelling and coefficients
Introduction
The characteristics of proven offenders are likely to be systematically different over time and by sentence type as the Criminal Justice System targets particular sentences to offenders most likely to benefit from that type. It is therefore important to note that it is not possible to reach firm conclusions about changes in rates over time, nor about the relative effectiveness of different sentence types, from actual proven re-offending rates.
The Ministry of Justice has developed models to address these two issues:
- modelling to adjust the baseline to reflect changes in offender characteristics (see below).
- modelling to match offenders across sentence types to make valid comparisons. Refer to the ‘Compendium of Re-offending Statistics and Analysis 2011’ at the link below for this analysis:
www.justice.gov.uk/statistics/reoffending/compendium-of-reoffending-statistics-and-analysis
Modelling to adjust for the varying composition of the cohort of offenders over time
If the composition of the cohorts of offenders being compared differs significantly over time so that the type of offenders in one year is inherently more (or less) likely to re-offend, this may result in an apparent rise or fall in the proven re-offending rates even when there may be no ‘real’ difference for similar offenders over that time. In order to address this problem, we have adopted the following solution:
- modelling the likelihood of proven re-offending based on known offender characteristics using historic data (which will be defined as the baseline);
- identifying the characteristics of the most recent cohort;
- using the model, adjusting the baseline proven re-offending rate to match these characteristics; and
- comparing this adjusted rate with the current rate to make a more realistic estimate of trends over time.
In previous publications of proven re-offending statistics, this approach has been referred to as the predicted rate of proven re-offending. Statistical model
The 2008 statistical model is an update and improvement on the 2000 and 2005 logistic regression models and includes a range of offender characteristics available from the PNC, such as age, gender, offence group and criminal history.
The logistic regression model based on the 2008 data identifies a statistically significant set of variables that are related to proven re-offending and based on these provides a probability of proven re-offending for each offender. However, other factors, for which data on these samples are not available, such as drug and alcohol use, employment, accommodation and marital background are likely to be significantly related to re-offending.
This means that the adjusted proven re-offending rates are only valid for terms included in the final model. Any adjusted proven re-offending rates for groups of offenders that have a common characteristic that is not in the final model (e.g. employment status or disposal type) can suffer from statistical biases and are, therefore, unreliable.
For the 2008 model additional developments were included to ensure that the adjusted rate model was a more parsimonious model, more robust against changes in the number of offenders, and that interaction terms and non-linear terms were included where appropriate. The final decision for inclusion or exclusion of particular variables was heavily influenced by their statistical significance (typically p < 0.10).
The Ministry of Justice believes that the method used for the construction of the statistical model for producing adjusted rates is robust and fit for purpose.
Variables included
The following notes provide some further detail on the 2008 model and show the relative impacts of different variables when holding all other variables constant.
Gender Gender is included in the model as a categorical variable separating out males and females. Generally, males are more likely to commit a proven re-offence than females.
Age Age is included in the model for adults as a linear, quadratic and cubed term and is included for juveniles as a categorical variable separating offenders into seven age bands. Generally, younger adults are more likely to commit a proven re-offence than older adults, and older juveniles are more likely to re-offend than younger juveniles. Index offence The index offence represents the offence that led to the offender entering the cohort. Index offences were classified into 21 broad categories and their relative coefficients are shown in relation to the reference category ‘violence’. To ensure the reliability and replicability of the model coefficients, any index offences with low numbers were grouped with the ‘other’ index offence group.
Ethnicity Ethnicity is derived from the PNC and reflects the officer’s view of the offender’s ethnicity. Thus, ethnicity in this model should be taken as a proxy for the actual ethnicity and the results should not be over-interpreted because any biases in the assessment are unknown. Ethnicity was a statistically significant factor, making it an important factor to control for and, therefore, it was included in the model.
Copas rate The Copas rate (Copas and Marshall, 1998) controls for the rate at which an offender has built up convictions throughout their criminal career. The higher the rate, the more convictions an offender has in a given amount of time, and the more likely it is that an offender will be re-convicted. The Copas rate formula is:
[ \\text{copas rate} = \\log_e \\left( \\frac{\\text{Number of court appearances or cautions} + 1}{\\text{Length of criminal career in years} + 10} \\right) ]
For adults the Copas rate is included as a linear and quadratic, but for juveniles it is included as a linear term only. As mentioned above, inclusion of variables was heavily influenced by their statistical significance.
Length of criminal career An offender’s criminal career is a significant factor in predicting the likelihood of a re-offence and this relationship is quadratic, thus both linear and quadratic terms were included in the model.
Total number of previous offences The total number of previous offences is a significant factor in predicting the likelihood of re-offending. The previous offending variables counted cautions and convictions and were included as linear and logged variables.
Previous custodial sentences For adults, the number of previous custodial sentences was implemented as a continuous variable in both linear and quadratic terms. For juveniles, previous custodial sentences were included as a binary term: had the offender received one or more previous custodial sentences, yes or no. The difference in treatment reflects the more limited custodial history juvenile offenders generally possess compared to adult offenders.
Counts of previous offending by type of offence For adults, the number of previous offences by type of offence was an improvement over simple yes/no variables for recording the presence of prior offences in the relevant categories. For juvenile offenders, simple yes/no variables for recording the presence of prior offences in the relevant categories performed better. The difference in treatment reflects the more limited offending history juvenile offenders generally possess compared to adult offenders.
**Interaction terms**
Interaction terms are calculated by multiplying two factors together. The inclusion of these terms allows the effect of one variable to vary according to the values of another, improving the quality of predictions. This is important because three factors (gender, age and total number of previous offences) are not completely independent of each other.
For adults, interaction terms were also included for drug-misusing offenders as they showed some trends in their proven re-offending behaviour that were different from the more general offending population.
**Model assessment**
The model is assessed by calculating the level of discrimination between offenders that committed a proven re-offence and offenders that did not. The adult logistic regression model achieved a 78.9 per cent overall discrimination level on the 2008 cohort and 72.4 per cent for the juvenile logistic regression model. A level of discrimination of about 70 per cent was deemed to be acceptable and the model should predict results accurately enough for the predicted rate to be used. The discrimination can also be evaluated by calculating the Area Under Curve (AUC) for the Receiver Operator Characteristic curve. Again, the value for the model was 0.784 for the adult regression model in 2008 and 0.716 for the youth regression model which means a satisfactory level of discrimination (Hosmer and Lemeshow, 2000, p.162).
**Coefficients of the 2008 statistical model**
The following tables (3 and 4) show the parameter estimates for the various components of the logistic regression model for the predicted one year proven re-offending rates for adults and young offenders.
Each logistic coefficient is multiplied by the variable value for each offender to calculate a linear prediction. To calculate each offender’s predicted probability of committing a proven re-offence in the follow-up period or a further six month waiting period we transform the linear prediction Z using the following formula:
[ \\text{Predicted Probability of Reoffending} = \\frac{\\exp(Z)}{1 + \\exp(Z)} ]
The exponent of the coefficient is the odds ratio of committing a proven re-offence corresponding to the particular coefficient and enables us to make comparisons between different categories. For factors with interactions (e.g. age and gender) the interpretation is more complex. The significance (p-value) gives us an assessment of how significant each variable is in predicting the likelihood of an offender to commit a proven re-offence within one year. For modelling purposes, a probability value (p-value) of less than 0.05 is considered to be significant.
Table 3: List of variables in the logistic regression model applied to the 2008 data on adult offenders and their respective coefficients
| Variables | Coefficient | Logs-odd ratios | P-value | Variables | Coefficient | Logs-odd ratios | P-value | |----------------------------------|-------------|-----------------|---------|----------------------------------|-------------|-----------------|---------| | Constant | 1.940 | 6.958 | 0.000 | Reference category | | | | | Gender: | | | | Violence | -0.361 | 0.697 | 0.000 | | Female | Reference category | | | Robbery | 0.482 | 1.620 | 0.000 | | Male | 0.645 | 1.906 | 0.000 | Theft | 0.173 | 1.189 | 0.000 | | Age: | | | | Handling | 0.180 | 1.198 | 0.000 | | Age | -0.250 | 0.779 | 0.000 | Taking and driving away | -0.465 | 0.628 | 0.000 | | Age squared | 0.006 | 1.006 | 0.000 | Sexual child | 0.253 | 1.288 | 0.000 | | Age cubed | -0.00004 | 1.000 | 0.000 | Domestic burglary | 0.148 | 1.159 | 0.000 | | Male * age interaction | -0.013 | 0.988 | 0.000 | Other burglary | 0.337 | 1.401 | 0.000 | | General criminal career variables:| | | | Theft from vehicles | 0.478 | 1.612 | 0.000 | | Previous offences | -0.006 | 0.994 | 0.000 | Drink driving | -0.154 | 0.857 | 0.000 | | Previous offences (logged) | 0.391 | 1.478 | 0.000 | Criminal damage | 0.226 | 1.254 | 0.000 | | Male * previous offences interaction | -0.003 | 0.997 | 0.000 | Drug supply | -0.400 | 0.670 | 0.000 | | Previous prison sentences | 0.045 | 1.046 | 0.000 | Drug possession | 0.074 | 1.077 | 0.000 | | Previous prison sentences (logged)| -0.060 | 0.942 | 0.000 | Drug test | -1.167 | 0.311 | 0.000 | | Career length | -0.0001 | 1.000 | 0.000 | Fraud forgery | -0.213 | 0.808 | 0.000 | | Career length squared | 0.000 | 1.000 | 0.069 | Absconding and bail | 0.364 | 1.440 | 0.000 | | Copas rate | 0.385 | 1.469 | 0.000 | Number of previous offences: | | | | | Copas rate squared | -0.064 | 0.938 | 0.000 | Public order | 0.052 | 1.053 | 0.000 | | PPO offender | 0.528 | 1.696 | 0.000 | Sexual | 0.035 | 1.036 | 0.000 | | Drug-misusing offender | 1.422 | 4.146 | 0.000 | Domestic burglary | -0.006 | 0.994 | 0.005 | | Ethnicity: | | | | Theft | 0.012 | 1.012 | 0.000 | | White | Reference category | | | Handling | -0.010 | 0.990 | 0.002 | | Unknown | -0.663 | 0.516 | 0.000 | Taking and driving away | -0.007 | 0.993 | 0.003 | | White other | 0.324 | 1.383 | 0.000 | Criminal damage | 0.017 | 1.017 | 0.000 | | Black | 0.161 | 1.175 | 0.000 | Drug supply | -0.044 | 0.957 | 0.000 | | Pacific | 0.210 | 1.233 | 0.000 | Drug possession | 0.013 | 1.013 | 0.000 | | Middle East | 0.130 | 1.138 | 0.003 | Other | -0.002 | 0.998 | 0.073 |
Interaction with drug-misusing offenders:
| Previous offences (logged) | -0.156 | 0.855 | 0.000 | | Index offence of drug supply | -0.430 | 0.651 | 0.000 | | Index offence of drug possession | -0.550 | 0.577 | 0.000 | Table 4: List of variables in the logistic regression model applied to the 2008 data on young offenders and their respective coefficients
| Variables | Coefficient | Logs-odd ratios | P-value | Variables | Coefficient | Logs-odd ratios | P-value | |-----------|-------------|-----------------|---------|-----------|-------------|-----------------|---------| | Constant | -1.495 | 0.224 | 0.000 | Index offence: | Reference category | | | | Gender: | | | | Robbery | 0.130 | 1.139 | 0.003 | | Female | Reference category | | | Public order or riot | 0.178 | 1.195 | 0.000 | | Male | 0.527 | 1.693 | 0.000 | Sexual offences | -0.578 | 0.561 | 0.000 | | Age: | | | | Sexual offences against children | -1.157 | 0.314 | 0.000 | | Aged 10-11| Reference category | | | Domestic burglary | 0.233 | 1.262 | 0.000 | | Aged 12 | 0.354 | 1.425 | 0.000 | Other burglary | -0.083 | 1.087 | 0.026 | | Aged 13 | 0.448 | 1.566 | 0.000 | Theft | -0.088 | 0.916 | 0.000 | | Aged 14 | 0.431 | 1.538 | 0.000 | Robbery | 0.101 | 1.106 | 0.011 | | Aged 15 | 0.186 | 1.195 | 0.000 | Public order or riot | 0.143 | 1.154 | 0.000 | | Aged 16 | -0.124 | 0.883 | 0.017 | Domestic burglary | 0.166 | 1.181 | 0.000 | | Aged 17 | -0.202 | 0.817 | 0.000 | Other burglary | 0.099 | 1.104 | 0.001 | | Interactions between age and gender: | | | | Theft | 0.135 | 1.144 | 0.000 | | Female at any age | Reference category | | | Handling | 0.107 | 1.113 | 0.009 | | Male aged 10-11 | Reference category | | | Absconding or bail offences | 0.096 | 1.101 | 0.032 | | Male aged 12 | -0.276 | 0.759 | 0.000 | Taking and driving away | -0.088 | 1.093 | 0.012 | | Male aged 13 | -0.214 | 0.807 | 0.000 | Theft from vehicles | 0.125 | 1.133 | 0.012 | | Male aged 14 | -0.157 | 0.855 | 0.000 | Drunk driving | -0.245 | 0.783 | 0.033 | | Male aged 16 | 0.134 | 1.144 | 0.002 | Criminal or malicious damage | 0.069 | 1.071 | 0.001 | | Male aged 17 | 0.113 | 1.120 | 0.013 | Other | 0.138 | 1.148 | 0.001 | | General criminal career variables: | | | | Miscellaneous | -0.689 | 0.502 | 0.014 | | Career length squared | 0.000 | 1.000 | 0.000 | Breaches | 0.762 | 2.144 | 0.007 | | Copas rate | 0.128 | 1.137 | 0.001 | | | | | | Previous offences | -0.036 | 0.964 | 0.000 | | | | | | Previous offences (logged) | 0.920 | 2.510 | 0.000 | | | | | | Previous prison sentence(s) | 0.124 | 1.132 | 0.022 | | | | | | PPO offender | 0.930 | 2.534 | 0.000 | | | | | | Ethnicity: | | | | | | | | | White | Reference category | | | | | | | | Unknown | -0.823 | 0.439 | 0.000 | | | | | | White (other) | 0.196 | 1.217 | 0.000 | | | | | | Black | 0.187 | 1.206 | 0.000 | | | | | | Asian | -0.200 | 0.819 | 0.000 | | | | | | Pacific | -0.468 | 0.626 | 0.001 | | | | | Additional modelling for prison performance
Assessing the performance of individual prisons in reducing re-offending is difficult because the particular characteristics of offenders that are at a particular prison are likely to be the main drivers behind re-offending.
A statistical methodology has been developed to examine prison re-offending rates that not only takes account of offence and offender characteristics, but also takes account of the hierarchical structure of the data, i.e. that offenders are within prisons.
Two separate models were developed: for prisoners receiving sentences of fewer than 12 months and prisoners with sentences of 12 months or over. The separate models for prisoners with sentences of fewer than 12 months and 12 months or more reflects differences in prisoners’ re-offending behaviour by prison sentence length.
The model used for both types of offender was a logistic regression model with mixed effects (fixed and random). The outcome variable is a binary yes/no variable representing whether an offender re-offends or not. Offender characteristics are included as fixed independent variables and the prisons are included as a random effect component which allows each prison to interact with the fixed effects differently.
The variables included in the model were similar to those used to develop the adjusted baseline described above: age, ethnicity, index offence, previous offences, previous prison sentences, Copas scores, and criminal career, as well as the random effects component of prisons. The goodness-of-fit by AUC was satisfactory, above 0.77 in all cases.
Considerable preliminary analysis has been undertaken investigating the relative important of offence, offender and prison level variables in explaining custodial re-offending. This analysis has overwhelmingly shown that offence and offender level variables shape re-offending whereas prison-level variables refine re-offending behaviour. For this reason, the model uses offender and offence level variables and only models prison level effects using a single random effects component.
This model generates an expected probability of re-offending for each offender. When aggregated up to the prison it produces an expected proportion of offenders who re-offend. This can be compared with the actual rate of re-offending.
Where the model-predicted re-offending rate was statistically significantly different to actual re-offending rates, two possible explanations are plausible:
1. Missing characteristics: it is possible that there are underlying offence, offender or prison characteristics affecting re-offending behaviour that are not included in the current model; or
2. A genuine difference: there is something specific to these prisons that make them better/worse than predicted.
Additional modelling for probation performance
Results in the headline measure are compared to a baseline rate, adjusted for changes in the offender profile. This relies on an estimate of the relationship between offender characteristics and proven re-offending behaviour over 12 months. An equivalent estimate has been carried out for the proven re-offending behaviour specifically of offenders commencing court orders. This uses the same variables as the headline measure plus additional variables to ensure that the actual and predicted rates are identical for every probation trust in the baseline period (2008). The tables accompanying the report present the adjusted baseline for each trust.
Differences between the prison and probation trusts models and the model for the adjusted baseline for the headline measure
- The adjusted baseline for the headline measure applies to all offenders; the prison and probation models only apply to offenders discharged from custody or given a court order.
- The adjusted baseline for the headline measure is created using a fixed effects model using only offender and offence level variables; the probation model does the same, but the prison models use offender and offence level variables and also include a random component to reflect that prisoners are located within prisons.
- The adjusted baseline for the headline measure and for the probation model is derived using data from a baseline year (2008). The observed re-offending is equal to the predicted re-offending for the baseline year; the model coefficients are then applied to subsequent years and the predicted rates begins to differ from the actual rates. Provided the baseline year model is frequently refreshed, this ensures that any deviations of the actual re-offending rate from the predicted rate are due to system changes and not due to changes in the cohort make up. This approach enables us to assess progress in reducing re-offending. Whereas, the prison model is generated from scratch every year and assesses if any prison differs from the national average. As with the previous approach, the observed re-offending rate is still equal to the predicted re-offending for the prison population as a whole. It will not necessarily be the case for individual prisons. This approach provides an idea of which prisons have significantly lower (or higher) re-offending rates than predicted.
- Work is underway to develop an equivalent model for probation trusts to the one used for prisons. Appendix A: List of serious offences
Serious violence against the person
1. Murder:
1. Of persons aged 1 year or over.
2. Of infants under 1 year of age.
2. Attempted murder.
3. Manslaughter, etc.:
1. Manslaughter.
2. Infanticide.
3. Child destruction.
4. Wounding or other act endangering life:
01. Wounding, etc. with intent to do grievous bodily harm, etc. or to resist apprehension.
02. Shooting at naval or revenue vessels.
03. Attempting to choke, suffocate, etc. with intent to commit an indictable offence (garrotting).
04. Using chloroform, etc. to commit or assist in committing an indictable offence.
05. Burning, maiming, etc. by explosion.
06. Causing explosions or casting corrosive fluids with intent to do grievous bodily harm.
07. Impeding the saving of life from shipwreck.
08. Placing, etc. explosives in or near ships or buildings with intent to do bodily harm, etc.
09. Endangering life or causing harm by administering poison.
10. Causing danger by causing anything to be on road, interfering with a vehicle or traffic equipment.
11. Possession, etc. of explosives with intent to endanger life.
12. Possession of firearms, etc. with intent to endanger life or injure property, etc. (Group I).
13. Possession of firearms, etc. with intent to endanger life or injure property, etc. (Group II).
14. Possession of firearms, etc. with intent to endanger life or injure property, etc. (Group III).
15. Using, etc. firearms or imitation firearms with intent to resist arrest, etc. (Group I).
16. Using, etc. firearms or imitation firearms with intent to resist arrest, etc. (Group II).
17. Using, etc. firearms or imitation firearms with intent to resist arrest, etc. (Group III). [Group I - Firearms, etc. other than as described in Group II or III. Group II - Shotguns as defined in s.1 (3)(a) of the Firearms Act 1968. Group III - Air weapons as defined in s.1 (3)(b) of the Firearms Act 1968]
18. Use etc. of chemical weapons.
19. Use of premises or equipment for producing chemical weapons.
20. Use, threat to use, production or possession of a nuclear weapon.
21. Weapons related acts overseas.
22. Use of noxious substances or things to cause harm or intimidate.
23. Performing an aviation function or ancillary function when ability to carry out function is impaired because of drink or drugs.
24. Endangering safety at sea/aerodromes.
25. Torture.
5. Other wounding, etc.:
1. Wounding or inflicting grievous bodily harm (inflicting bodily injury with or without weapon).
6. Racially aggravated wounding or inflicting grievous bodily harm (inflicting bodily injury with or without weapon).
7. Religiously aggravated malicious wounding or GBH.
8. Racially or religiously aggravated malicious wounding or grievous bodily harm.
Sexual offences
017. Sexual assault on a male (previously indecent assault on a male):
018. Indecent assault on male person under 16 years.
019. Indecent assault on male person 16 years or over.
020. Assault on a male by penetration.
021. Assault of a male child under 13 by penetration.
022. Sexual assault on a male.
023. Sexual assault of a male child under 13.
024. Rape:
025. Man having unlawful sexual intercourse with a woman who is a defective.
026. Male member of staff of hospital or mental nursing home having unlawful sexual intercourse with female patient.
027. Man having unlawful sexual intercourse with mentally disordered female patient who is subject to his care.
028. Rape of a female aged under 16.
029. Rape of a female aged 16 or over.
030. Rape of a male aged under 16.
031. Rape of a male aged 16 or over.
032. Attempted rape of a female aged under 16.
033. Attempted rape of a female aged 16 or over.
034. Attempted rape of a male aged under 16.
035. Attempted rape of a male aged 16 or over.
036. Rape of female child under 13 by a male.
037. Rape of a male child under 13 by a male.
038. Attempted rape of a female child under 13 by a male.
039. Attempted rape of a male child under 13 by a male.
040. Sexual assault on female (previously indecent assault on a female):
041. On females under 16 years of age.
042. On females aged 16 years and over.
043. Assault on a female by penetration.
044. Assault on a female child under 13 by penetration.
045. Sexual assault on a female.
046. Sexual assault on a female child under 13.
047. Sexual activity (male and female) (including with a child under 13) (previously unlawful intercourse with a girl under 13):
048. Causing or inciting a female child under 13 to engage in sexual activity - penetration.
049. Causing or inciting a female child under 13 to engage in sexual activity - no penetration.
050. Causing or inciting a male child under 13 to engage in sexual activity - penetration.
051. Causing or inciting a male child under 13 to engage in sexual activity - no penetration.
052. Sexual activity with a female child under 13 - offender aged 18 or over - penetration.
053. Sexual activity with a male child under 13 - offender aged 18 or over - penetration.
054. Causing or inciting a female child under 13 to engage in sexual activity - offender aged 18 or over – penetration.
055. Causing or inciting a male child under 13 to engage in sexual activity - offender aged 18 or over - penetration.
056. Engaging in sexual activity in the presence of a child under 13 (offender aged 18 or over).
057. Causing a child under 13 to watch a sexual act (offender aged 18 or over).
058. Sexual activity with a female child under 13 - offender aged under 18.
059. Sexual activity with a male child under 13 - offender aged under 18.
060. Causing of inciting a female child under 13 to engage in sexual activity - offender under 18.
061. Causing or inciting a male child under 13 to engage in sexual activity - offender under 18.
062. Engaging in sexual activity in the presence of a child under 13 - offender under 18.
063. Causing a child under 13 to watch a sexual act - offender under 18.
064. Sexual activity with a female under 13 - offender aged 18 or over - no penetration.
065. Sexual activity with a male child under 13 - offender aged 18 or over - no penetration.
066. Causing or inciting a female child under 13 to engage in sexual activity - offender aged 18 or over - no penetration.
067. Causing or inciting a male child under 13 to engage in sexual activity - offender aged 18 or over - no penetration.
068. Sexual activity with a female child under 16 - offender aged 18 or over - no penetration.
069. Sexual activity with a male child under 16 - offender aged 18 or over - no penetration.
070. Causing or inciting a female child under 16 to engage in sexual activity - offender aged 18 or over - no penetration.
071. Causing or inciting a male child under 16 to engage in sexual activity - offender aged 18 or over - no penetration.
072. Sexual activity (male and female) (including with a child under 16) (previously unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl under 16):
073. Unlawful sexual intercourse with girl under 16 (offences committed prior to 1 May 2004).
074. Causing a female person to engage in sexual activity without consent – penetration.
075. Causing a male person to engage in sexual activity without consent – penetration.
076. Causing a female person to engage in sexual activity without consent - no penetration.
077. Causing a male person to engage in sexual activity without consent - no penetration.
078. Sexual activity with a female child under 16 (offender aged 18 or over) – penetration.
079. Sexual activity with a male child under 16 (offender aged 18 or over) – penetration.
080. Causing or inciting a female child under 16 to engage in sexual activity (offender aged 18 or over) - penetration
081. Causing of inciting a male child under 16 to engage in sexual activity (offender aged 18 or over) – penetration.
082. Engaging in sexual activity in the presence of a child under 16 (offender aged 18 or over).
083. Causing a child under 16 to watch a sexual act (offender aged 18 or over).
084. Sexual activity with a female child under 16 - offender aged 18 or over - no penetration.
085. Sexual activity with a male child under 16 - offender aged 18 or over - no penetration.
086. Causing or inciting a female child under 16 to engage in sexual activity (offender aged 18 or over) - no penetration.
087. Causing or inciting a male child under 16 to engage in sexual activity (offender aged 18 or over) - no penetration.
088. Sexual activity etc. with a person with a mental disorder:
089. Sexual activity with a male person with a mental disorder impeding choice – penetration.
090. Sexual activity with a female person with a mental disorder impeding choice – penetration.
091. Sexual activity with a male person with a mental disorder impeding choice - no penetration.
092. Sexual activity with a female person with a mental disorder impeding choice - no penetration.
093. Causing or inciting a male person with a mental disorder impeding choice to engage in sexual activity – penetration.
094. Causing or inciting a female person with a mental disorder impeding choice to engage in sexual activity – penetration.
095. Causing or inciting a male person with a mental disorder impeding choice to engage in sexual activity – penetration.
096. Causing or inciting a female person with a mental disorder impeding choice to engage in sexual activity - no penetration.
097. Engaging in sexual activity in the presence of a person with a mental disorder impeding choice.
098. Causing a person with a mental disorder impeding choice to watch a sexual act.
099. Inducement, threat or deception to procure sexual activity with a person with a mental disorder – penetration.
100. Inducement, threat or deception to procure sexual activity with a person with a mental disorder - no penetration.
101. Causing a person with a mental disorder to engage in sexual activity by inducement, threat or deception - penetration.
102. Causing a person with a mental disorder to engage in sexual activity by inducement, threat or deception - no penetration.
103. Engaging in sexual activity in the presence, procured by inducement, threat or deception, of a person with a mental disorder.
104. Causing a person with a mental disorder to watch a sexual act by inducement, threat or deception.
105. Care workers: Sexual activity with a male person with a mental disorder - penetration.
106. Care workers: Sexual activity with a female person with a mental disorder - penetration.
107. Care workers: Sexual activity with a male person with a mental disorder - no penetration.
108. Care workers: Sexual activity with a female person with a mental disorder - no penetration.
109. Care workers: Causing or inciting sexual activity (person with a mental disorder) - penetration.
110. Care workers: Causing or inciting sexual activity (person with a mental disorder) - no penetration.
111. Care workers: Sexual activity in the presence of a person with a mental disorder.
112. Care workers: Causing a person with a mental disorder impeding choice to watch a sexual act.
113. Abuse of children through prostitution and pornography (previously child prostitution and pornography):
114. Arranging or facilitating the commission of a child sex offence.
115. Paying for sex with a female child under 13 - penetration
116. Paying for sex with a male child under 13 - penetration
117. Paying for sex with a female child under 16 - no penetration.
118. Paying for sex with a male child under 16 - no penetration.
119. Paying for sex with a female child aged 16 or 17.
120. Paying for sex with a male child aged 16 or 17.
121. Causing or inciting child prostitution or pornography - child aged 13-17.
122. Controlling a child prostitute or a child involved in pornography - child aged 13-17.
123. Arranging or facilitating child prostitution or pornography - child aged 13-17.
124. Causing or inciting child prostitution or pornography - child under 13.
125. Controlling a child prostitute or child involved in pornography - child under 13.
126. Arranging or facilitating child prostitution or pornography - child under 13.
127. Paying for sex with a female child aged under 16 – penetration.
128. Paying for sex with a male child aged under 16 – penetration.
129. Trafficking for sexual exploitation:
130. Arranging or facilitating arrival of a person into the UK for sexual exploitation (trafficking).
131. Arranging or facilitating travel of a person within the UK for sexual exploitation (trafficking).
132. Arranging or facilitating departure of a person from the UK for sexual exploitation (trafficking).
Taking and driving away and related offences
37. Aggravated vehicle taking:
38. Where, owing to the driving of the vehicle, an accident occurs causing the death of any person.
Other motoring offences
4. Manslaughter, etc.: 4. Causing death by dangerous driving. 8. (Offences) Causing death by careless or inconsiderate driving (Offences due to commence in Autumn 2007).
Drink driving offences
4. Manslaughter, etc.: 6. Causing death by careless driving when under the influence of drink or drugs.
Serious acquisitive offences
Burglary
1. Burglary in a dwelling with intent to commit or the commission of an offence triable only on indictment.
2. Burglary in a dwelling with violence or the threat of violence.
3. Other burglary in a dwelling.
4. Aggravated burglary in a dwelling (including attempts).
Robbery
1. Robbery.
2. Assault with intent to rob.
Taking and driving away
1. Aggravated taking where the vehicle was driven dangerously on a road or other public place.
2. Aggravated taking where owing to the driving of the vehicle an accident occurred causing injury to any person or damage to any property other than the vehicle.
Theft from or of vehicles
1. Stealing from motor vehicles.
2. Stealing from other vehicles.
3. Theft of motor vehicle.
4. Unauthorised taking of a motor vehicle. Appendix B: Glossary of terms
Re-offending terms
Cohort – this is the group of individuals whose re-offending is measured.
Index offence – the index offence is the proven offence that leads to an offender being included in the cohort.
Index disposal – the index disposal of the offender is the type of sentence the offender received for their index offence.
Start point (index date) – this is the set point in time from when re-offences are measured.
Follow-up period – this is the length of time proven re-offending is measured over.
Waiting period – this is the additional time beyond the follow-up period to allow for offences committed towards the end of the follow-up period to be proved by a court conviction, caution, reprimand or final warning.
Adjusted to baseline – proven re-offending is related to the characteristics of offenders which means that any overall rate of proven re-offending will depend, in part, on the characteristics of offenders coming into the system (just as the examination pass rate of a school will be related to the characteristics of its pupils). We use a modelling technique to produce a baseline figure adjusted to match the characteristics of the cohort we are comparing.
Re-conviction – where an offender is convicted at court for an offence committed within a set follow-up period and convicted within either the follow-up period or waiting period.
Proven re-offence – where an offender is convicted at court or receives some other form of criminal justice sanction for an offence committed within a set follow-up period and disposed of within either the follow-up period or waiting period.
Cohort definition used in the Proven Re-offending Statistics Quarterly Bulletin – the proven re-offending cohort consists of all offenders discharged from custody, otherwise sanctioned at court, receiving a caution, reprimand or warning or tested positive for opiates or cocaine in each year. This cohort’s criminal history is collated and criminal behaviour is tracked over the following one year. Any offence committed in this one year period which is proven by a court conviction or out-of-court disposal (either in the one year period, or in a further six months waiting period) counts as a proven re-offence. The latest available publication is the Proven Re-offending Statistics Quarterly Bulletin in England and Wales; Ministry of Justice, October 2012. Cohort definition used in the Local Adult Re-offending Quarterly Bulletin – the local adult re-offending measure takes a snapshot of all offenders, aged 18 or over, who are under probation supervision at the end of a quarter, and combines four such snapshots together. This cohort’s criminal history is collated and criminal behaviour is tracked over the following three months. Any offence committed in this three month period which is proven by a court conviction or out-of-court disposal (either in the three month period, or in a further three months waiting period) counts as a proven re-offence. The latest available publication is the Local Adult Re-offending: 1 April 2011 – 31 March 2012, England and Wales; Ministry of Justice, August 2012.
Disposal (sentence type)
Fine – a financial penalty imposed following conviction.
Court orders – court orders include community sentences, community orders and suspended sentence orders supervised by the Probation Service. They do not include any pre or post release supervision.
Criminal Justice Act 2003 (CJA03) – for offences committed on or after 4 April 2005, the new community order replaced all existing community sentences for adults. The Act also introduced a new suspended sentence order for offences which pass the custody threshold. It also changed the release arrangements for prisoners. See Appendix A of Offender Management Caseload Statistics 2009 for more information.
Community order – for offences committed on or after 4 April 2005, the new community order introduced under the CJA 2003 replaced all existing community sentences for those aged 18 years and over. This term refers to all court orders except suspended sentence orders and deferred sentences which may have a custodial component to the sentence. The court must add at least one, but could potentially add all 12 requirements depending on the offences and the offender. The requirements are:
- unpaid work (formerly community service/community punishment) – a requirement to complete between 40 and 300 hours’ unpaid work;
- activity – for example, to attend basic skills classes;
- programme – there are several designed to reduce the prospects of re-offending;
- prohibited activity – a requirement not do so something that is likely to lead to further offence or nuisance;
- curfew – which is electronically monitored; • exclusion – this is not used frequently as there is no reliable electronic monitoring yet available;
• residence – requirement to reside only where approved by probation officer;
• mental health treatment (requires offender’s consent);
• drug rehabilitation (requires offender’s consent);
• alcohol treatment (requires offender’s consent);
• supervision – meetings with probation officer to address needs/offending behaviour; and
• attendance centre – between a minimum of 12 hours and a maximum of 36 in total which includes three hours of activity.
Typically, the more serious the offence and the more extensive the offender’s needs, the more requirements there will be. Most orders will comprise of one or two requirements, but there are packages of several requirements available where required. The court tailors the order as appropriate and is guided by the Probation Service through a pre-sentence report.
**Suspended sentence order (SSO)** – the CJA 2003 introduced a new suspended sentence order which is made up of the same requirements as a community order and, in the absence of breach is served wholly in the community supervised by the Probation Service. It consists of an ‘operational period’ (the time for which the custodial sentence is suspended) and a ‘supervision period’ (the time during which any requirements take effect). Both may be between six months and two years and the ‘supervision period’ cannot be longer than the ‘operational period’, although it may be shorter. Failure to comply with the requirements of the order or commission of another offence will almost certainly result in a custodial sentence.
**Pre CJA03 Court Orders – Community sentences**
**Community punishment order (CPO)** – the offender is required to undertake unpaid community work.
**Community rehabilitation order (CRO)** - a community sentence which may have additional requirements such as residence, probation centre attendance or treatment for drug, alcohol or mental health problems.
**Community punishment and rehabilitation order (CPRO)** – a community sentence consisting of probation supervision alongside community punishment, with additional conditions like those of a community rehabilitation order. Drug treatment and testing order (DTTO) – a community sentence targeted at offenders with drug-misuse problems.
Custody – the offender is awarded a sentence to be served in prison or a Young Offenders Institute (YOI). If the offender is given a sentence of 12 months or over, or is aged under 22 on release, the offender is supervised by the Probation Service on release. It is important to note that the sentence lengths and youth disposals awarded will be longer than the time served in custody. For more information please refer to Appendix A of Offender Management Caseload Statistics 2009.
Short sentences (under 12 months) – those sentenced to under 12 months (made under the Criminal Justice Act 1991) spend the first half of their sentence in prison and are then released and considered ‘at risk’ for the remaining period. This means they are under no positive obligations and do not report to the Probation Service, but if they commit a further imprisonable offence during the ‘at risk’ period, they can be made to serve the remainder of the sentence in addition to the punishment for the new offence. The exception to this is those aged 18 to 20 who have a minimum of three month’s supervision on release.
Sentences of 12 months or over – the CJA03 created a distinction between standard determinate sentences and public protection sentences. Offenders sentenced to a standard determinate sentence serve the first half in prison and the second half in the community on licence.
Youth disposal (sentence type)
Reprimand or warning – a reprimand is a formal verbal warning given by a police officer to a juvenile offender who admits they are guilty for a minor first offence. A final warning is similar to a reprimand, but can be used for either the first or second offence, and includes an assessment of the juvenile to determine the causes of their offending behaviour and a programme of activities is designed to address them.
First-tier penalties
Discharge – a juvenile offender is given an absolute discharge when they admit guilt, or are found guilty, with no further action taken. An offender given a conditional discharge also receives no immediate punishment, but is given a set period during which, if they commit a further offence, they can be brought back to court and re-sentenced.
- Fine – the size of the fine depends on the offence committed and the offender’s financial circumstances. In the case of juveniles under 16, the fine is the responsibility of the offender’s parent or carer.
- Referral order – this is given to juveniles pleading guilty and for whom it is their first time at court (unless the offence is so serious it merits a custodial sentence or it is of a relatively minor nature). The offender is required to attend a Youth Offender Panel to agree a contract, aimed to repair the harm caused by the offence and address the causes of the offending behaviour.
- **Reparation order** – the offender is required to repair the harm caused by their offence either directly to the victim or indirectly to the community.
**Youth Rehabilitation Order** – a community sentence for juvenile offenders, which came into effect on 30 November 2009 as part of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008. It combines a number of sentences into one generic sentence and is the standard community sentence used for the majority of children and young people who offend. The following requirements can be attached to a Youth Rehabilitation Order (YRO):
- activity requirement
- curfew requirement
- exclusion requirement
- local authority residence requirement
- education requirement
- mental health treatment requirement
- unpaid work requirement
- drug testing requirement
- intoxicating substance misuse requirement
- supervision requirement
- electronic monitoring requirement
- prohibited activity requirement
- drug treatment requirement
- residence requirement
- programme requirement
- attendance centre requirement
- intensive supervision and surveillance
- intensive fostering The following community sentences are replaced by the YRO, but will continue to exist for those that committed an offence before 30 November 2009. The YRO is only available for those that committed an offence on or after the 30 November 2009.
- action plan order
- curfew order
- supervision order
- supervision order and conditions
- community punishment order
- community punishment and rehabilitation order
- attendance centre order
- drug treatment and testing order
- exclusion order
- community rehabilitation order
**Prison categories**
**Category B and category C prisons** hold sentenced prisoners of their respective categories, including life sentenced prisoners. The regime focuses on programmes that address offending behaviour and provide education, vocational training and purposeful work for prisoners who will normally spend several years in one prison.
**High security prisons** hold category A and B prisoners. Category A prisoners are managed by a process of dispersal, and these prisons also hold a proportion of category B prisoners for whom they provide a similar regime to a category B prison. The category B prisoners held in a High Security Prison are not necessarily any more dangerous or difficult to manage than those in category B prisons.
**Female prisons**, as the name implies, hold female prisoners. Because of the smaller numbers, they are not divided into the same number of categories although there are variations in security levels.
**Local prisons** serve the courts in the area. Historically their main function was to hold un-convicted and un-sentenced prisoners and, once a prisoner had been sentenced, to allocate them on to a category B, C or D prison as appropriate to serve their sentence. However, pressure on places means that many shorter term prisoners serve their entire sentence in a local prison, while longer term prisoners also complete some offending behaviour and training programmes there before moving on to lower security conditions. All local prisons operate to category B security standards.
**Open prisons** have much lower levels of physical security and only hold category D prisoners. Many prisoners in open prisons will be allowed to go out of the prison on a daily basis to take part in voluntary or paid work in the community in preparation for their approaching release.
**Miscellaneous terms**
**Drug-misusing offenders**
There are four ways a drug-misusing offender can be identified:
- Individuals who have tested positive for heroin or crack/cocaine following an arrest or charge for ‘trigger’ offences (largely acquisitive crime offences) as part of the Drug Interventions Programme (DIP) are included as adult proven offenders.
- Any offender that received an OASys assessment whilst on licence or on a community sentence and are either recorded as being subject to a current Drug Treatment and Testing Order (DTTO) or Drug Rehabilitation Requirement (DRR), or are assessed as having a criminogenic drug need.
- Any offender identified as requiring further drug interventions by Counselling, Assessment, Referral, Advice, Throughcare (CARAT) teams in prison, and now being released into the community.
- Any offender identified by local Criminal Justice Integrated Teams (CJITs) as requiring further intervention for their drug use and offending as part of DIP.
**National Probation Service** – the National Probation Service generally deals with those aged 18 years and over. (Those under 18 are mostly dealt with by Youth Offending Teams, answering to the Youth Justice Board.) They are responsible for supervising offenders who are given community sentences and suspended sentence orders by the courts, as well as offenders given custodial sentences, both pre and post their release.
**Police National Computer** – the Police National Computer (PNC) is the police’s administrative IT system used by all police forces in England and Wales and managed by the National Policing Improvement Agency. As with any large scale recording system the PNC is subject to possible errors with data entry and processing. The MoJ maintains a database based on weekly extracts of selected data from the PNC in order to compile statistics and conduct research on re-offending and criminal histories. The PNC largely covers recordable offences – these are all indictable and triable-either-way offences plus many of the more serious summary offences. All figures derived from the MoJ’s PNC database, and in particular those for the most recent months, are likely to be revised as more information is recorded by the police. Prolific and other priority offenders – the Prolific and other Priority Offenders Programme (PPO) aims to use a multi-agency approach to focus on a very small, but hard core group of prolific/persistent offenders who commit disproportionate amounts of crime and cause disproportionate harm to their local communities. The identification of a PPO is undertaken at a local level involving police, local authorities, prison and probation services and youth offending teams. The factors that influence the decision of whether an offender is included in the PPO programme are:
- the nature and volume of crimes they commit;
- the nature and volume of other harm they cause; and
- the detrimental impact they have on their community.
Recordable offences – recordable offences are those that the police are required to record on the PNC. They include all offences for which a custodial sentence can be given plus a range of other offences defined as recordable in legislation. They exclude a range of less serious summary offences, for example television licence evasion, driving without insurance, speeding and vehicle tax offences.
Indictable and summary offences – summary offences are triable only by a magistrates’ court. This group includes motoring offences, common assault and criminal damage up to £5,000. More serious offences are classed either as triable-either-way (these can be tried either at the Crown Court or at a magistrates’ court and include criminal damage where the value is £5,000 or greater, theft and burglary) or indictable-only (the most serious offences that must be tried at the Crown Court; these ‘indictable-only’ offences include murder, manslaughter, rape and robbery). The term indictable offences is used to refer to all triable-either-way and ‘indictable-only’ offences.
Offence group – a split of offences into 21 separate groups. A more detailed split of the 10 indictable offence groups (violence against the person, sexual offences, burglary, robbery, theft and handling and stolen goods, fraud and forgery, criminal damage, drug offences, other indictable offences (excluding motoring), indictable motoring) and the two summary offence groups (summary non-motoring and summary motoring offence types). Appendix C: Comparison of the three measures of re-offending
Figure A1 below compares how the three measures of re-offending (the headline proven re-offending measure, the early estimates of re-offending and local adult re-offending) are constructed. It shows the period over which the re-offending cohort is formed, the time over which re-offending is measured, the additional time allowed for re-offending to be proven, and the time taken to collect and analyse the data, and then to publish.
Figure A1: how the three re-offending measures are constructed
| Measure | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | |--------------------------|------|------|------| | **Headline measure** | | | | | Cohort formation | | | | | Re-offences | | | | | Re-offences proven | | | | | Data collection and analysis | | | | | Publication | Oct-11| | | | **Early Estimates measure** | | | | | Cohort formation | | | | | Re-offences | | | | | Re-offences proven | | | | | Data collection and analysis | | | | | Publication | Oct-11| | | | **Local Re-offending measure** | | | | | Cohort formation based on probation caseload snapshots at end of each quarter | | | | | Re-offences | | | | | Re-offences proven | | | | | Data collection and analysis | | | | | Publication | Nov-11| | |
Cohort formation Headline measure and early estimates: offenders enter the cohort when they receive a caution (adults), a final warning or reprimand (juveniles), are given a non-custodial conviction, are released from custody or test positive for cocaine or opiates in the cohort formation period shown.
Local adult re-offending: this uses a snapshot of all offenders aged 18 or over, who are under probation supervision at the end of a quarter, and combines four such snapshots together.
Re-offences Headline measure: A re-offence is counted if the offence occurs within the "Re-offences" period shown. This is within 12 months of entering the cohort.
Early estimates and local adult re-offending: A re-offence is counted if the offence occurs within three months of entering the cohort for the early estimates measure and within three months following each of the four caseload snapshots for the local re-offending measure.
Re-offences proven Headline measure: For a re-offence to be counted it must also be proven within the "Re-offences proven" period shown. This is within six months of the re-offence.
Early estimates and local adult re-offending: For a re-offence to be counted it must also be proven within the "Re-offences proven" period shown. This is within three months of the re-offence. Contact details and further information
For queries, comments or further information, please contact:
**Nick Mavron**\
Justice Statistics Analytical Services\
Ministry of Justice\
7th floor\
102 Petty France\
London\
SW1H 9AJ
Email: [[email protected]](mailto:[email protected])
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/4807-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 48,
"total-input-tokens": 94964,
"total-output-tokens": 28192,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
84,
1
],
[
84,
495,
2
],
[
495,
2156,
3
],
[
2156,
4734,
4
],
[
4734,
6097,
5
],
[
6097,
7391,
6
],
[
7391,
9422,
7
],
[
9422,
11690,
8
],
[
11690,
15369,
9
],
[
15369,
17332,
10
],
[
17332,
19780,
11
],
[
19780,
22310,
12
],
[
22310,
23013,
13
],
[
23013,
25011,
14
],
[
25011,
25873,
15
],
[
25873,
28704,
16
],
[
28704,
31520,
17
],
[
31520,
33986,
18
],
[
33986,
36464,
19
],
[
36464,
38971,
20
],
[
38971,
41329,
21
],
[
41329,
45382,
22
],
[
45382,
47478,
23
],
[
47478,
50215,
24
],
[
50215,
51076,
25
],
[
51076,
53102,
26
],
[
53102,
55427,
27
],
[
55427,
58102,
28
],
[
58102,
60795,
29
],
[
60795,
66178,
30
],
[
66178,
69795,
31
],
[
69795,
72487,
32
],
[
72487,
75113,
33
],
[
75113,
77708,
34
],
[
77708,
80591,
35
],
[
80591,
83813,
36
],
[
83813,
87267,
37
],
[
87267,
89079,
38
],
[
89079,
91483,
39
],
[
91483,
93845,
40
],
[
93845,
96075,
41
],
[
96075,
98876,
42
],
[
98876,
100100,
43
],
[
100100,
102024,
44
],
[
102024,
104701,
45
],
[
104701,
106942,
46
],
[
106942,
109881,
47
],
[
109881,
110212,
48
]
]
} |
0c6bb41ce66e9af34861aedf97ef0e48c6a15d5a | Proven Reoffending Statistics: Definitions and Measurement
Published April 2016 Contents
Proven reoffending statistics quarterly bulletin 3 Early estimates of proven reoffending statistics 11 Data quality 12 Statistical modelling and coefficients 20 Appendix A: List of serious offences 20 Appendix B: Glossary of terms 25 Explanatory notes 32 Contact details and further information 33 Proven reoffending statistics quarterly bulletin
Consultation
In October 2015, we published a public consultation on proposals to change the presentation of the data in reoffending statistics produced from October 2017. These changes will be the direct consequence of reforms made to the probation services through introducing the Offender Rehabilitation Act in February 2015. We have published a response to this consultation alongside this document.
Background
The Ministry of Justice launched a statistical consultation on improvements to the transparency and accessibility of our information in 2010 and a response to the consultation was published in March 2011. One aspect of the consultation was the measurement of proven reoffending. Responses supported the proposals to move to a single framework for measuring reoffending where adult and youth data can be provided at national and local levels on a consistent basis. The response to the consultation is available here.
Prior to this consultation there were six different measures of proven reoffending:
- national adult proven reoffending;
- local adult proven reoffending;
- national youth proven reoffending;
- local youth proven reoffending;
- prolific and other priority offending (PPO); and
- drug-misusing proven offending.
The framework that was developed for measuring proven reoffending integrated these approaches into a single framework. This allowed users to:
- form a clear picture of proven reoffending at national and local levels;
- compare adult and youth results, and enable other work on transition between the youth and adult system; • understand how results for different offender groups (such as those managed by the prison and probation services, those under the PPO schemes, drug-misusing offenders, first time entrants, etc.) fit into the overall picture on proven reoffending; and
• continue to analyse proven reoffending behaviour for particular types of offender.
Since its inception, the framework for measuring proven reoffending has undergone a number of changes as a result of changes to two key data streams.
• Due to changes to the way drug testing data are collected centrally, from the quarterly report published 30 October 2014 (covering proven reoffending over the calendar year 2012) and for all later publications in the series, adults who test positive for Class A drugs alone (without receiving a conviction or caution) are no longer included.
• Due to an inconsistency of the recording of the available data for PPOs, from the report published 29 January 2015 (covering proven reoffending over the period 1 April 2012 to 31 March 2013) and for all later publications in the series, results on this group are also no longer included.
• Because of the aforementioned changes, all the offender characteristics needed to produce the predicted reoffending models used in publications prior to the April 2012 to March 2013 bulletin are no longer available. Therefore, from the report published 29 January 2015 (covering proven reoffending over the period 1 April 2012 to 31 March 2013) and for all later publications in the series, there is no longer any reference to a predicted rate.
This bulletin is published alongside two inter-related bulletins:
**Offender Management Statistics Quarterly**: provides key statistics relating to offenders who are in prison or under Probation Service supervision.
**Safety in Custody Statistics Quarterly, England and Wales**: provides statistics on death, self harm and assault incidents whilst in prison custody. Measurement
The underlying principle of measuring reoffending (or recidivism, which is the most commonly used term internationally) is that someone who has received some form of criminal justice sanction (such as a conviction or a caution) goes on to commit another offence within a set time period.
Measuring true reoffending is difficult. Official records are taken from either the police or courts, but they will underestimate the true level of reoffending because only a proportion of crime is detected and sanctioned and not all crimes and sanctions are recorded on one central system. Other methods of measuring reoffending, such as self report studies, are likely to also underestimate the rate.
Following the Ministry of Justice Consultation on Improvements to Ministry of Justice Statistics, a proven reoffence is defined as any offence committed in a one year follow-up period that resulted in a court conviction, caution, reprimand or warning in the one year follow-up or a further six month waiting period (to allow time for cases to progress through the courts). The data source is the extract of the Police National Computer (PNC) held by the Ministry of Justice. Definitions for the measurement of proven reoffending
Cohort This is the group of offenders for whom reoffending is measured. For the Proven Reoffending Statistics Quarterly Bulletin, this is defined as all offenders in any one year who received a caution, a final warning or reprimand (for juveniles), a non-custodial conviction or who were released from custody.
Offenders who were released from custody or secure accommodation (juveniles only) or commenced a court order are matched to the PNC database. A proportion of cases are lost in this process because they cannot be matched (see the section below titled “Matching offender records” for further details). Additionally, offenders who appear multiple times in the cohort are only included once (see the section below titled “Multiple offender entries” for further details).
The group of offenders whose offending behaviour is proven is likely to be a sub-group of all active offenders. The Offending, Crime and Justice Survey (2003) estimated that around one in ten people in England and Wales aged between ten and 65 had committed an offence in the previous 12 months, which translates into approximately 3.8 million people. This compares to around 632,000 offenders in the 2002 cohort used to measure proven reoffending, underlining that the offenders whose proven reoffending behaviour is presented in the Proven Reoffending Statistics Quarterly Bulletin are a small and probably unrepresentative sample of the population of all active offenders.
Index disposal (sentence type) The index disposal of the offender is the type of sentence the offender received for their index offence. For the Proven Reoffending Statistics Quarterly Bulletin, this is defined as custody, court order, other disposal resulting from a conviction at court, such as a fine or discharge, caution, reprimand or final warning (young offenders).
Index offence The index offence is the proven offence that leads to an offender being included in the cohort. An offence is only counted as an index offence if it is:
- recordable (see below);
- committed in England and Wales;
- prosecuted by the police; and
______________________________________________________________________
1 The Offending, Crime and Justice Survey (2003) was a random probability survey of 10,079 people aged from ten to 65 and asked people about their offending history. Like any such survey, its accuracy is dependent upon the level of honesty with which respondents completed the survey. • not a breach offence.
Start point (index date) This is the set point in time from when proven reoffences are measured. For the Proven Reoffending Statistics Quarterly Bulletin, this is defined as the date of prison discharge, the date of court conviction for non-custodial sentences, or the date of receipt for a caution, reprimand or final warning.
Follow-up period This is the length of time over which proven reoffending is measured. For the Proven Reoffending Statistics Quarterly Bulletin, this is defined as 12 months from the start point.
Waiting period This is the additional time beyond the follow-up period to allow for offences which are committed towards the end of the follow-up period to be proven by a court, resulting in a conviction, caution, reprimand or final warning. For the Proven Reoffending Statistics Quarterly Bulletin, this is six months.
Figure 1 below illustrates why different offences for an example offender are included or excluded in the proven reoffending measure.
Figure 1: How events of reoffending are included in the measure?
Events A to E all occur in the one year follow-up period, but events F and G are outside this period, so would not be counted. Events A to D are all counted because they were all proven within the one year follow-up period or the further six month waiting period, but event E, even though the offence took place in the one year follow-up period, would not be counted, as the conviction did not occur within either the one year follow-up period, or the further six month waiting period. The offender has, therefore, committed seven proven offences during the one year follow-up period (two for event A, one for event B, three for event C, and one for event D).
Proven reoffence Offences are counted as proven reoffences if they meet all of the following criteria:
• They are recordable. Not all offences are on the PNC and more recordable offences are entered than non-recordable offences. Analysis comparing offences proven at court with offences recorded on the PNC suggests the most cost common offences that are not recorded relates to motor vehicles, e.g. using a motor vehicle whilst uninsured against third party risks, speeding offences, keeping a vehicle on the highway without a driving licence or television licence evasion.
- They were committed in England or Wales.
- They are offences that were prosecuted by the police. PNC data are collected and input by the police and offences prosecuted by the police are likely to be recorded more comprehensively on the PNC than offences that are prosecuted by other organisations. For example, benefit fraud is prosecuted by the Department for Work and Pensions. Therefore, benefit fraud offences may be poorly represented on the PNC.
- Offences are only counted if they are proven through caution, reprimands or final warnings (for juveniles) and court convictions. Offences that are not proven, or which meet with other responses from the Criminal Justice System, are not counted. The Offending, Crime and Justice Survey (2003) estimated that 6% of all offences resulted in any contact with the Criminal Justice System.
- The offence is not a breach offence, i.e. breach of a court order, since we are only interested in new offences.
**Measures of proven reoffending**
Proven reoffending data are presented in the following ways:
- The number of offenders.
- The proportion of offenders who are proven reoffenders.
- The average number of proven reoffences among **reoffenders**.
- The average number of proven reoffences among **all offenders** including those who committed no proven reoffences (previously the frequency rate).
- The proportion of proven offenders who committed a proven serious violent or sexual reoffence against the person. Refer to Annex A for details on what counts as a serious violent or sexual offence.
- The proportion of proven offenders who committed a proven serious acquisitive reoffence. Refer to Annex A for details on what counts as a serious acquisitive offence.
**Multiple offender entries**
Each offender is tracked over a fixed period of time and any proven offence committed in this period is counted as a proven reoffence. A multiple offender entry refers to an offender who, after entering the cohort in a given year, commits a reoffence and is either cautioned, discharged from prison or gets a non-custodial conviction in the same cohort year. This reoffence could also be included as a second entry for this offender into the cohort. To date, publications have avoided the double counting of these multiple offender entries (MOE) by only counting an individual once based on their first proven offence in the relevant time period. In the illustration above, the caution would be counted as the index disposal and the further two proven offences would be counted as reoffences. This avoids double counting of proven reoffences.
In this publication the main tables (tables A1 to A6 and B1 to B4) in the report have been produced on the basis of the ‘first proven offence in the relevant time period’ which led to an offender being included. This provides a picture of proven reoffending which is consistent with previous publications and tracks an offender, irrespective of the disposal they receive, to when they commit a proven reoffence.
The measure of proven reoffending now covers all offenders in any one year instead of the first quarter of a calendar year as in previous proven reoffending publications. The result is many more offenders with multiple entries.
In addition, including cautions to identify a proven offence means many offenders’ first offence will be associated with a caution since cautions account for around a third of adult offenders in one year. Table 1 shows the number of offenders in each cohort period by their number of entries.
Table 1: Number of offenders and their respective number of entries for 2000, 2002 to 2012 cohorts
| Multiple Offender Entries | 2000 | 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | |---------------------------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------| | 1 | 512,551 | 522,376 | 544,031 | 549,545 | 580,709 | 615,715 | 630,748 | 602,251 | 572,068 | 528,466 | 498,364 | 459,250 | | 2x | 75,311 | 77,813 | 81,651 | 78,827 | 80,968 | 86,866 | 90,870 | 87,427 | 83,235 | 78,430 | 74,314 | 66,028 | | 3x | 19,565 | 21,208 | 22,073 | 20,840 | 20,908 | 21,823 | 23,590 | 23,499 | 22,005 | 21,332 | 20,479 | 17,892 | | 4x | 6,195 | 6,689 | 7,074 | 6,833 | 6,720 | 6,768 | 7,605 | 7,882 | 7,319 | 7,396 | 7,115 | 6,289 | | 5x | 1,998 | 2,314 | 2,392 | 2,355 | 2,355 | 2,411 | 2,774 | 2,894 | 2,927 | 2,902 | 2,963 | 2,592 | | 6 to 10x | 1,240 | 1,510 | 1,689 | 1,641 | 1,505 | 1,509 | 1,964 | 2,332 | 2,303 | 2,361 | 2,500 | 2,292 | | Greater than 10x | 164 | 155 | 129 | 131 | 119 | 115 | 114 | 160 | 202 | 193 | 190 | 178 | | Total MOEs | 104,473 | 109,689 | 115,008 | 110,627 | 112,575 | 119,492 | 126,917 | 124,194 | 117,991 | 112,614 | 107,561 | 95,271 | | % of Total Cohort | 16.3% | 17.4% | 17.5% | 16.8% | 16.2% | 16.3% | 16.8% | 17.1% | 17.1% | 17.8% | 17.8% | 17.2% | | Cohort | 617,024 | 632,065 | 659,039 | 660,172 | 693,284 | 735,287 | 757,665 | 726,445 | 690,059 | 641,080 | 605,925 | 584,521 |
1. Data are not available for 2001 due to a problem with archived data on Court Orders.
The number of offenders with multiple entries has remained fairly constant over time - the proportion of the total that had multiple offender entries has remained at about 16 to 18% between 2000 and 2012. Proven reoffending by index disposal, probation trust and prison
In order to measure proven reoffending on a consistent and representative basis by offender management groups, it is necessary to distinguish between the disposal (sentence) types that led to an offender being included. Doing this allows the cohort to be defined according to the relative start point of an offender’s interaction with the prison (released from custody) or probation services (court order commencement).
Tables C1-C3 provide reoffending data by disposal (sentence) types. These are produced on the basis of an individual’s first disposal (sentence) in that category. In the illustration above, the individual would appear once in the caution category, once in the community order category and once in the custody category. These tables will include an overall prison and probation proven reoffending rate which will be the figures we quote publicly. However, these figures should not be used when comparing proven reoffending rates across different disposals to compare effectiveness. Instead the *Compendium of Reoffending Statistics and Analysis 2013* publication should be referred to as this analysis controls for offender characteristics in order to give a more reliable estimate of the relative effectiveness of different disposals.
The prison/youth secure accommodation/probation trust data tool provide reoffending rates by individual prison and former probation trust, and National Probation Service Division (NPS). These are produced on the basis of an individual’s first disposal from each specified prison or probation trust. If the individual offender is discharged from two different prisons in the year they will appear in both of the prison’s reoffending rates. The same applies for offenders commencing court orders in more than one probation trust within the year. This is to allow prisons and probation services to track their caseload of offenders. Early estimates of proven reoffending statistics
Background
Responses from the consultation and from earlier engagement with representatives of front-line offender management services supported the proposal to produce early estimates of proven reoffending using shorter follow-up and waiting periods. This is intended to provide offender managers feedback on the proven reoffending trends of offenders they are working with in time for them to adjust or build on offender management operational policy. This section of the bulletin addresses these issues.
Early estimates of proven reoffending were previously presented for four particular offender groups; those managed by the probation service, prolific and other priority offenders (PPOs), drug-misusing offenders and young offenders managed by youth offending teams. Owing to changes described earlier data are now only presented for young offenders who are managed by youth offending teams (YOTs).
Proven reoffending for the early estimates is measured in exactly the same way as for the headline proven reoffending measure except that the follow-up period and waiting period are both three months each. (For the headline measure of proven reoffending they are 12 months and six months, respectively.)
The headline figures and early estimates differ in the following ways:
- Early estimates of proven reoffending rates are considerably lower than in the headline publication. This is because they cover a shorter time period.
- The shorter follow-up period and waiting period allow rates to be calculated for more recent groups of proven offenders.
- Early estimates of proven reoffending rates provide local offender management services with information on proven reoffending trends for the offenders they are working with. The headline reoffending publication presents the public with information on a wide range of proven reoffending trends and provides proven reoffending rates by a variety of breakdowns, such as age, gender, disposal (sentence type), etc.
- The shorter follow-up period and waiting period provides insufficient time for many serious reoffences to be committed and convicted. For this reason, early estimates of proven reoffending rates do not include information on serious reoffending. Data quality
The data required for measuring proven reoffending are based on a range of data sources (prison data, probation data, young offenders in secure accommodation, and criminal records from the Police National Computer) from a range of agencies (the National Offender Management Service, the Youth Justice Board, local authorities and the National Police Improvement Agency). These figures have been derived from administrative IT systems which, as with any large scale recording system, are subject to possible errors with data entry and processing.
Police National Computer data
Information regarding the proven reoffending behaviour of offenders has been compiled using the Ministry of Justice’s extract from the Police National Computer (PNC). The process involves matching offender details from the prison and probation data to the personal details recorded on the PNC. A proportion of cases cannot be matched and the figures presented in Table 2 below are expressed as a percentage of the offenders that are matched. Like any large scale recording system, the PNC is subject to errors with data entry and recording. The PNC is regularly updated so that further analysis at a later date will generate revised figures.
The quality of the information recorded on the PNC is generally assumed to be relatively high as it is an operational system on which the police depend, but analysis can reveal errors that are typical when handling administrative datasets of this scale. The extent of error or omitted records on the PNC is difficult to estimate because it is a unique data source. As a result, there is not always an obvious source of data to provide a baseline from which to assess data quality. For some types of results, however, comparisons can be made. For example, the trend in receptions into prison in each month is very similar using the PNC and prisons data (see below for details). Although the number of receptions recorded on the PNC is consistently slightly lower because prisons data include cases on remand whereas the PNC does not. Another example is the number of cases that are given a custodial sentence, broken down by offence type, which is similar using the PNC and the Court Proceedings Database with a match rate of 97%.
A number of improvements are routinely carried out:
- Updates to the coding and classification of offences and court disposals, including the reduction of uncoded offences, the reduction in the use of miscellaneous offence codes and the clarification of the coding of breach offences;
- Updates to the methods used to identify the primary offence, where several offences are dealt with on the same occasion, and the methods used to identify the primary disposal, where an offence attracts more than one court disposal; and • Removal of some duplication of records within the database resulting in improvements to the efficiency and reliability of the matching process.
Prison data
Prison establishments record details for individual inmates on the prison IT system (Prison-NOMIS or LIDS). The information recorded includes details such as date of birth, gender, religion, nationality, ethnic origin, custody type, offence, reception and discharge dates and, for sentenced prisoners, sentence length. The data from individual prison establishments then feeds through to a central computer database, called the Inmate Information System (IIS).
In May 2009, the National Offender Management Service (NOMS) began the roll-out of a new case management system for prisons (Prison-NOMIS). During the phased roll-out, data collection issues emerged that affected the supply of data for statistical purposes from July 2009 to February 2010. Specifically, statistical information on sentence length and offence group is not available on any of our prison datasets for this period.
In order to ensure the fullest possible set of data from July 2009 to February 2010, sentence lengths were estimated for those prisoners received or discharged before the problems were resolved. At the point when the problems were resolved, a small number of prison establishments were still using the old LIDS case management system; data for prisoners received or discharged from these prisons was assumed to be unaffected.
For those prisoners received or discharged from prisons operating Prison-NOMIS, efforts were made to populate their record with the correct sentence length using other data extracts. For example, many prisoners discharged in January 2010 were originally received into prison prior to July 2009, so their sentence length was taken from unaffected datasets before the problems began. Similarly, the majority of those received in early 2010 were still in prison in March 2010 when the problems were resolved, so the sentence length from the corrected prison population data was used.
Where it was not possible to populate a sentence length using other datasets, prisoners were allocated a sentence length band based on the number of days they spent in custody (taking account of early release schemes where relevant).
As a check on the methodology, an alternative estimation process was designed and the number of discharges in each sentence length band for the second half of 2009 was compared using the two methods.
A number of estimation methods were considered and tested on the 2008 data (prior to the data problems) to see which yielded estimates closest to the actual 2008 data. This identified the following method:
1. Calculate data for the first half of the year as a proportion of the full calendar year, for each year from 2001 to 2008; separately for each sentence length band or offence group (the two key breakdowns to be estimated).
2. Apply the average of these proportions to the January to June 2009 data to estimate the 2009 annual totals; separately for each sentence length band or offence group.
3. Scale the estimated numbers in each sentence length band or offence group to sum to the annual total recorded in the raw data (where the totals are known to be correct).
The maximum difference between the two approaches was 2.6% in the band ‘12 months to less than 4 years’; for all other bands the difference was less than 1%.
**Indeterminate sentence prisoners**
In addition to the above, data on the discharge of prisoners on indeterminate sentences, i.e. prisoners given a life sentence or an Indeterminate sentence for Public Protection (IPP), is provided from the Public Protection Unit Database (PPUD). This holds data jointly owned by the Offender Management and Public Protection Group (OMPPG) in NOMS and the Parole Board.
PPUD records details of all indeterminate sentence prisoners at the point of conviction, those engaged in the Generic Parole Process and prisoners (determinate and indeterminate) who have been recalled from licence. It also covers those who have received a restricted hospital order/direction from a Crown Court, and those remand and convicted prisoners who have been transferred from prison/detention centres to psychiatric hospital under the relevant sections of mental health legislation.
All decisions taken by the NOMS casework sections and the Parole Board are recorded on the system.
Personal information recorded includes (but is not limited to) name, date of birth, gender, identifying numbers, ethnicity, last known address, probation area and sentencing information.
OMPPG and the Parole Board run monthly and ad hoc reports to cleanse data that are not otherwise identified by data validation routines built into the system. Probation data
Since 2005, detailed information on the supervision of offenders (at the individual offender level) had been submitted by probation trusts on a monthly basis. These monthly ‘probation listings’ included information on offenders starting probation supervision. Between 2002 and 2005, this information was submitted quarterly, and prior to 2002 a different data collection system was in place, which meant that information on caseload had to be calculated based on the number of people starting supervision and the number of terminations. From June 2014, the Transforming Rehabilitation programme was launched, which changed the way offenders are managed in the community. Management of offenders serving their sentence in the community has been split into two groups, one consisting of high risk offenders who are managed by the National Probation Service (NPS) and another group consisting of low to medium risk offenders who are now managed by Community Rehabilitation Companies (CRCs).
The quality of the information recorded on the probation data is generally assumed to be relatively high as it is a direct extract from an operational system upon which the probation service depends for managing offenders locally. The extract consists of a small number of key fields for which completion is mandatory. Data is received centrally via the nDelius case management system and is subject to another set of data validation processes. Trends from the data are consistent with comparable time series from the Courts Proceeding Database. Any large scale recording systems are subject to possible errors with data entry and processing, but there are no known issues regarding the probation commencements data.
Young offenders in secure accommodation
Information about secure training centres (STCs) and secure children’s homes (SCHs) comes from the Youth Justice Board’s (YJB) eAsset database. Information about young people aged 17 and under and held in YOIs is supplied by the Prison Service and private YOIs.
The YJB monthly custody report has traditionally used data from the Secure Accommodation Clearing House System (SACHS), this was the system used by the YJB to book young people into custody. To meet information management challenges of a growing department and whilst improving our processes, the YJB has migrated to the use of the new eAsset system since March 2012.
As part of the work to implement the new system both SACHS and eAsset were run in parallel from 5th March to 1st July 2012. The YJB now has the ability to produce some reports from eAsset and has done work to quality assure the outputs against SACHS. While this work is ongoing and further reports are being developed we now believe the quality of data from this system is of a suitable level to publish as management information.
The quality of the information recorded on the eAsset database is generally assumed to be relatively high as it is a direct extract from an operational system which is used to place young people in custody. The extract uses a number of key fields for which completion is mandatory when booking a young person into custody.
Data processing and analysis
The data underpinning the results are considered by Ministry of Justice to be broadly robust. Considerable work has been carried out ensuring data quality, and the data have been used for research publications. Scrutiny of the data source continues in order to ensure the data remains reliable.
The National Audit Office (NAO) identified risk factors in its review of the reporting of PSA targets (NAO, 2005). The remainder of this section addresses these.
Matching offender records
This process involves matching data on prison discharges and court order commencements to the PNC database. The process uses automated matching routines that look at offenders’ surnames, initials, and dates of birth, using direct name matching along with a variety of ‘sounds like’ algorithms. The matching algorithm also searches through PNC held information on alias names and dates of birth for offenders. However, not all offenders are matched and a thorough analysis of bias in the matching system has yet to be undertaken.
Table 2 below shows that the overall matching rates between 2000 and 2012 have remained high.
Table 2: Matching rates for the different data sources for 2000, 2002 to 2012 cohorts
| | 2000 | 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | |----------------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------| | **Prison** | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Prison discharges | 87,083 | 87,338 | 85,920 | 86,970 | 84,897 | 83,725 | 87,340 | 95,824 | 94,114 | 93,137 | 89,773 | 91,009 | | Automatically matched to the PNC | 80,572 | 81,211 | 80,121 | 81,125 | 79,398 | 78,285 | 81,874 | 90,021 | 88,745 | 87,845 | 84,950 | 86,033 | | Matched to an index date | 73,810 | 75,121 | 73,327 | 73,390 | 71,246 | 68,185 | 76,688 | 74,189 | 65,278 | 67,512 | 71,059 | | | Percentage matched to the PNC | 92.5% | 93.0% | 93.3% | 93.3% | 93.5% | 93.5% | 93.7% | 93.9% | 94.3% | 94.3% | 94.6% | 94.9% | | Percentage matched to the PNC and index offences (not breach etc.) | 84.8% | 86.0% | 85.3% | 84.4% | 83.9% | 82.5% | 81.4% | 80.0% | 78.8% | 75.1% | 75.2% | 78.1% | | **Court Orders** | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Court order starts | 136,023 | 154,621 | 158,750 | 164,831 | 163,681 | 176,346 | 187,386 | 189,643 | 191,784 | 190,417 | 179,206 | 165,959 | | Automatically matched to the PNC | 123,540 | 142,838 | 148,257 | 154,075 | 158,416 | 172,306 | 184,740 | 187,253 | 190,128 | 185,112 | 178,026 | 164,937 | | Matched to an index date | 105,685 | 115,108 | 119,446 | 122,307 | 130,307 | 148,072 | 159,279 | 163,519 | 167,378 | 164,579 | 159,533 | 147,681 | | Percentage matched to the PNC | 90.8% | 92.4% | 93.4% | 93.5% | 96.8% | 98.0% | 98.6% | 98.7% | 99.1% | 99.3% | 99.3% | 99.4% | | Percentage matched to the PNC and index offences (not breach etc.) | 77.7% | 74.4% | 75.2% | 74.6% | 79.6% | 84.0% | 85.0% | 86.2% | 87.3% | 88.3% | 89.0% | 89.0% | | **YJB** | | | | | | | | | | | | | | YJB discharges | - | 1,337 | 1,612 | 1,521 | 1,551 | 1,564 | 1,553 | 1,567 | 1,626 | 1,770 | 891 | 836 | | Automatically matched to the PNC | - | 1,226 | 1,502 | 1,425 | 1,448 | 1,464 | 1,463 | 1,537 | 1,664 | 1,682 | 852 | 801 | | Matched to an index date | - | 680 | 818 | 785 | 800 | 769 | 780 | 845 | 817 | 916 | 647 | 607 | | Percentage matched to the PNC | - | 91.7% | 93.2% | 93.7% | 93.9% | 93.6% | 94.2% | 93.3% | 96.2% | 95.0% | 95.6% | 95.9% | | Percentage matched to the PNC and index offences (not breach etc.) | - | 50.9% | 50.7% | 51.6% | 51.6% | 49.2% | 50.2% | 51.3% | 50.2% | 51.8% | 72.6% | 72.6% |
1. Data are not available for 2001 due to a problem with archived data on Court Orders.
2. A new data collection method began in March 2012.
The total number of offenders matched to the PNC is substantially higher than the final figure for the cohorts – for example, in 2012 there were 252,071 matched offenders, but a final cohort size of 219,347. The main reasons for these discrepancies are:
- Conviction dates for the beginning of the community, suspended or custodial sentence do not match the conviction date within seven days of the criminal records from the PNC database;
- The index offence was not dealt with by a Home Office police force – this ensures that only offences in England and Wales are counted;
- Exclusion of all offenders where the index offence is a breach, since we are only interested in new offences; and
- Exclusion of multiple offender entries (see section above titled “Multiple offender entries” for further details).
**Counting rules**
The counting rules for choosing which prison discharges to include offer a variety of choices. For instance, it makes little sense to include offenders deported on release or who have died. These counting rules were enumerated and discussed to ensure a more accurate and consistent count and are reviewed on an annual basis to ensure a consistent approach.
**Complexity of data processing and analysis**
The data processing involved for measuring reoffending is complex. To analyse reoffending behaviour by previous offending or disposal history requires the extraction of criminal histories that can span a number of decades, and the subsequent matching of these histories against the probation caseload files and prison discharges in order to generate a dataset.
**The extraction of the criminal histories**
To quality assure the extraction of criminal histories, a small set of random samples of offenders was taken after the analysis to check, via a basic validation, that outputs of the SQL (Structured Query Language) program were accurate. The Ministry of Justice is confident that this process has been successful.
**Level of subjectivity**
There is relatively little subjectivity in the system. Occasional judgements are required (e.g. where to classify an offence), but these will not significantly influence the results. Maturity and stability of the data system
The system is well established having been used a number of times to produce reoffending statistics for publication. Nonetheless, vigilance continues to be exercised to ensure the validity of the results.
Expertise of those who operate the system
Prison and court order data-feeds are continually monitored and improvement work is regularly undertaken to improve the reliability and the accuracy of datasets. The internal processing of the results within the Ministry of Justice has been subject to dip sampling of criminal histories and the statistical model has been extensively tested.
Interpreting trends in the proportion of offenders who commit a serious reoffence against the person
Care should be taken when interpreting the severity rate for the following reasons:
- **Time through the Criminal Justice System** – more serious offences are likely to take a longer time to progress through the Criminal Justice System than less serious offences. The proven reoffending statistics track proven reoffending behaviour for a year upon offenders entering the cohort, plus an additional six months for convictions to be updated on the system. There is a risk that this time scale is not long enough to capture the most serious offences. However, analysis suggests that the number of serious proven reoffences picked up by the measure remains comparatively stable year on year, ensuring performance is comparable over time.
- **Reporting variation** – variation in reporting time between police force areas and courts may also have an impact on how many serious offences are captured during the one year follow-up period.
Data on historical trends
The data used to measure proven reoffending is from the PNC. Police forces started to enter criminal records locally in 1995. In order to allow time for good practice among police forces in entering data onto the PNC to become embedded, PNC data was used to measure proven reoffending for the first time in 2000. Prior to the 2012, headline bulletin results were compared to 2000 to highlight long-term trends. From 2012, results are compared to 2002, and in the future the year of comparison will move forward by one year for each calendar year publication. Results prior to 2000 cannot be compared to results from 2000 onwards for two main reasons: • Change in data source – reoffences are measured using data from the PNC (which covers recordable offences), whereas data from years before 2000 were measured using the offenders index (which covered a narrower range of offences).
• Change in measurement – the concept being measured from 2000 onwards in these reports is that of using the offence date to measure reoffences (a period of time is allowed for offences to be committed, and a further period allowed for these offences to be proved by caution, reprimand, final warning or court conviction), whereas the concept being measured prior to 2000 was that of using the conviction date to measure reconvictions (any conviction occurring in a set period of time, whether or not the offence occurred in that time period).
However, the *Compendium of Reoffending Statistics and Analysis 2010*, published in November 2010, provides the most consistent statistical series possible between 1971 and 2006, adjusting for known methodological changes. For more information, please refer to Chapter 4.4 at the following link.
Results for 2001 cannot be calculated for offenders on court orders because of a problem with archived data on court orders. Local breakdowns of the headline proven reoffending rates are available from 2005 onwards. Proven reoffending data are broken down by locality using the address and post-code information of the offender. Where this information is missing, the location of the processing police force is used instead. This is not a completely reliable indicator of the offender’s home address as offenders may offend in a different locality than where they reside. The completeness of this information has improved over time. In 2000, this information was omitted for 29% of cases, which was considered too high to produce reliable results. By 2005, this was reduced to 16.5%, and there has been a continuing downward trend since then. Appendix A: List of serious offences
Serious violence against the person
1. Murder:
1. Of persons aged 1 year or over.
2. Of infants under 1 year of age.
2. Attempted murder.
3. Manslaughter, etc.:
1. Manslaughter.
2. Infanticide.
3. Child destruction.
4. Wounding or other act endangering life:
01. Wounding, etc. with intent to do grievous bodily harm, etc. or to resist apprehension.
02. Shooting at naval or revenue vessels.
03. Attempting to choke, suffocate, etc. with intent to commit an indictable offence (garrotting).
04. Using chloroform, etc. to commit or assist in committing an indictable offence.
05. Burning, maiming, etc. by explosion.
06. Causing explosions or casting corrosive fluids with intent to do grievous bodily harm.
07. Impeding the saving of life from shipwreck.
08. Placing, etc. explosives in or near ships or buildings with intent to do bodily harm, etc.
09. Endangering life or causing harm by administering poison.
10. Causing danger by causing anything to be on road, interfering with a vehicle or traffic equipment.
11. Possession, etc. of explosives with intent to endanger life.
12. Possession of firearms, etc. with intent to endanger life or injure property, etc. (Group I).
13. Possession of firearms, etc. with intent to endanger life or injure property, etc. (Group II).
14. Possession of firearms, etc. with intent to endanger life or injure property, etc. (Group III).
15. Using, etc. firearms or imitation firearms with intent to resist arrest, etc. (Group I).
16. Using, etc. firearms or imitation firearms with intent to resist arrest, etc. (Group II).
17. Using, etc. firearms or imitation firearms with intent to resist arrest, etc. (Group III). [Group I - Firearms, etc. other than as described in Group II or III. Group II - Shotguns as defined in s.1 (3)(a) of the Firearms Act 1968. Group III - Air weapons as defined in s.1 (3)(b) of the Firearms Act 1968]
18. Use etc. of chemical weapons.
19. Use of premises or equipment for producing chemical weapons.
20. Use, threat to use, production or possession of a nuclear weapon.
21. Weapons related acts overseas.
22. Use of noxious substances or things to cause harm or intimidate.
23. Performing an aviation function or ancillary function when ability to carry out function is impaired because of drink or drugs.
24. Endangering safety at sea/aerodromes.
25. Torture.
5. Other wounding, etc.:
1. Wounding or inflicting grievous bodily harm (inflicting bodily injury with or without weapon).
6. Racially aggravated wounding or inflicting grievous bodily harm (inflicting bodily injury with or without weapon).
7. Religiously aggravated malicious wounding or GBH.
8. Racially or religiously aggravated malicious wounding or grievous bodily harm.
Sexual offences
017. Sexual assault on a male (previously indecent assault on a male):
018. Indecent assault on male person under 16 years.
019. Indecent assault on male person 16 years or over.
020. Assault on a male by penetration.
021. Assault of a male child under 13 by penetration.
022. Sexual assault on a male.
023. Sexual assault of a male child under 13.
024. Rape:
025. Man having unlawful sexual intercourse with a woman who is a defective.
026. Male member of staff of hospital or mental nursing home having unlawful sexual intercourse with female patient.
027. Man having unlawful sexual intercourse with mentally disordered female patient who is subject to his care.
028. Rape of a female aged under 16.
029. Rape of a female aged 16 or over.
030. Rape of a male aged under 16.
031. Rape of a male aged 16 or over.
032. Attempted rape of a female aged under 16.
033. Attempted rape of a female aged 16 or over.
034. Attempted rape of a male aged under 16.
035. Attempted rape of a male aged 16 or over.
036. Rape of female child under 13 by a male.
037. Rape of a male child under 13 by a male.
038. Attempted rape of a female child under 13 by a male.
039. Attempted rape of a male child under 13 by a male.
040. Sexual assault on female (previously indecent assault on a female):
041. On females under 16 years of age.
042. On females aged 16 years and over.
043. Assault on a female by penetration.
044. Assault on a female child under 13 by penetration.
045. Sexual assault on a female.
046. Sexual assault on a female child under 13.
047. Sexual activity (male and female) (including with a child under 13) (previously unlawful intercourse with a girl under 13):
048. Causing or inciting a female child under 13 to engage in sexual activity - penetration.
049. Causing or inciting a female child under 13 to engage in sexual activity - no penetration.
050. Causing or inciting a male child under 13 to engage in sexual activity - penetration.
051. Causing or inciting a male child under 13 to engage in sexual activity - no penetration.
052. Sexual activity with a female child under 13 - offender aged 18 or over - penetration.
053. Sexual activity with a male child under 13 - offender aged 18 or over - penetration.
054. Causing or inciting a female child under 13 to engage in sexual activity - offender aged 18 or over – penetration.
055. Causing or inciting a male child under 13 to engage in sexual activity - offender aged 18 or over - penetration.
056. Engaging in sexual activity in the presence of a child under 13 (offender aged 18 or over).
057. Causing a child under 13 to watch a sexual act (offender aged 18 or over).
058. Sexual activity with a female child under 13 - offender aged under 18.
059. Sexual activity with a male child under 13 - offender aged under 18.
060. Causing of inciting a female child under 13 to engage in sexual activity - offender under 18.
061. Causing or inciting a male child under 13 to engage in sexual activity - offender under 18.
062. Engaging in sexual activity in the presence of a child under 13 - offender under 18.
063. Causing a child under 13 to watch a sexual act - offender under 18.
064. Sexual activity with a female child under 13 - offender aged 18 or over - no penetration.
065. Sexual activity with a male child under 13 - offender aged 18 or over - no penetration.
066. Causing or inciting a female child under 13 to engage in sexual activity - offender aged 18 or over - no penetration.
067. Causing or inciting a male child under 13 to engage in sexual activity - offender aged 18 or over - no penetration.
068. Causing or inciting a female child under 13 to engage in sexual activity - offender aged under 18 - no penetration.
069. Causing or inciting a male child under 13 to engage in sexual activity - offender aged under 18 - no penetration.
070. Causing or inciting a female child under 13 to engage in sexual activity - offender aged 18 or over - no penetration.
071. Causing or inciting a male child under 13 to engage in sexual activity - offender aged 18 or over - no penetration.
072. Sexual activity (male and female) (including with a child under 16) (previously unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl under 16):
073. Unlawful sexual intercourse with girl under 16 (offences committed prior to 1 May 2004).
074. Causing a female person to engage in sexual activity without consent – penetration.
075. Causing a male person to engage in sexual activity without consent – penetration.
076. Causing a female person to engage in sexual activity without consent - no penetration.
077. Causing a male person to engage in sexual activity without consent - no penetration.
078. Sexual activity with a female child under 16 (offender aged 18 or over) – penetration.
079. Sexual activity with a male child under 16 (offender aged 18 or over) – penetration.
080. Causing or inciting a female child under 16 to engage in sexual activity (offender aged 18 or over) - penetration
081. Causing of inciting a male child under 16 to engage in sexual activity (offender aged 18 or over) – penetration.
082. Engaging in sexual activity in the presence of a child under 16 (offender aged 18 or over).
083. Causing a child under 16 to watch a sexual act (offender aged 18 or over).
084. Sexual activity with a female child under 16 - offender aged 18 or over - no penetration.
085. Sexual activity with a male child under 16 - offender aged 18 or over - no penetration.
086. Causing or inciting a female child under 16 to engage in sexual activity (offender aged 18 or over) - no penetration.
087. Causing or inciting a male child under 16 to engage in sexual activity (offender aged 18 or over) - no penetration.
088. Sexual activity etc. with a person with a mental disorder:
089. Sexual activity with a male person with a mental disorder impeding choice – penetration.
090. Sexual activity with a female person with a mental disorder impeding choice – penetration.
091. Sexual activity with a male person with a mental disorder impeding choice - no penetration.
092. Sexual activity with a female person with a mental disorder impeding choice - no penetration.
093. Causing or inciting a male person with a mental disorder impeding choice to engage in sexual activity – penetration.
094. Causing or inciting a female person with a mental disorder impeding choice to engage in sexual activity – penetration.
095. Causing or inciting a male person with a mental disorder impeding choice to engage in sexual activity – penetration.
096. Causing or inciting a female person with a mental disorder impeding choice to engage in sexual activity - no penetration.
097. Engaging in sexual activity in the presence of a person with a mental disorder impeding choice.
098. Causing a person with a mental disorder impeding choice to watch a sexual act.
099. Inducement, threat or deception to procure sexual activity with a person with a mental disorder – penetration.
100. Inducement, threat or deception to procure sexual activity with a person with a mental disorder - no penetration.
101. Causing a person with a mental disorder to engage in sexual activity by inducement, threat or deception - penetration.
102. Causing a person with a mental disorder to engage in sexual activity by inducement, threat or deception - no penetration.
103. Engaging in sexual activity in the presence, procured by inducement, threat or deception, of a person with a mental disorder.
104. Causing a person with a mental disorder to watch a sexual act by inducement, threat or deception.
105. Care workers: Sexual activity with a male person with a mental disorder - penetration.
106. Care workers: Sexual activity with a female person with a mental disorder - penetration.
107. Care workers: Sexual activity with a male person with a mental disorder - no penetration.
108. Care workers: Sexual activity with a female person with a mental disorder - no penetration.
109. Care workers: Causing or inciting sexual activity (person with a mental disorder) - penetration.
110. Care workers: Causing or inciting sexual activity (person with a mental disorder) - no penetration.
111. Care workers: Sexual activity in the presence of a person with a mental disorder.
112. Care workers: Causing a person with a mental disorder impeding choice to watch a sexual act.
113. Abuse of children through prostitution and pornography (previously child prostitution and pornography):
114. Arranging or facilitating the commission of a child sex offence.
115. Paying for sex with a female child under 13 - penetration
116. Paying for sex with a male child under 13 - penetration
117. Paying for sex with a female child under 16 - no penetration.
118. Paying for sex with a male child under 16 - no penetration.
119. Paying for sex with a female child aged 16 or 17.
120. Paying for sex with a male child aged 16 or 17.
121. Causing or inciting child prostitution or pornography - child aged 13-17.
122. Controlling a child prostitute or a child involved in pornography - child aged 13-17.
123. Arranging or facilitating child prostitution or pornography - child aged 13-17.
124. Causing or inciting child prostitution or pornography - child under 13.
125. Controlling a child prostitute or child involved in pornography - child under 13.
126. Arranging or facilitating child prostitution or pornography - child under 13.
127. Paying for sex with a female child aged under 16 – penetration.
128. Paying for sex with a male child aged under 16 – penetration.
129. Trafficking for sexual exploitation:
130. Arranging or facilitating arrival of a person into the UK for sexual exploitation (trafficking).
131. Arranging or facilitating travel of a person within the UK for sexual exploitation (trafficking).
132. Arranging or facilitating departure of a person from the UK for sexual exploitation (trafficking).
Taking and driving away and related offences
37. Aggravated vehicle taking:
38. Where, owing to the driving of the vehicle, an accident occurs causing the death of any person.
Other motoring offences
4. Manslaughter, etc.: 4. Causing death by dangerous driving. 8. (Offences) Causing death by careless or inconsiderate driving (Offences due to commence in Autumn 2007).
Drink driving offences
4. Manslaughter, etc.: 6. Causing death by careless driving when under the influence of drink or drugs.
Serious acquisitive offences
Burglary
1. Burglary in a dwelling with intent to commit or the commission of an offence triable only on indictment.
2. Burglary in a dwelling with violence or the threat of violence.
3. Other burglary in a dwelling.
4. Aggravated burglary in a dwelling (including attempts).
Robbery
1. Robbery.
2. Assault with intent to rob.
Taking and driving away
1. Aggravated taking where the vehicle was driven dangerously on a road or other public place.
2. Aggravated taking where owing to the driving of the vehicle an accident occurred causing injury to any person or damage to any property other than the vehicle.
Theft from or of vehicles
1. Stealing from motor vehicles.
2. Stealing from other vehicles.
3. Theft of motor vehicle.
4. Unauthorised taking of a motor vehicle. Appendix B: Glossary of terms
Reoffending terms
Cohort – this is the group of individuals whose reoffending is measured.
Index offence – the index offence is the proven offence that leads to an offender being included in the cohort.
Index disposal – the index disposal of the offender is the type of sentence the offender received for their index offence.
Start point (index date) – this is the set point in time from when reoffences are measured.
Follow-up period – this is the length of time proven reoffending is measured over.
Waiting period – this is the additional time beyond the follow-up period to allow for offences committed towards the end of the follow-up period to be proved by a court conviction, caution, reprimand or final warning.
Reconviction – where an offender is convicted at court for an offence committed within a set follow-up period and convicted within either the follow-up period or waiting period.
Proven reoffence – where an offender is convicted at court or receives some other form of criminal justice sanction for an offence committed within a set follow-up period and disposed of within either the follow-up period or waiting period.
Cohort definition used in the Proven Reoffending Statistics Quarterly Bulletin – the proven reoffending cohort consists of all offenders discharged from custody, otherwise sanctioned at court, receiving a caution, reprimand or warning or tested positive for opiates or cocaine in each year. This cohort’s criminal history is collated and criminal behaviour is tracked over the following one year. Any offence committed in this one year period which is proven by a court conviction or out-of-court disposal (either in the one year period, or in a further six months waiting period) counts as a proven reoffence.
Cohort definition used in the Local Adult Reoffending Quarterly Bulletin – the local adult reoffending measure takes a snapshot of all offenders, aged 18 or over, who are under probation supervision at the end of a quarter, and combines four such snapshots together. This cohort’s criminal history is collated and criminal behaviour is tracked over the following three months. Any offence committed in this three month period which is proven by a court conviction or out-of-court disposal (either in the three month period, or in a further three months waiting period) counts as a proven reoffence. The latest available publication is available at this link. Disposal (sentence type)
Fine – a financial penalty imposed following conviction.
Court orders – court orders include community sentences, community orders and suspended sentence orders supervised by the Probation Service. They do not include any pre or post release supervision.
Criminal Justice Act 2003 (CJA03) – for offences committed on or after 4 April 2005, the new community order replaced all existing community sentences for adults. The Act also introduced a new suspended sentence order for offences which pass the custody threshold. It also changed the release arrangements for prisoners. See Appendix A of Offender Management Caseload Statistics 2009 for more information.
Community order – for offences committed on or after 4 April 2005, the new community order introduced under the CJA 2003 replaced all existing community sentences for those aged 18 years and over. This term refers to all court orders except suspended sentence orders and deferred sentences which may have a custodial component to the sentence. The court must add at least one, but could potentially add all 12 requirements depending on the offences and the offender. The requirements are:
- unpaid work (formerly community service/community punishment) – a requirement to complete between 40 and 300 hours’ unpaid work;
- activity – for example, to attend basic skills classes;
- programme – there are several designed to reduce the prospects of reoffending;
- prohibited activity – a requirement not do so something that is likely to lead to further offence or nuisance;
- curfew – which is electronically monitored;
- exclusion – this is not used frequently as there is no reliable electronic monitoring yet available;
- residence – requirement to reside only where approved by probation officer;
- mental health treatment (requires offender’s consent);
- drug rehabilitation (requires offender’s consent);
- alcohol treatment (requires offender’s consent);
- supervision – meetings with probation officer to address needs/offending behaviour; and • attendance centre – between a minimum of 12 hours and a maximum of 36 in total which includes three hours of activity.
Typically, the more serious the offence and the more extensive the offender’s needs, the more requirements there will be. Most orders will comprise of one or two requirements, but there are packages of several requirements available where required. The court tailors the order as appropriate and is guided by the Probation Service through a pre-sentence report.
**Suspended sentence order (SSO)** – the CJA 2003 introduced a new suspended sentence order which is made up of the same requirements as a community order and, in the absence of breach is served wholly in the community supervised by the Probation Service. It consists of an ‘operational period’ (the time for which the custodial sentence is suspended) and a ‘supervision period’ (the time during which any requirements take effect). Both may be between six months and two years and the ‘supervision period’ cannot be longer than the ‘operational period’, although it may be shorter. Failure to comply with the requirements of the order or commission of another offence will almost certainly result in a custodial sentence.
**Pre CJA03 Court Orders – Community sentences**
**Community punishment order (CPO)** – the offender is required to undertake unpaid community work.
**Community rehabilitation order (CRO)** - a community sentence which may have additional requirements such as residence, probation centre attendance or treatment for drug, alcohol or mental health problems.
**Community punishment and rehabilitation order (CPRO)** – a community sentence consisting of probation supervision alongside community punishment, with additional conditions like those of a community rehabilitation order.
**Custody** – the offender is awarded a sentence to be served in prison or a Young Offenders Institute (YOI). If the offender is given a sentence of 12 months or over, or is aged under 22 on release, the offender is supervised by the Probation Service on release. It is important to note that the sentence lengths and youth disposals awarded will be longer than the time served in custody. For more information please refer to Appendix A of Offender Management Caseload Statistics 2009.
**Short sentences (under 12 months)** – those sentenced to under 12 months (made under the Criminal Justice Act 1991) spend the first half of their sentence in prison and are then released and considered ‘at risk’ for the remaining period. This means they are under no positive obligations and do not report to the Probation Service, but if they commit a further imprisonable offence during the ‘at risk’ period, they can be made to serve the remainder of the sentence in addition to the punishment for the new offence. The exception to this is those aged 18 to 20 who have a minimum of three month's supervision on release.
**Sentences of 12 months or over** – the CJA03 created a distinction between standard determinate sentences and public protection sentences. Offenders sentenced to a standard determinate sentence serve the first half in prison and the second half in the community on licence.
**Youth disposal (sentence type)**
**Reprimand or warning** – a reprimand is a formal verbal warning given by a police officer to a juvenile offender who admits they are guilty for a minor first offence. A final warning is similar to a reprimand, but can be used for either the first or second offence, and includes an assessment of the juvenile to determine the causes of their offending behaviour and a programme of activities is designed to address them. Reprimands and warnings for youths were abolished under Legal Aid Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 with effect from 8 April 2013 and replaced with youth cautions.
**Youth cautions** – are a formal out-of-court disposal that can be used as an alternative to prosecution for young offenders (aged 10 to 17) in certain circumstances. A Youth Caution may be given for any offence where the young offender admits an offence, there is sufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction but it is not in the public interest to prosecute.
**First-tier penalties**
**Discharge** – a juvenile offender is given an absolute discharge when they admit guilt, or are found guilty, with no further action taken. An offender given a conditional discharge also receives no immediate punishment, but is given a set period during which, if they commit a further offence, they can be brought back to court and re-sentenced.
- **Fine** – the size of the fine depends on the offence committed and the offender’s financial circumstances. In the case of juveniles under 16, the fine is the responsibility of the offender’s parent or carer.
- **Referral order** – this is given to juveniles pleading guilty and for whom it is their first time at court (unless the offence is so serious it merits a custodial sentence or it is of a relatively minor nature). The offender is required to attend a Youth Offender Panel to agree a contract, aimed to repair the harm caused by the offence and address the causes of the offending behaviour.
- **Reparation order** – the offender is required to repair the harm caused by their offence either directly to the victim or indirectly to the community.
**Youth Rehabilitation Order** – a community sentence for juvenile offenders, which came into effect on 30 November 2009 as part of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008. It combines a number of sentences into one generic sentence and is the standard community sentence used for the majority of children and young people who offend. The following requirements can be attached to a Youth Rehabilitation Order (YRO):
- activity requirement
- curfew requirement
- exclusion requirement
- local authority residence requirement
- education requirement
- mental health treatment requirement
- unpaid work requirement
- drug testing requirement
- intoxicating substance misuse requirement
- supervision requirement
- electronic monitoring requirement
- prohibited activity requirement
- drug treatment requirement
- residence requirement
- programme requirement
- attendance centre requirement
- intensive supervision and surveillance
- intensive fostering
The following community sentences are replaced by the YRO, but will continue to exist for those that committed an offence before 30 November 2009. The YRO is only available for those that committed an offence on or after the 30 November 2009.
- action plan order
- curfew order
- supervision order
- supervision order and conditions
- community punishment order
- community punishment and rehabilitation order
- attendance centre order
- drug treatment and testing order
- exclusion order
- community rehabilitation order
**Prison categories**
**Category B and category C prisons** hold sentenced prisoners of their respective categories, including life sentenced prisoners. The regime focuses on programmes that address offending behaviour and provide education, vocational training and purposeful work for prisoners who will normally spend several years in one prison.
**High security prisons** hold category A and B prisoners. Category A prisoners are managed by a process of dispersal, and these prisons also hold a proportion of category B prisoners for whom they provide a similar regime to a category B prison. The category B prisoners held in a High Security Prison are not necessarily any more dangerous or difficult to manage than those in category B prisons.
**Female prisons**, as the name implies, hold female prisoners. Because of the smaller numbers, they are not divided into the same number of categories although there are variations in security levels.
**Local prisons** serve the courts in the area. Historically their main function was to hold un-convicted and un-sentenced prisoners and, once a prisoner had been sentenced, to allocate them on to a category B, C or D prison as appropriate to serve their sentence. However, pressure on places means that many shorter term prisoners serve their entire sentence in a local prison, while longer term prisoners also complete some offending behaviour and training programmes there before moving on to lower security conditions. All local prisons operate to category B security standards.
**Open prisons** have much lower levels of physical security and only hold category D prisoners. Many prisoners in open prisons will be allowed to go out of the prison on a daily basis to take part in voluntary or paid work in the community in preparation for their approaching release. Miscellaneous terms
**National Probation Service** – the National Probation Service generally deals with those aged 18 years and over. (Those under 18 are mostly dealt with by Youth Offending Teams, answering to the Youth Justice Board.) They are responsible for supervising offenders who are given community sentences and suspended sentence orders by the courts, as well as offenders given custodial sentences, both pre and post their release.
**Police National Computer** – the Police National Computer (PNC) is the police’s administrative IT system used by all police forces in England and Wales and managed by the National Policing Improvement Agency. As with any large scale recording system the PNC is subject to possible errors with data entry and processing. The Ministry of Justice maintains a database based on weekly extracts of selected data from the PNC in order to compile statistics and conduct research on reoffending and criminal histories. The PNC largely covers recordable offences – these are all indictable and triable-either-way offences plus many of the more serious summary offences. All figures derived from the Ministry of Justice’s PNC database, and in particular those for the most recent months, are likely to be revised as more information is recorded by the police.
**Recordable offences** – recordable offences are those that the police are required to record on the PNC. They include all offences for which a custodial sentence can be given plus a range of other offences defined as recordable in legislation. They exclude a range of less serious summary offences, for example television licence evasion, driving without insurance, speeding and vehicle tax offences.
**Indictable and summary offences** – summary offences are triable only by a magistrates’ court. This group includes motoring offences, common assault and criminal damage up to £5,000. More serious offences are classed either as triable-either-way (these can be tried either at the Crown Court or at a magistrates’ court and include criminal damage where the value is £5,000 or greater, theft and burglary) or indictable-only (the most serious offences that must be tried at the Crown Court; these ‘indictable-only’ offences include murder, manslaughter, rape and robbery). The term indictable offences is used to refer to all triable-either-way and ‘indictable-only’ offences.
**Offence group (based on new ONS crime classifications)** – offences classified into 13 separate offence categories using the new Office for National Statistics (ONS) crime classifications. Explanatory notes
The United Kingdom Statistics Authority has designated these statistics as National Statistics, in accordance with the Statistics and Registration Service Act 2007 and signifying compliance with the Code of Practice for Official Statistics.
Designation can be broadly interpreted to mean that the statistics:
- meet identified user needs;
- are well explained and readily accessible;
- are produced according to sound methods; and
- are managed impartially and objectively in the public interest.
Once statistics have been designated as National Statistics it is a statutory requirement that the Code of Practice shall continue to be observed.
Symbols used
| Symbol | Description | |--------|--------------------------------------------------| | .. | Not available | | 0 | Nil or less than half the final digit shown | | - | Not applicable | | * | One or both of the comparison figures are less than 30 | | (p) | Provisional data | Contact details
For queries, comments or further information, please contact:
**Nick Mavron** Ministry of Justice Justice Statistics Analytical Services 7th floor 102 Petty France London SW1H 9AJ
Email: [email protected]
Alternative formats are available on request from [email protected].
© Crown copyright 2015
This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3 or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or email: [email protected].
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/4808-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 33,
"total-input-tokens": 87728,
"total-output-tokens": 18886,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
81,
1
],
[
81,
389,
2
],
[
389,
2011,
3
],
[
2011,
3955,
4
],
[
3955,
5136,
5
],
[
5136,
7573,
6
],
[
7573,
9737,
7
],
[
9737,
12098,
8
],
[
12098,
15382,
9
],
[
15382,
17335,
10
],
[
17335,
19609,
11
],
[
19609,
22400,
12
],
[
22400,
25103,
13
],
[
25103,
27180,
14
],
[
27180,
30160,
15
],
[
30160,
34431,
16
],
[
34431,
36455,
17
],
[
36455,
38806,
18
],
[
38806,
40724,
19
],
[
40724,
43328,
20
],
[
43328,
46201,
21
],
[
46201,
49481,
22
],
[
49481,
52935,
23
],
[
52935,
54778,
24
],
[
54778,
57227,
25
],
[
57227,
59268,
26
],
[
59268,
62060,
27
],
[
62060,
64758,
28
],
[
64758,
65864,
29
],
[
65864,
67914,
30
],
[
67914,
70488,
31
],
[
70488,
71609,
32
],
[
71609,
72301,
33
]
]
} |
0fa1ddbeb5fc27ae84ca3b3be579bfe764a0cff7 | Proven Re-offending Statistics: Definitions and Measurement
Published 31 October 2013 Contents
Proven re-offending statistics quarterly bulletin 3 Early estimates of proven re-offending statistics 10 Local adult re-offending statistics quarterly bulletin 13 Data quality 15 Statistical modelling and coefficients 26 Appendix A: List of serious offences 34 Appendix B: Glossary of terms 39 Appendix C: Comparison of the three measures of re-offending 47 Contact details and further information 48 Proven re-offending statistics quarterly bulletin
Background
The Ministry of Justice launched a statistical consultation on improvements to the transparency and accessibility of our information in 2010 and a response to the consultation was published in March 2011. One aspect of the consultation was the measurement of proven re-offending. Responses have supported the proposals to move to a single framework for measuring re-offending where adult and youth data can be provided at national and local levels on a consistent basis. The response to the consultation is available here:
webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20111121205348/http:/www.justice.gov.uk/consultations/565.htm
Prior to this consultation there were six different measures of proven re-offending:
- national adult proven re-offending;
- local adult proven re-offending;
- national youth proven re-offending;
- local youth proven re-offending;
- prolific and other priority offending (PPO); and
- drug-misusing proven offending.
The current framework for measuring proven re-offending integrates these approaches into a single framework. This allows users to:
- form a clear picture of proven re-offending at national and local levels;
- compare adult and youth results, and enable other work on transition between the youth and adult system;
- understand how results for different offender groups (such as those managed by the prison and probation services, those under the PPO schemes, drug-misusing offenders, first time entrants, etc.) fit into the overall picture on proven re-offending; and
- continue to analyse proven re-offending behaviour for particular types of offender. Measurement
The underlying principle of measuring re-offending (or recidivism, which is the most commonly used term internationally) is that someone who has received some form of criminal justice sanction (such as a conviction or a caution) goes on to commit another offence within a set time period.
Measuring true re-offending is difficult. Official records are taken from either the police or courts, but they will underestimate the true level of re-offending because only a proportion of crime is detected and sanctioned and not all crimes and sanctions are recorded on one central system. Other methods of measuring re-offending, such as self report studies, are likely to also underestimate the rate.
Following the Ministry of Justice Consultation on Improvements to Ministry of Justice Statistics, a proven re-offence is defined as any offence committed in a one year follow-up period that resulted in a court conviction, caution, reprimand or warning in the one year follow-up or a further six month waiting period (to allow time for cases to progress through the courts). The data source is the extract of the Police National Computer (PNC) held by the Ministry of Justice.
Definitions for the measurement of proven re-offending
Cohort This is the group of offenders for whom re-offending is measured. For the Proven Re-offending Statistics Quarterly Bulletin, this is defined as all offenders in any one year who received a caution (for adults), a final warning or reprimand (for juveniles), a non-custodial conviction, were discharged from custody, or tested positive for opiates or cocaine (for adults).
Offenders who were discharged from custody or secure accommodation (juveniles only) or commenced a court order are matched to the PNC database. A proportion of cases are lost in this process because they cannot be matched (see the section below titled “Matching offender records” for further details). Additionally, offenders who appear multiple times in the cohort are only included once (see the section below titled “Multiple offender entries” for further details).
The group of offenders whose offending behaviour is proven is likely to be a sub-group of all active offenders. The Offending, Crime and Justice Survey (2003) estimated that around one in ten people in England and Wales aged
______________________________________________________________________
1 The Offending, Crime and Justice Survey (2003) was a random probability survey of 10,079 people aged from ten to 65 and asked people about their offending history. Like any such survey, its accuracy is dependent upon the level of honesty with which respondents completed the survey. between ten and 65 had committed an offence in the previous 12 months, which translates into approximately 3.8 million people. This compares to around 632,000 offenders in the 2002 cohort used to measure proven re-offending, underlining that the offenders whose proven re-offending behaviour is presented in the Proven Re-offending Statistics Quarterly Bulletin are a small and probably unrepresentative sample of the population of all active offenders.
**Index disposal (sentence type)** The index disposal of the offender is the type of sentence the offender received for their index offence. For the Proven Re-offending Statistics Quarterly Bulletin, this is defined as custody, court order, other disposal resulting from a conviction at court, such as a fine or discharge, caution (adult offenders), reprimand or final warning (young offenders), or a positive drug test (adult offenders)
**Index offence** The index offence is the proven offence that leads to an offender being included in the cohort. An offence is only counted as an index offence if it is:
- recordable (see below);
- committed in England and Wales;
- prosecuted by the police; and
- not a breach offence.
**Start point (index date)** This is the set point in time from when proven re-offences are measured. For the Proven Re-offending Statistics Quarterly Bulletin, this is defined as the date of prison discharge, date of court conviction for non-custodial sentences, date of receipt for a caution, reprimand or final warning or the date of a positive drug test.
**Follow-up period** This is the length of time over which proven re-offending is measured. For the Proven Re-offending Statistics Quarterly Bulletin, this is defined as 12 months from the start point.
**Waiting period** This is the additional time beyond the follow-up period to allow for offences which are committed towards the end of the follow-up period to be proven by a court, resulting in a conviction, caution, reprimand or final warning. For the Proven Re-offending Statistics Quarterly Bulletin, this is six months.
Figure 1 below illustrates why different offences for an example offender are included or excluded in the proven re-offending measure. Events A to E all occur in the one year follow-up period, but events F and G are outside this period, so would not be counted. Events A to D are all counted because they were all proven within the one year follow-up period or the further six month waiting period, but event E, even though the offence took place in the one year follow-up period, would not be counted, as the conviction did not occur within either the one year follow-up period, or the further six month waiting period. The offender has, therefore, committed seven proven offences during the one year follow-up period (two for event A, one for event B, three for event C, and one for event D).
**Proven re-offence**
Offences are counted as proven re-offences if they meet all of the following criteria:
- They are recordable. Not all offences are on the PNC and more recordable offences are entered than non-recordable offences. Analysis comparing offences proven at court with offences recorded on the PNC suggests the most cost common offences that are not recorded relates to motor vehicles, e.g. using a motor vehicle whilst uninsured against third party risks, speeding offences, keeping a vehicle on the highway without a driving licence or television licence evasion.
- They were committed in England or Wales.
- They are offences that were prosecuted by the police. PNC data is collected and input by the police and offences prosecuted by the police are likely to be recorded more comprehensively on the PNC than offences that are prosecuted by other organisations. For example, benefit fraud is prosecuted by the Department for Work and Pensions. Therefore, benefit fraud offences may be poorly represented on the PNC.
- Offences are only counted if they are proven through caution (for adults), reprimands or final warnings (for juveniles) and court convictions. Offences that are not proven, or which meet with other responses from the Criminal Justice System, are not counted. The *Offending, Crime and Justice Survey (2003)* estimated that 6% of all offences resulted in any contact with the Criminal Justice System. • The offence is not a breach offence, i.e. breach of a court order, since we are only interested in new offences.
**Adjusted baseline (predicted rate)** Proven re-offending is related to the characteristics of offenders which means that any overall rate of proven re-offending will depend, in part, on the characteristics of offenders coming into the system (just as the examination pass rate of a school will be related to the characteristics of its pupils). We use a modelling technique to produce a baseline figure adjusted to match the characteristics of the cohort we are comparing. For more details on this, refer to the chapter on “Statistical modelling and coefficients”.
**Measures of proven re-offending** Proven re-offending data are presented in the following ways:
• The number of offenders.
• The proportion of offenders who are proven re-offenders.
• The average number of proven re-offences among **re-offenders**.
• The average number of proven re-offences among **all offenders** including those who committed no proven re-offences (previously the frequency rate).
• The proportion of proven offenders who committed a proven serious violent or sexual re-offence against the person. Refer to Annex A for details on what counts as a serious violent or sexual offence.
• The proportion of proven offenders who committed a proven serious acquisitive re-offence. Refer to Annex A for details on what counts as a serious acquisitive offence.
• The proportion of offenders who are proven to re-offend, adjusted to control for changes in offender characteristics. This measure is different from the other measures in that it does not come from actual re-offences, but from a statistical model created for the baseline year of 2008. This gives a better indication of actual change against a baseline. Refer to the chapter on “Statistical modelling and coefficients” for further details.
**Multiple offender entries** Each offender is tracked over a fixed period of time and any proven offence committed in this period is counted as a proven re-offence. A multiple offender entry refers to an offender who, after entering the cohort in a given year, commits a re-offence and is either cautioned, discharged from prison or gets a non-custodial conviction in the same cohort year. This re-offence could also be included as a second entry for this offender into the cohort. To date, publications have avoided the double counting of these multiple offender entries (MOE) by only counting an individual once based on their first proven offence in the relevant time period. In the illustration above, the caution would be counted as the index disposal and the further two proven offences would be counted as re-offences. This avoids double counting of proven re-offences.
In this publication the main tables (tables 1 to 11 and 13 to 17) in the report have been produced on the basis of the 'first proven offence in the relevant time period' which led to an offender being included. This provides a picture of proven re-offending which is consistent with previous publications and tracks an offender, irrespective of the disposal they receive, to when they commit a proven re-offence.
The measure of proven re-offending now covers all offenders in any one year instead of the first quarter of a calendar year as in previous proven re-offending publications. The result is many more offenders with multiple entries.
In addition, including cautions to identify a proven offence means many offenders’ first offence will be associated with a caution since cautions account for around a third of adult offenders in one year. Table 1 shows the number of offenders in each cohort period by their number of entries.
Table 1: Number of offenders and their respective number of entries for 2000, 2002 to 2011 cohorts
| Multiple Offender Entries | 2000 | 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | |---------------------------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------| | 1 | 512,551 | 522,376 | 544,032 | 551,265 | 582,840 | 622,096 | 638,495 | 610,329 | 578,644 | 535,394 | 505,145 | | 2x | 75,311 | 77,813 | 81,651 | 81,120 | 87,589 | 91,695 | 88,207 | 83,785 | 79,067 | 74,881 | | 3x | 19,565 | 21,208 | 22,073 | 20,855 | 20,926 | 21,974 | 23,757 | 23,662 | 22,125 | 21,466 | 20,595 | | 4x | 6,195 | 6,689 | 7,074 | 6,335 | 6,725 | 6,607 | 7,652 | 7,911 | 7,360 | 7,425 | 7,144 | | 5x | 1,998 | 2,314 | 2,392 | 2,357 | 2,355 | 2,425 | 2,795 | 2,911 | 2,938 | 2,909 | 2,981 | | 6 to 10x | 1,240 | 1,510 | 1,689 | 1,641 | 1,505 | 1,513 | 1,966 | 2,341 | 2,308 | 2,368 | 2,502 | | Greater than 10x | 164 | 155 | 129 | 131 | 119 | 115 | 114 | 160 | 202 | 193 | 190 | | Total MOEs | 104,473 | 109,689 | 115,008 | 110,788 | 112,750 | 120,423 | 127,979 | 125,198 | 118,718 | 113,428 | 108,293 | | % of total cohort | 16.9% | 17.4% | 17.5% | 16.7% | 16.2% | 16.2% | 16.7% | 17.0% | 17.0% | 17.5% | 17.7% |
1. Data are not available for 2001 due to a problem with archived data on Court Orders. The number of offenders with multiple entries has remained fairly constant over time - the proportion of the total that had multiple offender entries has remained at about 16 to 18% between 2000 and 2011.
**Proven re-offending by index disposal, probation trust and prison**
In order to measure proven re-offending on a consistent and representative basis by offender management groups, it is necessary to distinguish between the disposal (sentence) types that led to an offender being included. Doing this allows the cohort to be defined according to the relative start point of an offender’s interaction with the prison (released from custody) or probation services (court order commencement).
Tables 12 and 18 to 21 provide re-offending data by disposal (sentence) types. These are produced on the basis of an individual’s first disposal (sentence) in that category. In the illustration above, the individual would appear once in the caution category, once in the community order category and once in the custody category. These tables will include an overall prison and probation proven re-offending rate which will be the figures we quote publicly. However, these figures should not be used when comparing proven re-offending rates across different disposals to compare effectiveness. Instead the *Compendium of Re-offending Statistics and Analysis 2013* publication (available at the link below) should be referred to as this analysis controls for offender characteristics in order to give a more reliable estimate of the relative effectiveness of different disposals.
[www.gov.uk/government/publications/2013-compendium-of-re-offending-statistics-and-analysis](http://www.gov.uk/government/publications/2013-compendium-of-re-offending-statistics-and-analysis)
Tables 22 to 25 provide re-offending rates by individual prison and probation trust. These are produced on the basis of an individual’s first disposal from each specified prison or probation trust. If the individual offender is discharged from two different prisons in the year they will appear in both of the prison’s re-offending rates. The same applies for offenders commencing court orders in more than one probation trust within the year. This is to allow prisons and probation services to track their caseload of offenders. Early estimates of proven re-offending statistics
Background
Responses from the consultation and from earlier engagement with representatives of front-line offender management services supported the proposal to produce early estimates of proven re-offending using shorter follow-up and waiting periods. This is intended to provide offender managers feedback on the proven re-offending trends of offenders they are working with in time for them to adjust or build on offender management operational policy. This section of the new bulletin addresses these issues.
Early estimates of proven re-offending are presented for four particular offender groups who are subject to specific offender management arrangements. These are offenders managed by the probation service, Prolific and other Priority Offenders (PPO) who are managed by a partnership of local front-line services, drug-misusing offenders who are managed by Drug Action Teams, and young offenders who are managed by Youth Offending Teams.
Proven re-offending for the early estimates is measured in exactly the same way as for the headline proven re-offending measure except that the follow-up period and waiting period are both three months each. (For the headline measure of proven re-offending they are 12 months and six months, respectively.)
The headline figures and early estimates differ in the following ways:
- Early estimates of proven re-offending rates are considerably lower than in the headline publication. This is because they cover a shorter time period.
- The shorter follow-up period and waiting period allow rates to be calculated for more recent groups of proven offenders.
- Early estimates of proven re-offending rates provide local offender management services with information on proven re-offending trends for the offenders they are working with. The headline re-offending publication presents the public with information on a wide range of proven re-offending trends and provides proven re-offending rates by a variety of breakdowns, such as age, gender, disposal (sentence type), etc.
- The shorter follow-up period and waiting period provides insufficient time for many serious re-offences to be committed and convicted. For this reason, early estimates of proven re-offending rates do not include information on serious re-offending. • Results in the headline measure are compared to a baseline rate, adjusted for changes in the offender profile. This relies on an estimate of the relationship between offender characteristics and proven re-offending behaviour over 12 months. An equivalent estimate has been carried out for the proven re-offending behaviour of offenders commencing a court order over three months. This uses the same variables as the headline measure plus additional variables to ensure that the actual and predicted rates are identical for every probation trust in the baseline period (2008). The tables accompanying the early estimates present the adjusted baseline for each trust, and the text identifies those trusts where the actual rate is significantly higher or lower than the predicted rate in the most recent results available.
Measurement
Coverage Results are provided for four types of offenders: probation offenders by probation trust, PPO offenders by upper-tier local authority, drug-misusing offenders by Drug Action Team, and young offenders by Youth Offending Team.
Cohort For probation offenders, the cohort is made up of all offenders who commenced a court order within a 12 month period. For PPO offenders, the cohort is made up of all offenders identified as a PPO who were discharged from custody, convicted at court, received a caution (adults), reprimand or final warning (juveniles) or tested positive for opiates or cocaine within a 12 month period. For drug-misusing offenders, the cohort is made up of all offenders identified as drug-misusing who were discharged from custody, convicted at court, received a caution or tested positive for opiates or cocaine within a 12 month period. For juveniles, the cohort is made up of all young offenders who were discharged from custody, convicted at court or received a reprimand or final warning within a 12 month period.
Start point (index date) Same as for the headline proven re-offending figures presented in the Proven Re-offending Statistics Quarterly Bulletin.
Follow-up period This is the length of time proven re-offending is measured over. For the Early Estimates of Proven Re-offending, this is defined as three months from the start point.
Waiting period This is the additional time beyond the follow-up period to allow for offences which are committed towards the end of the follow-up period to be proven by a court, resulting in a conviction, caution, reprimand or final warning. For the Early Estimates of Proven Re-offending Statistics, this is three months. Proven re-offence Same as for the headline proven re-offending figures presented in the Proven Re-offending Statistics Quarterly Bulletin.
Adjusted baseline (predicted rate) Proven re-offending is related to the characteristics of offenders which means that any overall rate of proven re-offending will depend, in part, on the characteristics of offenders coming into the system (just as the examination pass rate of a school will be related to the characteristics of its pupils). We use a modelling technique to produce a baseline figure adjusted to match the characteristics of the cohort we are comparing. For more details on this, refer to the chapter on “Statistical modelling and coefficients”.
Multiple offender entries Same as for the headline proven re-offending figures presented in the Proven Re-offending Statistics Quarterly Bulletin. Local adult re-offending statistics quarterly bulletin
Background
Proven re-offending results from this measure have been published by the Ministry of Justice since February 2009 at Government Office Region, probation trust and local authority level. This data is used to measure probation performance and the Ministry of Justice will continue to produce these measures while offender management systems still require them. The Local Adult Re-offending Statistics Quarterly Bulletin can be found on the Ministry of Justice website at the following link:
www.gov.uk/government/collections/reoffending-statistics
The local proven re-offending data measure the re-offending of all offenders on the probation caseload. This includes offenders on licence and serving court orders.
Local proven re-offending rates use the same follow-up period and waiting period to those for the early estimates. However, there are several key differences between the local measure and the early estimates. These include:
- The sample of offenders - local rates are estimated using all offenders on the probation caseload, including those on licence and those serving court orders. Offenders on the caseload are identified through four ‘snapshots’ of the caseload, which are taken each quarter. Offenders are included if they are on the caseload even if they have been on licence or serving the court order for longer than 12 months. The early estimates are based on offenders who commence a court order within a 12 month period.
- Local rates define the period reported on by the period of re-offending. The early estimates refer to the year of the index disposal.
Measurement
Cohort All offenders on the probation caseload taken from four quarterly snapshots.
Start point The date of the snapshot. Follow-up period This is the length of time over which proven re-offending is measured. For the *Local Adult Re-offending Statistics Quarterly Bulletin*, this is defined as three months from the start point.
Waiting period This is the additional time beyond the follow-up period to allow for offences which are committed towards the end of the follow-up period to be proven by a court, resulting in a conviction, caution, reprimand or final warning. For the *Local Adult Re-offending Statistics Quarterly Bulletin*, this is three months.
Proven re-offence Same as for the headline proven re-offending figures presented in the *Proven Re-offending Statistics Quarterly Bulletin*.
Adjusted baseline (predicted rate) The predicted rate is the proportion of offenders we would expect to re-offend given the known characteristics of the offenders in the snapshot and re-offending rates in the baseline period. More detail on the predicted rate, and the statistical model used to calculate it, is provided in Appendix B of the *Local Adult Re-offending Statistics Bulletin*. Data quality
The data required for measuring proven re-offending are based on a range of data sources (prison data, probation data, identification of drug-misusing offenders, identification of prolific and other priority offenders, young offenders in secure accommodation, and criminal records from the Police National Computer) from a range of agencies (the National Offender Management Service, probation trusts, the Youth Justice Board, Drug Action Teams, local authorities and the National Police Improvement Agency). These figures have been derived from administrative IT systems which, as with any large scale recording system, are subject to possible errors with data entry and processing.
Police National Computer data
Information regarding the proven re-offending behaviour of offenders has been compiled using the Ministry of Justice’s extract from the Police National Computer (PNC). The process involves matching offender details from the prison and probation data to the personal details recorded on the PNC. A proportion of cases cannot be matched and the figures presented in Table 2 below are expressed as a percentage of the offenders that are matched. Like any large scale recording system, the PNC is subject to errors with data entry and recording. The PNC is regularly updated so that further analysis at a later date will generate revised figures.
The quality of the information recorded on the PNC is generally assumed to be relatively high as it is an operational system on which the police depend, but analysis can reveal errors that are typical when handling administrative datasets of this scale. The extent of error or omitted records on the PNC is difficult to estimate because it is a unique data source. As a result, there is not always an obvious source of data to provide a baseline from which to assess data quality. For some types of results, however, comparisons can be made. For example, the trend in receptions into prison in each month is very similar using the PNC and prisons data (see below for details). Although the number of receptions recorded on the PNC is consistently slightly lower because prisons data include cases on remand whereas the PNC does not. Another example is the number of cases that are given a custodial sentence, broken down by offence type, which is similar using the PNC and the Court Proceedings Database with a match rate of 97%.
A number of improvements are routinely carried out:
- Updates to the coding and classification of offences and court disposals, including the reduction of uncoded offences, the reduction in the use of miscellaneous offence codes and the clarification of the coding of breach offences;
- Updates to the methods used to identify the primary offence, where several offences are dealt with on the same occasion, and the methods used to identify the primary disposal, where an offence attracts more than one court disposal; and
- Removal of some duplication of records within the database resulting in improvements to the efficiency and reliability of the matching process.
Prison data
Prison establishments record details for individual inmates on the prison IT system (Prison-NOMIS or LIDS). The information recorded includes details such as date of birth, gender, religion, nationality, ethnic origin, custody type, offence, reception and discharge dates and, for sentenced prisoners, sentence length. The data from individual prison establishments then feeds through to a central computer database, called the Inmate Information System (IIS).
In May 2009, the National Offender Management Service (NOMS) began the roll-out of a new case management system for prisons (Prison-NOMIS). During the phased roll-out, data collection issues emerged that affected the supply of data for statistical purposes from July 2009 to February 2010. Specifically, statistical information on sentence length and offence group is not available on any of our prison datasets for this period.
In order to ensure the fullest possible set of data from July 2009 to February 2010, sentence lengths were estimated for those prisoners received or discharged before the problems were resolved. At the point when the problems were resolved, a small number of prison establishments were still using the old LIDS case management system; data for prisoners received or discharged from these prisons was assumed to be unaffected.
For those prisoners received or discharged from prisons operating Prison-NOMIS, efforts were made to populate their record with the correct sentence length using other data extracts. For example, many prisoners discharged in January 2010 were originally received into prison prior to July 2009, so their sentence length was taken from unaffected datasets before the problems began. Similarly, the majority of those received in early 2010 were still in prison in March 2010 when the problems were resolved, so the sentence length from the corrected prison population data was used.
Where it was not possible to populate a sentence length using other datasets, prisoners were allocated a sentence length band based on the number of days they spent in custody (taking account of early release schemes where relevant).
As a check on the methodology, an alternative estimation process was designed and the number of discharges in each sentence length band for the second half of 2009 was compared using the two methods. A number of estimation methods were considered and tested on the 2008 data (prior to the data problems) to see which yielded estimates closest to the actual 2008 data. This identified the following method:
1. Calculate data for the first half of the year as a proportion of the full calendar year, for each year from 2001 to 2008; separately for each sentence length band or offence group (the two key breakdowns to be estimated).
2. Apply the average of these proportions to the January to June 2009 data to estimate the 2009 annual totals; separately for each sentence length band or offence group.
3. Scale the estimated numbers in each sentence length band or offence group to sum to the annual total recorded in the raw data (where the totals are known to be correct).
The maximum difference between the two approaches was 2.6% in the band ‘12 months to less than 4 years’; for all other bands the difference was less than 1%.
**Indeterminate sentence prisoners**
In addition to the above, data on the discharge of prisoners on indeterminate sentences, i.e. prisoners given a life sentence or an Indeterminate sentence for Public Protection (IPP), is provided from the Public Protection Unit Database (PPUD). This holds data jointly owned by the Offender Management and Public Protection Group (OMPPG) in NOMS and the Parole Board.
PPUD records details of all indeterminate sentence prisoners at the point of conviction, those engaged in the Generic Parole Process and prisoners (determinate and indeterminate) who have been recalled from licence. It also covers those who have received a restricted hospital order/direction from a Crown Court, and those remand and convicted prisoners who have been transferred from prison/detention centres to psychiatric hospital under the relevant sections of mental health legislation.
All decisions taken by the NOMS casework sections and the Parole Board are recorded on the system.
Personal information recorded includes (but is not limited to) name, date of birth, gender, identifying numbers, ethnicity, last known address, probation area and sentencing information.
OMPPG and the Parole Board run monthly and ad hoc reports to cleanse data that are not otherwise identified by data validation routines built into the system. Probation data
Since 2005, detailed information on the supervision of offenders (at the individual offender level) has been submitted by probation trusts on a monthly basis. These monthly ‘probation listings’ include information on offenders starting probation supervision. Between 2002 and 2005, this information was submitted quarterly, and prior to 2002 a different data collection system was in place, which meant that information on caseload had to be calculated based on the number of people starting supervision and the number of terminations.
The quality of the information recorded on the probation data is generally assumed to be relatively high as it is a direct extract from an operational system upon which the probation service depends for managing offenders locally. The extract consists of a small number of key fields for which completion is mandatory. Probation trusts have their own IT departments which manage their own data validation processes and when the data is received centrally it is subject to another set of data validation processes. Trends from the data are consistent with comparable time series from the Courts Proceeding Database. Any large scale recording systems are subject to possible errors with data entry and processing, but there are no known issues regarding the probation commencements data.
Identification of drug-misusing offenders
There are four ways a drug-misusing offender can be identified:
- Individuals who have tested positive for heroin or crack/cocaine following an arrest or charge for ‘trigger’ offences (largely acquisitive crime offences) as part of the Drug Interventions Programme (DIP) are included as adult proven offenders.
- Any offender that received an OASys assessment whilst on licence or on a community sentence and are either recorded as being subject to a current Drug Treatment and Testing Order (DTTO) or Drug Rehabilitation Requirement (DRR), or are assessed as having a criminogenic drug need.
- Any offender identified as requiring further drug interventions by Counselling, Assessment, Referral, Advice, Throughcare (CARAT) teams in prison, and now being released into the community.
- Any offender identified by local Criminal Justice Integrated Teams (CJITs) as requiring further intervention for their drug use and offending as part of DIP.
Drug Interventions Programme
The Drug Interventions Programme (DIP) was introduced in April 2003 with the aim of developing and integrating measures for directing adult drug- misusing offenders into drug treatment and reducing offending behaviour. The programme comprises of a number of interrelated interventions:
- Drug testing in police custody for specified Class A drugs – heroin, cocaine and crack cocaine – for individuals arrested for trigger offences (primarily offences related to acquisitive crime).
- Assessment following a positive test to establish the extent of the individual’s drug-misuse, and whether the individual might benefit from further assessment, assistance or treatment.
- Conditional cautioning which may include a DIP drug rehabilitative condition, tailored to the offender’s drug use and offending.
- Restriction on bail for adults who have tested positive and whose offence is a drug offence or is drug-related.
- CJITs manage offenders who have been referred to treatment and co-ordinate agencies and services so they offer access to joined-up treatment and support. They maintain strong links with both the National Probation Service and Prison Service to ensure the continuity of care whilst the offender is within the Criminal Justice System.
Legislative changes have broadened the scope of the programme:
- A major expansion of DIP took place in April 2006 to move the point of drug testing from the point of charge to the point of arrest and to introduce required (rather than voluntary) assessments. This change broadened the scope and size of the cohort coming into contact with DIP.
- The latest changes took effect from April 2011, when the authorisation to conduct drug testing on arrest was extended across England and Wales. Drug testing on arrest previously occurred only in ‘intensive’ DIP areas, which had high levels of acquisitive crime.
Data sources Records of those who test positive are logged onto the Drugs Intervention Management Information System (DIMIS), which is managed by the Home Office. An extract of positive drug test records for the relevant period is used for a match to the PNC.
Offenders identified as drug-misusers via CARAT teams and CJITs are also recorded onto DIMIS, from which an extract is taken for the relevant period to match to the PNC. OASys records are collated centrally within the Ministry of Justice in the OASys Data, Evaluation and Analysis Team (O-DEAT) database, from which an extract is taken for the relevant period to match to the PNC. Identification of prolific and other priority offenders
The Prolific and other Priority Offenders Programme (PPO) aims to use a multi-agency approach to focus on a very small, but hard core group of prolific/persistent offenders who commit disproportionate amounts of crime and cause disproportionate harm to their local communities. Full implementation of all three strands had commenced by the beginning of February 2005. In 2009, all local areas were asked to review their PPO schemes to ensure that the programme remained squarely focused on those offenders that were of most concern to the communities in which they live.
The identification of a PPO is undertaken at a local level involving police, local authorities, prison and probation services and youth offending teams. The factors that influence the decision of whether an offender is included in the PPO programme are:
- the nature and volume of crimes they commit;
- the nature and volume of other harm they cause; and
- the detrimental impact they have on their community.
This process will typically involve police, prison and probation information systems and other tools available.
The size of the PPO caseload at a local level is influenced by a range of factors, including the number of offenders who meet the locally agreed selection criteria and the capacity of local partner agencies to provide the intensive management of offenders under PPO supervision.
PPO cohort data are derived from JTRACK, which is a management information and tracking tool used by practitioners in various criminal justice agencies to record details of the offenders being managed as PPOs in a local area. JTRACK relies on the accurate input of data by local users to ensure that the details of the caseload on the system reflect the caseload being managed. An extract of the caseload from JTRACK is taken for the relevant period to match to the PNC.
Young offenders in secure accommodation
Information about secure training centres (STCs) and secure children’s homes (SCHs) comes from the Youth Justice Board’s (YJB) eAsset database. Information about young people aged 17 and under and held in YOIs is supplied by the Prison Service and private YOIs.
The YJB monthly custody report has traditionally used data from the Secure Accommodation Clearing House System (SACHS), this was the system used by the YJB to book young people into custody. To meet information management challenges of a growing department and whilst improving our processes, the YJB has migrated to the use of the new eAsset system since March 2012.
As part of the work to implement the new system both SACHS and eAsset were run in parallel from 5th March to 1st July 2012. The YJB now has the ability to produce some reports from eAsset and has done work to quality assure the outputs against SACHS. While this work is ongoing and further reports are being developed we now believe the quality of data from this system is of a suitable level to publish as management information.
The quality of the information recorded on the eAsset database is generally assumed to be relatively high as it is a direct extract from an operational system which is used to place young people in custody. The extract uses a number of key fields for which completion is mandatory when booking a young person into custody.
**Data processing and analysis**
The data underpinning the results are considered by Ministry of Justice to be broadly robust. Considerable work has been carried out ensuring data quality, and the data have been used for research publications. Scrutiny of the data source continues in order to ensure the data remains reliable.
The National Audit Office (NAO) identified risk factors in its review of the reporting of PSA targets (NAO, 2005). The remainder of this section addresses these.
**Matching offender records**
This process involves matching data on prison discharges and court order commencements to the PNC database. The process uses automated matching routines that look at offenders’ surnames, initials, and dates of birth, using direct name matching along with a variety of ‘sounds like’ algorithms. The matching algorithm also searches through PNC held information on alias names and dates of birth for offenders. However, not all offenders are matched and a thorough analysis of bias in the matching system has yet to be undertaken. Table 2 below shows that the overall matching rates between 2000 and 2011 have remained high. Table 2: Matching rates for the different data sources for 2000, 2002 to 2011 cohorts
| | 2000 | 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | |----------------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------| | **Prison** | | | | | | | | | | | | | Prison discharges | 87,083 | 87,338 | 85,920 | 86,970 | 84,897 | 83,725 | 87,340 | 95,824 | 94,114 | 93,137 | 89,773 | | Automatically matched to the PNC | 80,572 | 81,211 | 80,121 | 81,125 | 79,398 | 78,285 | 81,874 | 90,021 | 88,745 | 84,950 | | | Matched to an index date | 73,810 | 75,121 | 73,327 | 73,390 | 71,246 | 68,185 | 69,741 | 76,668 | 74,189 | 69,278 | 67,912 | | Percentage matched to the PNC | 92.5% | 93.0% | 93.3% | 93.3% | 93.5% | 93.5% | 93.7% | 93.9% | 94.3% | 94.3% | 94.6% | | Percentage matched to the PNC and index offences (not breach etc.) | 84.8% | 86.0% | 85.3% | 84.4% | 83.9% | 81.4% | 79.9% | 80.0% | 78.8% | 70.1% | 75.2% | | **Court Orders** | | | | | | | | | | | | | Court order starts | 136,023 | 154,621 | 158,750 | 164,831 | 163,681 | 176,346 | 176,346 | 187,386 | 189,943 | 191,784 | 189,417 | | Automatically matched to the PNC | 123,540 | 142,838 | 148,257 | 154,075 | 158,416 | 172,906 | 184,740 | 187,253 | 190,128 | 185,112 | 178,026 | | Matched to an index date | 105,685 | 115,108 | 119,446 | 122,527 | 130,307 | 148,072 | 159,279 | 163,519 | 167,378 | 164,579 | 159,533 | | Percentage matched to the PNC | 90.8% | 92.4% | 93.4% | 93.5% | 96.8% | 98.0% | 98.7% | 99.1% | 99.3% | 99.3% | 99.3% | | Percentage matched to the PNC and index offences (not breach etc.) | 77.7% | 74.4% | 75.2% | 74.6% | 79.6% | 84.0% | 85.0% | 86.2% | 87.3% | 88.3% | 89.0% | | **YJB** | | | | | | | | | | | | | YJB discharges | - | 1,337 | 1,612 | 1,521 | 1,551 | 1,564 | 1,553 | 1,647 | 1,626 | 1,770 | 891 | | Automatically matched to the PNC | - | 1,228 | 1,502 | 1,425 | 1,448 | 1,464 | 1,463 | 1,537 | 1,564 | 1,682 | 852 | | Matched to an index date | - | 680 | 918 | 785 | 800 | 769 | 780 | 845 | 817 | 918 | 847 | | Percentage matched to the PNC | - | 91.7% | 93.2% | 93.7% | 93.4% | 93.6% | 94.2% | 93.3% | 96.2% | 95.0% | 95.6% | | Percentage matched to the PNC and index offences (not breach etc.) | - | 50.9% | 50.7% | 51.6% | 51.6% | 49.2% | 50.2% | 51.3% | 50.2% | 51.8% | 72.6% |
1. Data are not available for 2001 due to a problem with archived data on Court Orders.
2. A new data collection method began in March 2012.
The total number of offenders matched to the PNC is substantially higher than the final figure for the cohorts – for example, in 2011 there were 263,828 matched offenders, but a final cohort size of 227,692. The main reasons for these discrepancies are:
- Conviction dates for the beginning of the community, suspended or custodial sentence do not match the conviction date within seven days of the criminal records from the PNC database;
- The index offence was not dealt with by a Home Office police force – this ensures that only offences in England and Wales are counted;
- Exclusion of all offenders where the index offence is a breach, since we are only interested in new offences; and
- Exclusion of multiple offender entries (see section above titled “Multiple offender entries” for further details).
**Counting rules**
The counting rules for choosing which prison discharges to include offer a variety of choices. For instance, it makes little sense to include offenders deported on release or who have died. These counting rules were enumerated and discussed to ensure a more accurate and consistent count and are reviewed on an annual basis to ensure a consistent approach. Complexity of data processing and analysis
The data processing involved for measuring re-offending is complex. To analyse re-offending behaviour by previous offending or disposal history requires the extraction of criminal histories that can span a number of decades, and the subsequent matching of these histories against the probation caseload files and prison discharges in order to generate a dataset.
The extraction of the criminal histories
To quality assure the extraction of criminal histories, a small set of random samples of offenders was taken after the analysis to check, via a basic validation, that outputs of the SQL (Structured Query Language) program were accurate. The Ministry of Justice is confident that this process has been successful.
Level of subjectivity
There is relatively little subjectivity in the system. Occasional judgements are required (e.g. where to classify an offence), but these will not significantly influence the results.
Maturity and stability of the data system
The system is well established having been used a number of times to produce re-offending statistics for publication. Nonetheless, vigilance continues to be exercised to ensure the validity of the results.
Expertise of those who operate the system
Prison and court order data-feeds are continually monitored and improvement work is regularly undertaken to improve the reliability and the accuracy of datasets. The internal processing of the results within the Ministry of Justice has been subject to dip sampling of criminal histories and the statistical model has been extensively tested.
Interpreting trends in the proportion of offenders who commit a serious re-offence against the person
Care should be taken when interpreting the severity rate for the following reasons:
- **Time through the Criminal Justice System** – more serious offences are likely to take a longer time to progress through the Criminal Justice System than less serious offences. The proven re- • **Reporting variation** – variation in reporting time between police force areas and courts may also have an impact on how many serious offences are captured during the one year follow-up period.
**Data on historical trends**
The data used to measure proven re-offending is from the PNC. Police forces started to enter criminal records locally in 1995. In order to allow time for good practice among police forces in entering data onto the PNC to become embedded, PNC data was used to measure proven re-offending for the first time in 2000. In the headline bulletin, results are compared to 2000 to highlight long-term trends because it is the earliest data on proven re-offending that exists on a comparable basis. Results prior to 2000 cannot be compared to results from 2000 onwards for two main reasons:
- Change in data source – re-offences are measured using data from the PNC (which covers recordable offences), whereas data from years before 2000 were measured using the offenders index (which covered a narrower range of offences).
- Change in measurement – the concept being measured from 2000 onwards in these reports is that of using the offence date to measure re-offences (a period of time is allowed for offences to be committed, and a further period allowed for these offences to be proved by caution, reprimand, final warning or court conviction), whereas the concept being measured prior to 2000 was that of using the conviction date to measure re-convictions (any conviction occurring in a set period of time, whether or not the offence occurred in that time period).
However, the *Compendium of Re-offending Statistics and Analysis 2010*, published in November 2010, provides the most consistent statistical series possible between 1971 and 2006, adjusting for known methodological changes. For more information, please refer to Chapter 4.4 at the following link:
[www.gov.uk/government/publications/compendium-of-reoffending-statistics-and-analysis-2010](http://www.gov.uk/government/publications/compendium-of-reoffending-statistics-and-analysis-2010)
Results for 2001 cannot be calculated for offenders on court orders because of a problem with archived data on court orders. Local breakdowns of the headline proven re-offending rates are available from 2005 onwards. Proven re-offending data are broken down by locality using the address and post-code information of the offender. Where this information is missing, the location of the processing police force is used instead. This is not a completely reliable indicator of the offender’s home address as offenders may offend in a different locality than where they reside. The completeness of this information has improved over time. In 2000, this information was omitted for 29% of cases, which was considered too high to produce reliable results. By 2005, this was reduced to 16.5%, and there has been a continuing downward trend since then. Statistical modelling and coefficients
Introduction
The characteristics of proven offenders are likely to be systematically different over time and by sentence type as the Criminal Justice System targets particular sentences to offenders most likely to benefit from that type. It is therefore important to note that it is not possible to reach firm conclusions about changes in rates over time, nor about the relative effectiveness of different sentence types, from actual proven re-offending rates.
The Ministry of Justice has developed models to address these two issues:
- modelling to adjust the baseline to reflect changes in offender characteristics (see below).
- modelling to match offenders across sentence types to make valid comparisons. Refer to the Compendium of Re-offending Statistics and Analysis 2013 at the link below for this analysis:
www.gov.uk/government/publications/2013-compendium-of-re-offending-statistics-and-analysis
Modelling to adjust for the varying composition of the cohort of offenders over time
If the composition of the cohorts of offenders being compared differs significantly over time so that the type of offenders in one year is inherently more (or less) likely to re-offend, this may result in an apparent rise or fall in the proven re-offending rates even when there may be no ‘real’ difference for similar offenders over that time. In order to address this problem, we have adopted the following solution:
- modelling the likelihood of proven re-offending based on known offender characteristics using historic data (which will be defined as the baseline);
- identifying the characteristics of the most recent cohort;
- using the model, adjusting the baseline proven re-offending rate to match these characteristics; and
- comparing this adjusted rate with the current rate to make a more realistic estimate of trends over time. In previous publications of proven re-offending statistics, this approach has been referred to as the predicted rate of proven re-offending.
**Statistical model**
The 2008 statistical model is an update and improvement on the 2000 and 2005 logistic regression models and includes a range of offender characteristics available from the PNC, such as age, gender, offence group and criminal history.
The logistic regression model based on the 2008 data identifies a statistically significant set of variables that are related to proven re-offending and based on these provides a probability of proven re-offending for each offender. However, other factors, for which data on these samples are not available, such as drug and alcohol use, employment, accommodation and marital background are likely to be significantly related to re-offending.
This means that the adjusted proven re-offending rates are only valid for terms included in the final model. Any adjusted proven re-offending rates for groups of offenders that have a common characteristic that is not in the final model (e.g. employment status or disposal type) can suffer from statistical biases and are, therefore, unreliable.
For the 2008 model additional developments were included to ensure that the adjusted rate model was a more parsimonious model, more robust against changes in the number of offenders, and that interaction terms and non-linear terms were included where appropriate. The final decision for inclusion or exclusion of particular variables was heavily influenced by their statistical significance (typically p < 0.10).
The Ministry of Justice believes that the method used for the construction of the statistical model for producing adjusted rates is robust and fit for purpose.
**Variables included**
The following notes provide some further detail on the 2008 model and show the relative impacts of different variables when holding all other variables constant.
**Gender**
Gender is included in the model as a categorical variable separating out males and females. Generally, males are more likely to commit a proven re-offence than females. Age Age is included in the model for adults as a linear, quadratic and cubed term and is included for juveniles as a categorical variable separating offenders into seven age bands. Generally, younger adults are more likely to commit a proven re-offence than older adults, and older juveniles are more likely to re-offend than younger juveniles.
Index offence The index offence represents the offence that led to the offender entering the cohort. Index offences were classified into 21 broad categories and their relative coefficients are shown in relation to the reference category ‘violence’. To ensure the reliability and replicability of the model coefficients, any index offences with low numbers were grouped with the ‘other’ index offence group.
Ethnicity Ethnicity is derived from the PNC and reflects the officer’s view of the offender’s ethnicity. Thus, ethnicity in this model should be taken as a proxy for the actual ethnicity and the results should not be over-interpreted because any biases in the assessment are unknown. Ethnicity was a statistically significant factor, making it an important factor to control for and, therefore, it was included in the model.
Copas rate The Copas rate (Copas and Marshall, 1998) controls for the rate at which an offender has built up convictions throughout their criminal career. The higher the rate, the more convictions an offender has in a given amount of time, and the more likely it is that an offender will be re-convicted. The Copas rate formula is:
[ \\text{copas rate} = \\log_e \\left( \\frac{\\text{Number of court appearances or cautions} + 1}{\\text{Length of criminal career in years} + 10} \\right) ]
For adults the Copas rate is included as a linear and quadratic, but for juveniles it is included as a linear term only. As mentioned above, inclusion of variables was heavily influenced by their statistical significance.
Length of criminal career An offender’s criminal career is a significant factor in predicting the likelihood of a re-offence and this relationship is quadratic, thus both linear and quadratic terms were included in the model.
Total number of previous offences The total number of previous offences is a significant factor in predicting the likelihood of re-offending. The previous offending variables counted cautions and convictions and were included as linear and logged variables.
Previous custodial sentences For adults, the number of previous custodial sentences was implemented as a continuous variable in both linear and quadratic terms. For juveniles, previous custodial sentences were included as a binary term: had the offender received one or more previous custodial sentences, yes or no. The difference in treatment reflects the more limited custodial history juvenile offenders generally possess compared to adult offenders.
Counts of previous offending by type of offence For adults, the number of previous offences by type of offence was an improvement over simple yes/no variables for recording the presence of prior offences in the relevant categories. For juvenile offenders, simple yes/no variables for recording the presence of prior offences in the relevant categories performed better. The difference in treatment reflects the more limited offending history juvenile offenders generally possess compared to adult offenders.
Interaction terms Interaction terms are calculated by multiplying two factors together. The inclusion of these terms allows the effect of one variable to vary according to the values of another, improving the quality of predictions. This is important because three factors (gender, age and total number of previous offences) are not completely independent of each other.
For adults, interaction terms were also included for drug-misusing offenders as they showed some trends in their proven re-offending behaviour that were different from the more general offending population.
Model assessment
The model is assessed by calculating the level of discrimination between offenders that committed a proven re-offence and offenders that did not. The adult logistic regression model achieved a 78.% overall discrimination level on the 2008 cohort and 72.% for the juvenile logistic regression model. A level of discrimination of about 70% was deemed to be acceptable and the model should predict results accurately enough for the predicted rate to be used. The discrimination can also be evaluated by calculating the Area Under Curve (AUC) for the Receiver Operator Characteristic curve. Again, the value for the model was 0.784 for the adult regression model in 2008 and 0.716 for the youth regression model which means a satisfactory level of discrimination (Hosmer and Lemeshow, 2000, p.162).
Coefficients of the 2008 statistical model
The tables 3 and 4 below show the parameter estimates for the various components of the logistic regression model for the predicted one year proven re-offending rates for adults and young offenders.
Each logistic coefficient is multiplied by the variable value for each offender to calculate a linear prediction. To calculate each offender’s predicted probability of committing a proven re-offence in the follow-up period or a further six month waiting period we transform the linear prediction $Z$ using the following formula:
$$\\text{Predicted Probability of Reoffending} = \\frac{\\exp(Z)}{1 + \\exp(Z)}$$
The exponent of the coefficient is the odds ratio of committing a proven re-offence corresponding to the particular coefficient and enables us to make comparisons between different categories. For factors with interactions (e.g. age and gender) the interpretation is more complex.
The significance (p-value) gives us an assessment of how significant each variable is in predicting the likelihood of an offender to commit a proven re-offence within one year. For modelling purposes, a probability value (p-value) of less than 0.05 is considered to be significant.
Table 3: List of variables in the logistic regression model applied to the 2008 data on adult offenders and their respective coefficients
| Variables | Coefficient | Logs-odd ratios | P-value | Variables | Coefficient | Logs-odd ratios | P-value | |-----------|-------------|-----------------|---------|-----------|-------------|-----------------|---------| | Constant | 1.940 | 6.958 | 0.000 | Index offence: | Reference category | | Gender: | | | | Violence | Reference category | | Female | Reference category | 0.645 | 1.906 | 0.000 | Theft | 0.482 | 1.620 | 0.000 | | Male | 0.645 | 1.906 | 0.000 | Handling | 0.173 | 1.189 | 0.000 | | Age: | | | | Taking and driving away | 0.180 | 1.198 | 0.000 | | Age squared | 0.006 | 1.006 | 0.000 | Sexual child | -0.465 | 0.628 | 0.000 | | Age cubed | -0.00004 | 1.000 | 0.000 | Soliciting/prostitution | 0.253 | 1.288 | 0.000 | | Male * age interaction | -0.013 | 0.988 | 0.000 | Domestic burglary | 0.148 | 1.159 | 0.000 | | General criminal career variables: | | | | Other burglary | 0.337 | 1.401 | 0.000 | | Previous offences | -0.006 | 0.994 | 0.000 | Theft from vehicles | 0.478 | 1.612 | 0.000 | | Previous offences (logged) | 0.391 | 1.478 | 0.000 | Drink driving | -0.154 | 0.857 | 0.000 | | Male * previous offences interaction | -0.003 | 0.997 | 0.000 | Criminal damage | 0.226 | 1.254 | 0.000 | | Previous prison sentences | 0.045 | 1.046 | 0.000 | Drug supply | -0.400 | 0.670 | 0.000 | | Previous prison sentences (logged) | -0.060 | 0.942 | 0.000 | Drug possession | 0.074 | 1.077 | 0.000 | | Career length | -0.0001 | 1.000 | 0.000 | Drug test | -1.167 | 0.311 | 0.000 | | Career length squared | 0.000 | 1.000 | 0.069 | Fraud/forgery | -0.213 | 0.808 | 0.000 | | Copas rate | 0.385 | 1.469 | 0.000 | Absconding and bail | 0.364 | 1.440 | 0.000 | | Copas rate squared | -0.064 | 0.938 | 0.000 | Number of previous offences: | | | | | PPO offender | 0.528 | 1.696 | 0.000 | Public order | 0.052 | 1.053 | 0.000 | | Drug-misusing offender | 1.422 | 4.146 | 0.000 | Sexual | 0.035 | 1.036 | 0.000 | | Ethnicity: | | | | Domestic burglary | -0.006 | 0.994 | 0.005 | | White | Reference category | -0.663 | 0.516 | Theft | 0.012 | 1.012 | 0.000 | | Unknown | -0.663 | 0.516 | 0.000 | Handling | -0.010 | 0.990 | 0.002 | | Black | 0.161 | 1.175 | 0.000 | Absconding and bail | 0.018 | 1.018 | 0.000 | | Pacific 0. | 0.161 | 1.175 | 0.000 | Taking and driving away | -0.007 | 0.993 | 0.003 | | Middle East | 0.130 | 1.138 | 0.003 | Drug supply | -0.044 | 0.957 | 0.000 | | Interaction with drug-misusing offenders: | | | | Drug possession | 0.013 | 1.013 | 0.000 | | Previous offences (logged) | -0.156 | 0.855 | 0.000 | Other | -0.002 | 0.998 | 0.073 | | Index offence of drug supply | -0.430 | 0.651 | 0.000 | Index offence of drug possession | -0.550 | 0.577 | 0.000 | Table 4: List of variables in the logistic regression model applied to the 2008 data on young offenders and their respective coefficients
| Variables | Coefficient | Logs-odd ratios | P-value | Variables | Coefficient | Logs-odd ratios | P-value | |-----------|-------------|-----------------|---------|-----------|-------------|-----------------|---------| | Constant | -1.495 | 0.224 | 0.000 | Index offence: | Reference category | | | | Gender: | | | | Robbery | 0.130 | 1.139 | 0.003 | | Female | Reference category | | | Public order or riot | 0.178 | 1.195 | 0.000 | | Male | 0.527 | 1.693 | 0.000 | Sexual offences | -0.578 | 0.561 | 0.000 | | Age | | | | Sexual offences against children | -1.157 | 0.314 | 0.000 | | Aged 10-11| Reference category | | | Domestic burglary | 0.233 | 1.262 | 0.000 | | Aged 12 | 0.354 | 1.425 | 0.000 | Other burglary | 0.083 | 1.087 | 0.026 | | Aged 13 | 0.448 | 1.566 | 0.000 | Theft | -0.088 | 0.916 | 0.000 | | Aged 14 | 0.431 | 1.538 | 0.000 | Robbery | 0.101 | 1.106 | 0.011 | | Aged 15 | 0.186 | 1.205 | 0.000 | Public order or riot | 0.143 | 1.154 | 0.000 | | Aged 16 | -0.124 | 0.883 | 0.017 | Domestic burglary | 0.166 | 1.181 | 0.000 | | Aged 17 | -0.202 | 0.817 | 0.000 | Other burglary | 0.099 | 1.104 | 0.001 | | Interactions between age and gender: | | | | Theft | 0.135 | 1.144 | 0.000 | | Female at any age | Reference category | | | Handling | 0.107 | 1.113 | 0.009 | | Male aged 10-11 | Reference category | | | Absconding or bail offences | 0.096 | 1.101 | 0.032 | | Male aged 12 | -0.276 | 0.759 | 0.000 | Taking and driving away | -0.088 | 1.093 | 0.012 | | Male aged 13 | -0.214 | 0.807 | 0.000 | Theft from vehicles | 0.125 | 1.133 | 0.012 | | Male aged 14 | -0.157 | 0.855 | 0.000 | Drunk driving | -0.245 | 0.783 | 0.033 | | Male aged 16 | 0.134 | 1.144 | 0.002 | Criminal or malicious damage | 0.069 | 1.071 | 0.001 | | Male aged 17 | 0.113 | 1.120 | 0.013 | Other | 0.138 | 1.148 | 0.001 | | General criminal career variables: | | | | Miscellaneous | -0.689 | 0.502 | 0.014 | | Career length | 0.000 | 1.000 | 0.000 | Breaches | 0.762 | 2.144 | 0.007 | | Career length squared | 0.000 | 1.000 | 0.000 | | | | | | Copas rate | 0.128 | 1.137 | 0.001 | | | | | | Previous offences | -0.036 | 0.964 | 0.000 | | | | | | Previous offences (logged) | 0.920 | 2.510 | 0.000 | | | | | | Previous prison sentence(s) | 0.124 | 1.132 | 0.022 | | | | | | PPO offender | 0.930 | 2.534 | 0.000 | | | | | | Ethnicity: | | | | | | | | | White | Reference category | | | | | | | | Unknown | -0.823 | 0.439 | 0.000 | | | | | | White (other) | 0.196 | 1.217 | 0.000 | | | | | | Black | 0.187 | 1.206 | 0.000 | | | | | | Asian | -0.290 | 0.819 | 0.000 | | | | | | Pacific | -0.468 | 0.626 | 0.001 | | | | | Additional modelling for prison performance
Assessing the performance of individual prisons in reducing re-offending is difficult because the particular characteristics of offenders that are at a particular prison are likely to be the main drivers behind re-offending.
A statistical methodology has been developed to examine prison re-offending rates that not only takes account of offence and offender characteristics, but also takes account of the hierarchical structure of the data, i.e. that offenders are within prisons.
Two separate models were developed: for prisoners receiving sentences of fewer than 12 months and prisoners with sentences of 12 months or over. The separate models for prisoners with sentences of fewer than 12 months and 12 months or more reflects differences in prisoners’ re-offending behaviour by prison sentence length.
The model used for both types of offender was a logistic regression model with mixed effects (fixed and random). The outcome variable is a binary yes/no variable representing whether an offender re-offends or not. Offender characteristics are included as fixed independent variables and the prisons are included as a random effect component which allows each prison to interact with the fixed effects differently.
The variables included in the model were similar to those used to develop the adjusted baseline described above: age, ethnicity, index offence, previous offences, previous prison sentences, Copas scores, and criminal career, as well as the random effects component of prisons. The goodness-of-fit by AUC was satisfactory, above 0.77 in all cases.
Considerable preliminary analysis has been undertaken investigating the relative important of offence, offender and prison level variables in explaining custodial re-offending. This analysis has overwhelmingly shown that offence and offender level variables shape re-offending whereas prison-level variables refine re-offending behaviour. For this reason, the model uses offender and offence level variables and only models prison level effects using a single random effects component.
This model generates an expected probability of re-offending for each offender. When aggregated up to the prison it produces an expected proportion of offenders who re-offend. This can be compared with the actual rate of re-offending.
Where the model-predicted re-offending rate was statistically significantly different to actual re-offending rates, two possible explanations are plausible:
1. Missing characteristics: it is possible that there are underlying offence, offender or prison characteristics affecting re-offending behaviour that are not included in the current model; or
2. A genuine difference: there is something specific to these prisons that make them better/worse than predicted.
Additional modelling for probation performance
Results in the headline measure are compared to a baseline rate, adjusted for changes in the offender profile. This relies on an estimate of the relationship between offender characteristics and proven re-offending behaviour over 12 months. An equivalent estimate has been carried out for the proven re-offending behaviour specifically of offenders commencing court orders. This uses the same variables as the headline measure plus additional variables to ensure that the actual and predicted rates are identical for every probation trust in the baseline period (2008). The tables accompanying the report present the adjusted baseline for each trust.
Differences between the prison and probation trusts models and the model for the adjusted baseline for the headline measure
- The adjusted baseline for the headline measure applies to all offenders; the prison and probation models only apply to offenders discharged from custody or given a court order.
- The adjusted baseline for the headline measure is created using a fixed effects model using only offender and offence level variables; the probation model does the same, but the prison models use offender and offence level variables and also include a random component to reflect that prisoners are located within prisons.
- The adjusted baseline for the headline measure and for the probation model is derived using data from a baseline year (2008). The observed re-offending is equal to the predicted re-offending for the baseline year; the model coefficients are then applied to subsequent years and the predicted rates begins to differ from the actual rates. Provided the baseline year model is frequently refreshed, this ensures that any deviations of the actual re-offending rate from the predicted rate are due to system changes and not due to changes in the cohort make up. This approach enables us to assess progress in reducing re-offending. Whereas, the prison model is generated from scratch every year and assesses if any prison differs from the national average. As with the previous approach, the observed re-offending rate is still equal to the predicted re-offending for the prison population as a whole. It will not necessarily be the case for individual prisons. This approach provides an idea of which prisons have significantly lower (or higher) re-offending rates than predicted.
- Work is underway to develop an equivalent model for probation trusts to the one used for prisons. Appendix A: List of serious offences
Serious violence against the person
1. Murder:
1. Of persons aged 1 year or over.
2. Of infants under 1 year of age.
2. Attempted murder.
3. Manslaughter, etc:
1. Manslaughter.
2. Infanticide.
3. Child destruction.
4. Wounding or other act endangering life:
01. Wounding, etc. with intent to do grievous bodily harm, etc. or to resist apprehension.
02. Shooting at naval or revenue vessels.
03. Attempting to choke, suffocate, etc. with intent to commit an indictable offence (garrotting).
04. Using chloroform, etc. to commit or assist in committing an indictable offence.
05. Burning, maiming, etc. by explosion.
06. Causing explosions or casting corrosive fluids with intent to do grievous bodily harm.
07. Impeding the saving of life from shipwreck.
08. Placing, etc. explosives in or near ships or buildings with intent to do bodily harm, etc.
09. Endangering life or causing harm by administering poison.
10. Causing danger by causing anything to be on road, interfering with a vehicle or traffic equipment.
11. Possession, etc. of explosives with intent to endanger life.
12. Possession of firearms, etc. with intent to endanger life or injure property, etc. (Group I).
13. Possession of firearms, etc. with intent to endanger life or injure property, etc. (Group II).
14. Possession of firearms, etc. with intent to endanger life or injure property, etc. (Group III).
15. Using, etc. firearms or imitation firearms with intent to resist arrest, etc. (Group I).
16. Using, etc. firearms or imitation firearms with intent to resist arrest, etc. (Group II).
17. Using, etc. firearms or imitation firearms with intent to resist arrest, etc. (Group III). [Group I - Firearms, etc. other than as described in Group II or III. Group II - Shotguns as defined in s.1 (3)(a) of the Firearms Act 1968. Group III - Air weapons as defined in s.1 (3)(b) of the Firearms Act 1968]
18. Use etc. of chemical weapons.
19. Use of premises or equipment for producing chemical weapons.
20. Use, threat to use, production or possession of a nuclear weapon.
21. Weapons related acts overseas.
22. Use of noxious substances or things to cause harm or intimidate.
23. Performing an aviation function or ancillary function when ability to carry out function is impaired because of drink or drugs.
24. Endangering safety at sea/aerodromes.
25. Torture.
5. Other wounding, etc.:
1. Wounding or inflicting grievous bodily harm (inflicting bodily injury with or without weapon).
6. Racially aggravated wounding or inflicting grievous bodily harm (inflicting bodily injury with or without weapon).
7. Religiously aggravated malicious wounding or GBH.
8. Racially or religiously aggravated malicious wounding or grievous bodily harm.
Sexual offences
017. Sexual assault on a male (previously indecent assault on a male):
018. Indecent assault on male person under 16 years.
019. Indecent assault on male person 16 years or over.
020. Assault on a male by penetration.
021. Assault of a male child under 13 by penetration.
022. Sexual assault on a male.
023. Sexual assault of a male child under 13.
024. Rape:
025. Man having unlawful sexual intercourse with a woman who is a defective.
026. Male member of staff of hospital or mental nursing home having unlawful sexual intercourse with female patient.
027. Man having unlawful sexual intercourse with mentally disordered female patient who is subject to his care.
028. Rape of a female aged under 16.
029. Rape of a female aged 16 or over.
030. Rape of a male aged under 16.
031. Rape of a male aged 16 or over.
032. Attempted rape of a female aged under 16.
033. Attempted rape of a female aged 16 or over.
034. Attempted rape of a male aged under 16.
035. Attempted rape of a male aged 16 or over.
036. Rape of female child under 13 by a male.
037. Rape of a male child under 13 by a male.
038. Attempted rape of a female child under 13 by a male.
039. Attempted rape of a male child under 13 by a male.
040. Sexual assault on female (previously indecent assault on a female):
041. On females under 16 years of age.
042. On females aged 16 years and over.
043. Assault on a female by penetration.
044. Assault on a female child under 13 by penetration.
045. Sexual assault on a female.
046. Sexual assault on a female child under 13.
047. Sexual activity (male and female) (including with a child under 13) (previously unlawful intercourse with a girl under 13):
048. Causing or inciting a female child under 13 to engage in sexual activity - penetration.
049. Causing or inciting a female child under 13 to engage in sexual activity - no penetration.
050. Causing or inciting a male child under 13 to engage in sexual activity - penetration.
051. Causing or inciting a male child under 13 to engage in sexual activity - no penetration.
052. Sexual activity with a female child under 13 - offender aged 18 or over - penetration.
053. Sexual activity with a male child under 13 - offender aged 18 or over - penetration.
054. Causing or inciting a female child under 13 to engage in sexual activity - offender aged 18 or over – penetration.
055. Causing or inciting a male child under 13 to engage in sexual activity - offender aged 18 or over - penetration.
056. Engaging in sexual activity in the presence of a child under 13 (offender aged 18 or over).
057. Causing a child under 13 to watch a sexual act (offender aged 18 or over).
058. Sexual activity with a female child under 13 - offender aged under 18.
059. Sexual activity with a male child under 13 - offender aged under 18.
060. Causing of inciting a female child under 13 to engage in sexual activity - offender under 18.
061. Causing or inciting a male child under 13 to engage in sexual activity - offender under 18.
062. Engaging in sexual activity in the presence of a child under 13 - offender under 18.
063. Causing a child under 13 to watch a sexual act - offender under 18.
064. Sexual activity with a female under 13 - offender aged 18 or over - no penetration.
065. Sexual activity with a male child under 13 - offender aged 18 or over - no penetration.
066. Causing or inciting a female child under 13 to engage in sexual activity - offender aged 18 or over - no penetration.
067. Causing or inciting a male child under 13 to engage in sexual activity - offender aged 18 or over - no penetration.
068. Sexual activity with a female child under 13 - offender aged under 18 - no penetration.
069. Sexual activity with a male child under 13 - offender aged under 18 - no penetration.
070. Causing or inciting a female child under 13 to engage in sexual activity - offender aged under 18 - no penetration.
071. Causing or inciting a male child under 13 to engage in sexual activity - offender aged under 18 - no penetration.
072. Sexual activity (male and female) (including with a child under 16) (previously unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl under 16):
073. Unlawful sexual intercourse with girl under 16 (offences committed prior to 1 May 2004).
074. Causing a female person to engage in sexual activity without consent – penetration.
075. Causing a male person to engage in sexual activity without consent – penetration.
076. Causing a female person to engage in sexual activity without consent - no penetration.
077. Causing a male person to engage in sexual activity without consent - no penetration.
078. Sexual activity with a female child under 16 (offender aged 18 or over) – penetration.
079. Sexual activity with a male child under 16 (offender aged 18 or over) – penetration.
080. Causing or inciting a female child under 16 to engage in sexual activity (offender aged 18 or over) - penetration
081. Causing of inciting a male child under 16 to engage in sexual activity (offender aged 18 or over) – penetration.
082. Engaging in sexual activity in the presence of a child under 16 (offender aged 18 or over).
083. Causing a child under 16 to watch a sexual act (offender aged 18 or over).
084. Sexual activity with a female child under 16 - offender aged 18 or over - no penetration.
085. Sexual activity with a male child under 16 - offender aged 18 or over - no penetration.
086. Causing or inciting a female child under 16 to engage in sexual activity (offender aged 18 or over) - no penetration.
087. Causing or inciting a male child under 16 to engage in sexual activity (offender aged 18 or over) - no penetration.
088. Sexual activity etc. with a person with a mental disorder:
089. Sexual activity with a male person with a mental disorder impeding choice – penetration.
090. Sexual activity with a female person with a mental disorder impeding choice – penetration.
091. Sexual activity with a male person with a mental disorder impeding choice - no penetration.
092. Sexual activity with a female person with a mental disorder impeding choice - no penetration.
093. Causing or inciting a male person with a mental disorder impeding choice to engage in sexual activity – penetration.
094. Causing or inciting a female person with a mental disorder impeding choice to engage in sexual activity – penetration.
095. Causing or inciting a male person with a mental disorder impeding choice to engage in sexual activity – penetration.
096. Causing or inciting a female person with a mental disorder impeding choice to engage in sexual activity - no penetration.
097. Engaging in sexual activity in the presence of a person with a mental disorder impeding choice.
098. Causing a person with a mental disorder impeding choice to watch a sexual act.
099. Inducement, threat or deception to procure sexual activity with a person with a mental disorder – penetration.
100. Inducement, threat or deception to procure sexual activity with a person with a mental disorder - no penetration.
101. Causing a person with a mental disorder to engage in sexual activity by inducement, threat or deception - penetration.
102. Causing a person with a mental disorder to engage in sexual activity by inducement, threat or deception - no penetration.
103. Engaging in sexual activity in the presence, procured by inducement, threat or deception, of a person with a mental disorder.
104. Causing a person with a mental disorder to watch a sexual act by inducement, threat or deception.
105. Care workers: Sexual activity with a male person with a mental disorder - penetration.
106. Care workers: Sexual activity with a female person with a mental disorder - penetration.
107. Care workers: Sexual activity with a male person with a mental disorder - no penetration.
108. Care workers: Sexual activity with a female person with a mental disorder - no penetration.
109. Care workers: Causing or inciting sexual activity (person with a mental disorder) - penetration.
110. Care workers: Causing or inciting sexual activity (person with a mental disorder) - no penetration.
111. Care workers: Sexual activity in the presence of a person with a mental disorder.
112. Care workers: Causing a person with a mental disorder impeding choice to watch a sexual act.
113. Abuse of children through prostitution and pornography (previously child prostitution and pornography):
114. Arranging or facilitating the commission of a child sex offence.
115. Paying for sex with a female child under 13 - penetration
116. Paying for sex with a male child under 13 - penetration
117. Paying for sex with a female child under 16 - no penetration.
118. Paying for sex with a male child under 16 - no penetration.
119. Paying for sex with a female child aged 16 or 17.
120. Paying for sex with a male child aged 16 or 17.
121. Causing or inciting child prostitution or pornography - child aged 13-17.
122. Controlling a child prostitute or a child involved in pornography - child aged 13-17.
123. Arranging or facilitating child prostitution or pornography - child aged 13-17.
124. Causing or inciting child prostitution or pornography - child under 13.
125. Controlling a child prostitute or child involved in pornography - child under 13.
126. Arranging or facilitating child prostitution or pornography - child under 13.
127. Paying for sex with a female child aged under 16 – penetration.
128. Paying for sex with a male child aged under 16 – penetration.
129. Trafficking for sexual exploitation:
130. Arranging or facilitating arrival of a person into the UK for sexual exploitation (trafficking).
131. Arranging or facilitating travel of a person within the UK for sexual exploitation (trafficking).
132. Arranging or facilitating departure of a person from the UK for sexual exploitation (trafficking).
Taking and driving away and related offences
37. Aggravated vehicle taking:
38. Where, owing to the driving of the vehicle, an accident occurs causing the death of any person.
Other motoring offences
4. Manslaughter, etc: 4. Causing death by dangerous driving. 8. (Offences) Causing death by careless or inconsiderate driving (Offences due to commence in Autumn 2007).
Drink driving offences
4. Manslaughter, etc.:\
6\. Causing death by careless driving when under the influence of drink or drugs.
Serious acquisitive offences
Burglary
1. Burglary in a dwelling with intent to commit or the commission of an offence triable only on indictment.
2. Burglary in a dwelling with violence or the threat of violence.
3. Other burglary in a dwelling.
4. Aggravated burglary in a dwelling (including attempts).
Robbery
1. Robbery.
2. Assault with intent to rob.
Taking and driving away
1. Aggravated taking where the vehicle was driven dangerously on a road or other public place.
2. Aggravated taking where owing to the driving of the vehicle an accident occurred causing injury to any person or damage to any property other than the vehicle.
Theft from or of vehicles
1. Stealing from motor vehicles.
2. Stealing from other vehicles.
3. Theft of motor vehicle.
4. Unauthorised taking of a motor vehicle. Appendix B: Glossary of terms
Re-offending terms
**Cohort** – this is the group of individuals whose re-offending is measured.
**Index offence** – the index offence is the proven offence that leads to an offender being included in the cohort.
**Index disposal** – the index disposal of the offender is the type of sentence the offender received for their index offence.
**Start point (index date)** – this is the set point in time from when re-offences are measured.
**Follow-up period** – this is the length of time proven re-offending is measured over.
**Waiting period** – this is the additional time beyond the follow-up period to allow for offences committed towards the end of the follow-up period to be proved by a court conviction, caution, reprimand or final warning.
**Adjusted to baseline** – proven re-offending is related to the characteristics of offenders which means that any overall rate of proven re-offending will depend, in part, on the characteristics of offenders coming into the system (just as the examination pass rate of a school will be related to the characteristics of its pupils). We use a modelling technique to produce a baseline figure adjusted to match the characteristics of the cohort we are comparing.
**Re-conviction** – where an offender is convicted at court for an offence committed within a set follow-up period and convicted within either the follow-up period or waiting period.
**Proven re-offence** – where an offender is convicted at court or receives some other form of criminal justice sanction for an offence committed within a set follow-up period and disposed of within either the follow-up period or waiting period.
**Cohort definition used in the Proven Re-offending Statistics Quarterly Bulletin** – the proven re-offending cohort consists of all offenders discharged from custody, otherwise sanctioned at court, receiving a caution, reprimand or warning or tested positive for opiates or cocaine in each year. This cohort’s criminal history is collated and criminal behaviour is tracked over the following one year. Any offence committed in this one year period which is proven by a court conviction or out-of-court disposal (either in the one year period, or in a further six months waiting period) counts as a proven re-offence. The latest available publication is available at the link below: Cohort definition used in the Local Adult Re-offending Quarterly Bulletin – the local adult re-offending measure takes a snapshot of all offenders, aged 18 or over, who are under probation supervision at the end of a quarter, and combines four such snapshots together. This cohort’s criminal history is collated and criminal behaviour is tracked over the following three months. Any offence committed in this three month period which is proven by a court conviction or out-of-court disposal (either in the three month period, or in a further three months waiting period) counts as a proven re-offence. The latest available publication is available at the link below:
www.gov.uk/government/collections/reoffending-statistics
Disposal (sentence type)
Fine – a financial penalty imposed following conviction.
Court orders – court orders include community sentences, community orders and suspended sentence orders supervised by the Probation Service. They do not include any pre or post release supervision.
Criminal Justice Act 2003 (CJA03) – for offences committed on or after 4 April 2005, the new community order replaced all existing community sentences for adults. The Act also introduced a new suspended sentence order for offences which pass the custody threshold. It also changed the release arrangements for prisoners. See Appendix A of Offender Management Caseload Statistics 2009 for more information.
Community order – for offences committed on or after 4 April 2005, the new community order introduced under the CJA 2003 replaced all existing community sentences for those aged 18 years and over. This term refers to all court orders except suspended sentence orders and deferred sentences which may have a custodial component to the sentence. The court must add at least one, but could potentially add all 12 requirements depending on the offences and the offender. The requirements are:
- unpaid work (formerly community service/community punishment) – a requirement to complete between 40 and 300 hours’ unpaid work;
- activity – for example, to attend basic skills classes;
- programme – there are several designed to reduce the prospects of re-offending;
- prohibited activity – a requirement not do so something that is likely to lead to further offence or nuisance;
- curfew – which is electronically monitored; • exclusion – this is not used frequently as there is no reliable electronic monitoring yet available;
• residence – requirement to reside only where approved by probation officer;
• mental health treatment (requires offender’s consent);
• drug rehabilitation (requires offender’s consent);
• alcohol treatment (requires offender’s consent);
• supervision – meetings with probation officer to address needs/offending behaviour; and
• attendance centre – between a minimum of 12 hours and a maximum of 36 in total which includes three hours of activity.
Typically, the more serious the offence and the more extensive the offender’s needs, the more requirements there will be. Most orders will comprise of one or two requirements, but there are packages of several requirements available where required. The court tailors the order as appropriate and is guided by the Probation Service through a pre-sentence report.
**Suspended sentence order (SSO)** – the CJA 2003 introduced a new suspended sentence order which is made up of the same requirements as a community order and, in the absence of breach is served wholly in the community supervised by the Probation Service. It consists of an ‘operational period’ (the time for which the custodial sentence is suspended) and a ‘supervision period’ (the time during which any requirements take effect). Both may be between six months and two years and the ‘supervision period’ cannot be longer than the ‘operational period’, although it may be shorter. Failure to comply with the requirements of the order or commission of another offence will almost certainly result in a custodial sentence.
**Pre CJA03 Court Orders – Community sentences**
**Community punishment order (CPO)** – the offender is required to undertake unpaid community work.
**Community rehabilitation order (CRO)** - a community sentence which may have additional requirements such as residence, probation centre attendance or treatment for drug, alcohol or mental health problems.
**Community punishment and rehabilitation order (CPRO)** – a community sentence consisting of probation supervision alongside community punishment, with additional conditions like those of a community rehabilitation order. Drug treatment and testing order (DTTO) – a community sentence targeted at offenders with drug-misuse problems.
Custody – the offender is awarded a sentence to be served in prison or a Young Offenders Institute (YOI). If the offender is given a sentence of 12 months or over, or is aged under 22 on release, the offender is supervised by the Probation Service on release. It is important to note that the sentence lengths and youth disposals awarded will be longer than the time served in custody. For more information please refer to Appendix A of Offender Management Caseload Statistics 2009.
Short sentences (under 12 months) – those sentenced to under 12 months (made under the Criminal Justice Act 1991) spend the first half of their sentence in prison and are then released and considered ‘at risk’ for the remaining period. This means they are under no positive obligations and do not report to the Probation Service, but if they commit a further imprisonable offence during the ‘at risk’ period, they can be made to serve the remainder of the sentence in addition to the punishment for the new offence. The exception to this is those aged 18 to 20 who have a minimum of three month’s supervision on release.
Sentences of 12 months or over – the CJA03 created a distinction between standard determinate sentences and public protection sentences. Offenders sentenced to a standard determinate sentence serve the first half in prison and the second half in the community on licence.
Youth disposal (sentence type)
Reprimand or warning – a reprimand is a formal verbal warning given by a police officer to a juvenile offender who admits they are guilty for a minor first offence. A final warning is similar to a reprimand, but can be used for either the first or second offence, and includes an assessment of the juvenile to determine the causes of their offending behaviour and a programme of activities is designed to address them.
First-tier penalties
Discharge – a juvenile offender is given an absolute discharge when they admit guilt, or are found guilty, with no further action taken. An offender given a conditional discharge also receives no immediate punishment, but is given a set period during which, if they commit a further offence, they can be brought back to court and re-sentenced.
- Fine – the size of the fine depends on the offence committed and the offender’s financial circumstances. In the case of juveniles under 16, the fine is the responsibility of the offender’s parent or carer.
- Referral order – this is given to juveniles pleading guilty and for whom it is their first time at court (unless the offence is so serious it merits a custodial sentence or it is of a relatively minor nature). The offender is required to attend a Youth Offender Panel to agree a contract, aimed to repair the harm caused by the offence and address the causes of the offending behaviour.
- **Reparation order** – the offender is required to repair the harm caused by their offence either directly to the victim or indirectly to the community.
**Youth Rehabilitation Order** – a community sentence for juvenile offenders, which came into effect on 30 November 2009 as part of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008. It combines a number of sentences into one generic sentence and is the standard community sentence used for the majority of children and young people who offend. The following requirements can be attached to a Youth Rehabilitation Order (YRO):
- activity requirement
- curfew requirement
- exclusion requirement
- local authority residence requirement
- education requirement
- mental health treatment requirement
- unpaid work requirement
- drug testing requirement
- intoxicating substance misuse requirement
- supervision requirement
- electronic monitoring requirement
- prohibited activity requirement
- drug treatment requirement
- residence requirement
- programme requirement
- attendance centre requirement
- intensive supervision and surveillance
- intensive fostering The following community sentences are replaced by the YRO, but will continue to exist for those that committed an offence before 30 November 2009. The YRO is only available for those that committed an offence on or after the 30 November 2009.
- action plan order
- curfew order
- supervision order
- supervision order and conditions
- community punishment order
- community punishment and rehabilitation order
- attendance centre order
- drug treatment and testing order
- exclusion order
- community rehabilitation order
**Prison categories**
**Category B and category C prisons** hold sentenced prisoners of their respective categories, including life sentenced prisoners. The regime focuses on programmes that address offending behaviour and provide education, vocational training and purposeful work for prisoners who will normally spend several years in one prison.
**High security prisons** hold category A and B prisoners. Category A prisoners are managed by a process of dispersal, and these prisons also hold a proportion of category B prisoners for whom they provide a similar regime to a category B prison. The category B prisoners held in a High Security Prison are not necessarily any more dangerous or difficult to manage than those in category B prisons.
**Female prisons**, as the name implies, hold female prisoners. Because of the smaller numbers, they are not divided into the same number of categories although there are variations in security levels.
**Local prisons** serve the courts in the area. Historically their main function was to hold un-convicted and un-sentenced prisoners and, once a prisoner had been sentenced, to allocate them on to a category B, C or D prison as appropriate to serve their sentence. However, pressure on places means that many shorter term prisoners serve their entire sentence in a local prison, while longer term prisoners also complete some offending behaviour and training programmes there before moving on to lower security conditions. All local prisons operate to category B security standards.
**Open prisons** have much lower levels of physical security and only hold category D prisoners. Many prisoners in open prisons will be allowed to go out of the prison on a daily basis to take part in voluntary or paid work in the community in preparation for their approaching release.
**Miscellaneous terms**
**Drug-misusing offenders**
There are four ways a drug-misusing offender can be identified:
- Individuals who have tested positive for heroin or crack/cocaine following an arrest or charge for ‘trigger’ offences (largely acquisitive crime offences) as part of the Drug Interventions Programme (DIP) are included as adult proven offenders.
- Any offender that received an OASys assessment whilst on licence or on a community sentence and are either recorded as being subject to a current Drug Treatment and Testing Order (DTTO) or Drug Rehabilitation Requirement (DRR), or are assessed as having a criminogenic drug need.
- Any offender identified as requiring further drug interventions by Counselling, Assessment, Referral, Advice, Throughcare (CARAT) teams in prison, and now being released into the community.
- Any offender identified by local Criminal Justice Integrated Teams (CJITs) as requiring further intervention for their drug use and offending as part of DIP.
**National Probation Service** – the National Probation Service generally deals with those aged 18 years and over. (Those under 18 are mostly dealt with by Youth Offending Teams, answering to the Youth Justice Board.) They are responsible for supervising offenders who are given community sentences and suspended sentence orders by the courts, as well as offenders given custodial sentences, both pre and post their release.
**Police National Computer** – the Police National Computer (PNC) is the police’s administrative IT system used by all police forces in England and Wales and managed by the National Policing Improvement Agency. As with any large scale recording system the PNC is subject to possible errors with data entry and processing. The Ministry of Justice maintains a database based on weekly extracts of selected data from the PNC in order to compile statistics and conduct research on re-offending and criminal histories. The PNC largely covers recordable offences – these are all indictable and triable-either-way offences plus many of the more serious summary offences. All figures derived from the Ministry of Justice’s PNC database, and in particular those for the most recent months, are likely to be revised as more information is recorded by the police. **Prolific and other priority offenders** – the Prolific and other Priority Offenders Programme (PPO) aims to use a multi-agency approach to focus on a very small, but hard core group of prolific/persistent offenders who commit disproportionate amounts of crime and cause disproportionate harm to their local communities. The identification of a PPO is undertaken at a local level involving police, local authorities, prison and probation services and youth offending teams. The factors that influence the decision of whether an offender is included in the PPO programme are:
- the nature and volume of crimes they commit;
- the nature and volume of other harm they cause; and
- the detrimental impact they have on their community.
**Recordable offences** – recordable offences are those that the police are required to record on the PNC. They include all offences for which a custodial sentence can be given plus a range of other offences defined as recordable in legislation. They exclude a range of less serious summary offences, for example television licence evasion, driving without insurance, speeding and vehicle tax offences.
**Indictable and summary offences** – summary offences are triable only by a magistrates’ court. This group includes motoring offences, common assault and criminal damage up to £5,000. More serious offences are classed either as triable-either-way (these can be tried either at the Crown Court or at a magistrates’ court and include criminal damage where the value is £5,000 or greater, theft and burglary) or indictable-only (the most serious offences that must be tried at the Crown Court; these ‘indictable-only’ offences include murder, manslaughter, rape and robbery). The term indictable offences is used to refer to all triable-either-way and ‘indictable-only’ offences.
**Offence group** – a split of offences into 21 separate groups. A more detailed split of the 10 indictable offence groups (violence against the person, sexual offences, burglary, robbery, theft and handling and stolen goods, fraud and forgery, criminal damage, drug offences, other indictable offences (excluding motoring), indictable motoring) and the two summary offence groups (summary non-motoring and summary motoring offence types).
**Offence group (based on new ONS crime classifications)** – offences classified into 13 separate offence categories using the new Office for National Statistics (ONS) crime classifications. For further information on the new classification, please refer to: [www.ons.gov.uk/ons/guide-method/method-quality/specific/crime-statistics-methodology/presentational-changes-on-police-recorded-crime-in-england-and-wales.pdf](http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/guide-method/method-quality/specific/crime-statistics-methodology/presentational-changes-on-police-recorded-crime-in-england-and-wales.pdf). Appendix C: Comparison of the three measures of re-offending
Figure A1 below compares how the three measures of re-offending (the headline proven re-offending measure, the early estimates of re-offending and local adult re-offending) are constructed. It shows the period over which the re-offending cohort is formed, the time over which re-offending is measured, the additional time allowed for re-offending to be proven, and the time taken to collect and analyse the data, and then to publish.
Figure A1: how the three re-offending measures are constructed
| Measure | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | |--------------------------|------|------|------| | **Headline measure** | | | | | Cohort formation | Jan-Mar | Apr-Jun | Jul-Sep | Oct-Dec | | Re-offences | Jan-Mar | Apr-Jun | Jul-Sep | Oct-Dec | | Re-offences proven | Jan-Mar | Apr-Jun | Jul-Sep | Oct-Dec | | Data collection and analysis | Jan-Mar | Apr-Jun | Jul-Sep | Oct-Dec | | Publication | Oct-11 | | **2010 Early Estimates** | | | | | Cohort formation | Jan-Mar | Apr-Jun | Jul-Sep | Oct-Dec | | Re-offences | Jan-Mar | Apr-Jun | Jul-Sep | Oct-Dec | | Re-offences proven | Jan-Mar | Apr-Jun | Jul-Sep | Oct-Dec | | Data collection and analysis | Jan-Mar | Apr-Jun | Jul-Sep | Oct-Dec | | Publication | Oct-11 | | **Local Re-offending** | | | | | Cohort formation based on probation caseload snapshots at end of each quarter | Jan-Mar | Apr-Jun | Jul-Sep | Oct-Dec | | Re-offences | Jan-Mar | Apr-Jun | Jul-Sep | Oct-Dec | | Re-offences proven | Jan-Mar | Apr-Jun | Jul-Sep | Oct-Dec | | Data collection and analysis | Jan-Mar | Apr-Jun | Jul-Sep | Oct-Dec | | Publication | Nov-11 |
**Cohort formation** Headline measure and early estimates: offenders enter the cohort when they receive a caution (adults), a final warning or reprimand (juveniles), are given a non-custodial conviction, are released from custody or test positive for cocaine or opiates in the cohort formation period shown.
Local adult re-offending: this uses a snapshot of all offenders aged 18 or over, who are under probation supervision at the end of a quarter, and combines four such snapshots together.
**Re-offences** Headline measure: A re-offence is counted if the offence occurs within the "Re-offences" period shown. This is within 12 months of entering the cohort.
Early estimates and local adult re-offending: A re-offence is counted if the offence occurs within three months of entering the cohort for the early estimates measure and within three months following each of the four caseload snapshots for the local re-offending measure.
**Re-offences proven** Headline measure: For a re-offence to be counted it must also be proven within the "Re-offences proven" period shown. This is within six months of the re-offence.
Early estimates and local adult re-offending: For a re-offence to be counted it must also be proven within the "Re-offences proven" period shown. This is within three months of the re-offence. Contact details and further information
For queries, comments or further information, please contact:
**Mike Elkins**\
Ministry of Justice\
Justice Statistics Analytical Services\
7th floor\
102 Petty France\
London\
SW1H 9AJ\
Tel: 020 3334 2946
Email: [email protected]
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/4809-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 48,
"total-input-tokens": 95224,
"total-output-tokens": 28368,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
87,
1
],
[
87,
498,
2
],
[
498,
2156,
3
],
[
2156,
4764,
4
],
[
4764,
6971,
5
],
[
6971,
9073,
6
],
[
9073,
11463,
7
],
[
11463,
14298,
8
],
[
14298,
16600,
9
],
[
16600,
18932,
10
],
[
18932,
21469,
11
],
[
21469,
22319,
12
],
[
22319,
24107,
13
],
[
24107,
25180,
14
],
[
25180,
28003,
15
],
[
28003,
30607,
16
],
[
30607,
32891,
17
],
[
32891,
35400,
18
],
[
35400,
37763,
19
],
[
37763,
40255,
20
],
[
40255,
42245,
21
],
[
42245,
46151,
22
],
[
46151,
48141,
23
],
[
48141,
50349,
24
],
[
50349,
51069,
25
],
[
51069,
52950,
26
],
[
52950,
55084,
27
],
[
55084,
57706,
28
],
[
57706,
60291,
29
],
[
60291,
64021,
30
],
[
64021,
67704,
31
],
[
67704,
70396,
32
],
[
70396,
73022,
33
],
[
73022,
75616,
34
],
[
75616,
78489,
35
],
[
78489,
81703,
36
],
[
81703,
85196,
37
],
[
85196,
87009,
38
],
[
87009,
89371,
39
],
[
89371,
91707,
40
],
[
91707,
93937,
41
],
[
93937,
96738,
42
],
[
96738,
97962,
43
],
[
97962,
99886,
44
],
[
99886,
102595,
45
],
[
102595,
105439,
46
],
[
105439,
108576,
47
],
[
108576,
108878,
48
]
]
} |
5a92bbe02882578fb14708244ecf4b9af6b6272b | Proven Reoffending Statistics: Definitions and Measurement
Published October 2016 Contents
Contents ........................................................................................................................................... 2 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 3 Measurement .................................................................................................................................... 4 Definitions for the measurement of proven reoffending ............................................................... 5 Definitions for the measurement of interim proven reoffending for Community Rehabilitation Companies and the National Probation Service ........................................................................................................... 9 Data quality ..................................................................................................................................... 14 Police National Computer data ..................................................................................................... 14 Prison data .................................................................................................................................... 15 Probation data ............................................................................................................................... 17 Young offenders in secure accommodation .................................................................................. 17 Data processing and analysis .......................................................................................................... 18 Matching offender records ........................................................................................................... 18 Counting rules .............................................................................................................................. 19 The extraction of the criminal histories ....................................................................................... 19 Level of subjectivity ..................................................................................................................... 20 Maturity and stability of the data system ...................................................................................... 20 Expertise of those who operate the system .................................................................................. 20 Data on historical trends ................................................................................................................ 21 Appendix A: Glossary of terms ....................................................................................................... 23 Explanatory notes ............................................................................................................................ 30 Contact details ............................................................................................................................... 31 Introduction
This document supplements the quarterly Proven Reoffending Statistics bulletin by providing a comprehensive guide to the statistics. This document focuses on concepts and definitions published in Ministry of Justice statistics and the counting procedures used to produce them. It also provides explanations of data sources and quality.
This bulletin is published alongside two inter-related bulletins:
**Offender Management Statistics Quarterly**: provides key statistics relating to offenders who are in prison or under Probation Service supervision.
**Safety in Custody Statistics Quarterly**: provides statistics on death, self-harm and assault incidents whilst in prison custody.
The publication in its current form is a result of a statistical consultation on improvements to the transparency and accessibility of our information launched in 2010 and a response to the consultation was published in March 2011. One aspect of the consultation was the measurement of proven reoffending. Responses supported the proposals to move to a single framework for measuring reoffending where adult and youth data can be provided at national and local levels on a consistent basis.
From 30 July 2015 to 30 October 2015, a more recent consultation on changes to the proven reoffending statistical publication was launched. The key change that was proposed was to align the existing reoffending measure with those measures necessary for assessing progress against the rehabilitation reforms.
This consultation outcome summarises the responses received to that consultation. Having considered the responses to the consultation, details of the post consultation position are:
- Proven reoffending measures will be published using the proposed 3 month cohorts;
- The new publication will contain a chapter on Community Rehabilitation Companies (CRC) Payment by Results and National Probation Service (NPS) division proven reoffending performance measure;
- For assessing the likelihood of reoffending OGRS4/G will be used for adult cohorts and for juvenile cohorts the Youth Offender Group Reconviction Scale (YOGRS) will be used;
- From October 2016 we will provide interim Payment by Results.
The existing adult and juvenile reoffending statistics will continue in their current form until the reoffending outcomes for the first Payment by Results cohort become available in October 2017. Measurement
The underlying principle of measuring reoffending (or recidivism, which is the most commonly used term internationally) is that someone who has received some form of criminal justice sanction (such as a conviction or a caution) goes on to commit another offence within a set time period.
Measuring true reoffending is difficult. Official records are taken from either the police or courts, but they will underestimate the true level of reoffending because only a proportion of crime is detected and sanctioned and not all crimes and sanctions are recorded on one central system. Other methods of measuring reoffending, such as self report studies, are likely to also underestimate the rate.
Following the Ministry of Justice Consultation on Improvements to Ministry of Justice Statistics, a proven reoffence is defined as any offence committed in a one year follow-up period that resulted in a court conviction, caution, reprimand or warning in the one year follow-up or a further six month waiting period (to allow time for cases to progress through the courts). The data source is the extract of the Police National Computer (PNC) held by the Ministry of Justice. Definitions for the measurement of proven reoffending
Cohort This is the group of offenders for whom reoffending is measured. For the Proven Reoffending Statistics Quarterly Bulletin, this is defined as all offenders in any one year who received a caution, a final warning or reprimand (for juveniles prior to April 2013), a non-custodial conviction or who were released from custody.
Offenders who were released from custody or secure accommodation (juveniles only) or commenced a court order are matched to the PNC database. A proportion of cases are lost in this process because they cannot be matched (see the section below titled “Matching offender records” for further details). Additionally, offenders who appear multiple times in the cohort are only included once (see the section below titled “Multiple offender entries” for further details).
The group of offenders whose offending behaviour is proven is likely to be a sub-group of all active offenders. The Offending, Crime and Justice Survey (2003) estimated that around one in ten people in England and Wales aged between ten and 65 had committed an offence in the previous 12 months, which translates into approximately 3.8 million people. This compares to around 632,000 offenders in the 2002 cohort used to measure proven reoffending, underlining that the offenders whose proven reoffending behaviour is presented in the Proven Reoffending Statistics Quarterly Bulletin are a small and probably unrepresentative sample of the population of all active offenders.
Index disposal (sentence type) The index disposal of the offender is the type of sentence the offender received for their index offence. For the Proven Reoffending Statistics Quarterly Bulletin, this is defined as custody, court order, other disposal resulting from a conviction at court, such as a fine or discharge, caution, reprimand or final warning (young offenders).
Index offence The index offence is the proven offence that leads to an offender being included in the cohort. An offence is only counted as an index offence if it is:
- recordable (see below);
- committed in England and Wales;
- prosecuted by the police; and
______________________________________________________________________
1 The Offending, Crime and Justice Survey (2003) was a random probability survey of 10,079 people aged from ten to 65 and asked people about their offending history. Like any such survey, its accuracy is dependent upon the level of honesty with which respondents completed the survey. • not a breach offence.
Start point (index date) This is the set point in time from when proven reoffences are measured. For the Proven Reoffending Statistics Quarterly Bulletin, this is defined as the date of prison release, the date of court conviction for non-custodial sentences, or the date of receipt for a caution, reprimand or final warning.
Follow-up period This is the length of time over which proven reoffending is measured. For the Proven Reoffending Statistics Quarterly Bulletin, this is defined as 12 months from the start point.
Waiting period This is the additional time beyond the follow-up period to allow for offences which are committed towards the end of the follow-up period to be proven by a court, resulting in a conviction, caution, reprimand or final warning. For the Proven Reoffending Statistics Quarterly Bulletin, this is six months.
Figure 1 below illustrates why different offences for an example offender are included or excluded in the proven reoffending measure.
Figure 1: How events of reoffending are included in the measure?
Events A to D all occur in the one year follow-up period, but events E and F are outside this period, so would not be counted. Events A to C are all counted because they were all proven within the one year follow-up period or the further six month waiting period. Event F, even though the offence took place in the 6 month waiting period, it would not be counted, as the event took place outside of the one year follow up period and conviction did not occur within either the one year follow-up period, or the further six month waiting period. The offender has, therefore, committed six proven offences during the one year follow-up period (two for event A, one for event B, three for event C).
Proven reoffence Offences are counted as proven reoffences if they meet all of the following criteria: They are recordable. Not all offences are on the PNC and more recordable offences are entered than non-recordable offences. Analysis comparing offences proven at court with offences recorded on the PNC suggests the most cost common offences that are not recorded relates to motor vehicles, e.g. using a motor vehicle whilst uninsured against third party risks, speeding offences, keeping a vehicle on the highway without a driving licence or television licence evasion.
They were committed in England or Wales.
They are offences that were prosecuted by the police. PNC data are collected and input by the police and offences prosecuted by the police are likely to be recorded more comprehensively on the PNC than offences that are prosecuted by other organisations. For example, benefit fraud is prosecuted by the Department for Work and Pensions. Therefore, benefit fraud offences may be poorly represented on the PNC.
Offences are only counted if they are proven through caution, reprimands or final warnings (for juveniles) and court convictions. Offences that are not proven, or which meet with other responses from the Criminal Justice System, are not counted. The Offending, Crime and Justice Survey (2003) estimated that 6% of all offences resulted in any contact with the Criminal Justice System.
The offence is not a breach offence, i.e. breach of a court order, since we are only interested in new offences.
**Measures of proven reoffending**
Proven reoffending data are presented in the following ways:
- The number of offenders.
- The proportion of offenders who are proven reoffenders.
- The average number of proven reoffences among reoffenders.
- The proportion of proven offenders who committed a proven indictable reoffence. Multiple offender entries Each offender is tracked over a fixed period of time and any proven offence committed in this period is counted as a proven reoffence. A multiple offender entry refers to an offender who, after entering the cohort in a given year, commits a reoffence and is either cautioned, discharged from prison or gets a non-custodial conviction in the same cohort year. This reoffence could also be included as a second entry for this offender into the cohort.
Figure 2: Example of an offender with multiple offender entries
| Offender Cautioned | Re-offence 1 | Offender starts a community sentence | Re-offence 2 | Offender sentenced to 3mths in prison then released | Re-offence 3 | |--------------------|-------------|-------------------------------------|-------------|-----------------------------------------------|-------------| | 1 year cohort period |
To date, publications have avoided the double counting of these multiple offender entries (MOE) by only counting an individual once based on their first proven offence in the relevant time period. In the illustration above, the caution would be counted as the index disposal and the further two proven offences would be counted as reoffences. This avoids double counting of proven reoffences.
In this publication the main tables (tables A1 to A6 and B1 to B4) in the report have been produced on the basis of the 'first proven offence in the relevant time period', which led to an offender being included. This provides a picture of proven reoffending which is consistent with previous publications and tracks an offender, irrespective of the disposal they receive, to when they commit a proven reoffence.
The measure of proven reoffending now covers all offenders in any one year instead of the first quarter of a calendar year as in previous proven reoffending publications. The result is many more offenders with multiple entries.
In addition, including cautions to identify a proven offence means many offenders’ first offence will be associated with a caution since cautions account for around a third of adult offenders in one year. Table 1 shows the number of offenders in each cohort period by their number of entries.
Table 1: Number of offenders and their respective number of entries for 2000, 2002 to 2012 cohorts
| Offender Entries | 2000 | 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | |------------------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------| | 1 | 512,551 | 522,376 | 544,031 | 549,545 | 580,799 | 615,775 | 630,748 | 602,251 | 672,068 | 528,466 | 496,384 | 459,250 | | 2x | 75,311 | 77,813 | 81,651 | 78,827 | 80,968 | 86,866 | 90,870 | 87,427 | 83,235 | 78,430 | 74,314 | 66,528 | | 3x | 19,565 | 21,208 | 22,073 | 20,840 | 20,908 | 21,823 | 23,590 | 23,499 | 22,005 | 21,332 | 20,479 | 17,892 | | 4x | 6,195 | 6,689 | 7,074 | 6,833 | 6,720 | 6,768 | 7,605 | 7,802 | 7,319 | 7,396 | 7,115 | 6,289 | | 5x | 1,998 | 2,314 | 2,392 | 2,355 | 2,355 | 2,411 | 2,774 | 2,894 | 2,927 | 2,902 | 2,963 | 2,592 | | 6 to 10x | 1,240 | 1,510 | 1,689 | 1,641 | 1,505 | 1,509 | 1,964 | 2,332 | 2,303 | 2,361 | 2,500 | 2,292 | | Greater than 10x | 164 | 155 | 129 | 131 | 119 | 115 | 114 | 160 | 202 | 193 | 190 | 178 | | Total MOEs | 104,473 | 109,689 | 115,008 | 110,627 | 112,575 | 119,492 | 126,917 | 124,194 | 117,991 | 112,614 | 107,581 | 95,271 |
% of total cohort | 16.8% | 17.4% | 17.9% | 16.8% | 16.2% | 16.3% | 16.8% | 17.1% | 17.1% | 17.8% | 17.8% | 17.2% |
| Cohort | 617,004 | 632,065 | 659,039 | 660,172 | 693,284 | 735,267 | 757,965 | 726,446 | 690,069 | 641,089 | 605,925 | 594,521 |
2 Data are not available for 2001 due to a problem with archived data on Court Orders. The number of offenders with multiple entries has remained fairly constant over time - the proportion of the total that had multiple offender entries has remained at about 16 to 18% between 2000 and 2012.
**Proven reoffending by index disposal, probation trust and prison**
In order to measure proven reoffending on a consistent and representative basis by offender management groups, it is necessary to distinguish between the disposal (sentence) types that led to an offender being included. Doing this allows the cohort to be defined according to the relative start point of an offender’s interaction with the prison (released from custody) or probation services (court order commencement).
Tables C1-C3 provide reoffending data by disposal (sentence) types. These are produced on the basis of an individual’s first disposal (sentence) in that category. In figure 2 above, the individual would appear once in the caution category, once in the community order category and once in the custody category. These tables will include an overall prison and probation proven reoffending rate which will be the figures we quote publicly.
However, these figures should not be used when comparing proven reoffending rates across different disposals to compare effectiveness of sentences. Instead the *Compendium of Reoffending Statistics and Analysis 2013* publication should be referred to as this analysis controls for offender characteristics in order to give a more reliable estimate of the relative effectiveness of different disposals.
The prison/youth secure accommodation/probation trust data tool provide reoffending rates by individual prison and former probation trust, and National Probation Service Division (NPS). These are produced on the basis of an individual’s first disposal from each specified prison or probation trust. If the individual offender is discharged from two different prisons in the year they will appear in both of the prison’s reoffending rates. The same applies for offenders commencing court orders in more than one probation trust within the year. This is to allow prisons and probation services to track their caseload of offenders.
**Definitions for the measurement of interim proven reoffending for Community Rehabilitation Companies and the National Probation Service**
The Transforming Rehabilitation reforms included opening up the probation service to a diverse range of rehabilitation providers from the private, voluntary and social sectors through 21 Community Rehabilitation Companies (CRCs) and creating a new public sector National Probation Service (NPS), to manage high risk offenders.
A Payment by Results (PbR) approach was adopted for the 21 CRCs to develop and implement effective ways of rehabilitating offenders and rewarding providers that devise and deliver the most effective rehabilitation programmes.
Final reoffending results for the CRC PbR offender cohorts will be based on a **one year proven reoffending measure**. One year proven reoffending statistics for PbR will be published in October 2017. To address this interim gap in knowledge, the Ministry of Justice will publish **interim reoffending results** from October 2016. The interim reoffending results are based on a **reoffending-to-date measure**. This will allow CRCs’ progress to be assessed at the earliest opportunity. Equivalent interim figures for the NPS divisions will also be produced. These estimates will only give an indication of progress and, therefore, care should be taken when interpreting them.
**Cohort**
This is the group of offenders for whom reoffending is measured. For the *Interim Proven Reoffending Statistics for CRCs and NPS Quarterly Bulletin* this is defined as all adult offenders in any one quarter (January to March, April to June, July to September, October to December) who begin a community order, a suspended sentence order or who were released from custody. For CRC proven reoffending, this group represents the **eligible cohort**.
Offenders who were released from custody or commenced a court order are matched to the PNC database. A proportion of cases are lost in this process because they cannot be matched. The process uses automated matching routines that look at offenders’ surnames, initials, dates of birth and gender, using direct name matching along with a variety of ‘sounds like’ algorithms. The matching algorithm also searches through PNC held information on alias names and dates of birth for offenders. Additionally, offenders who appear multiple times in the cohort are only included once (see the section below titled “Multiple offender entries” for further details). For CRC proven reoffending, **eligible** offenders that can be matched to the PNC database represent the **measurable cohort**. This is the group for whom reoffending can be measured.
Offenders are only included in a CRC’s PbR cohort the first time they commence an eligible sentence (see below for exclusions) in the three month period. The same methodology will be used for each NPS division’s proven reoffending performance measure. Start point (index date) This is the set point in time from when proven reoffences are measured. For the *Interim Proven Reoffending Statistics for CRCs and NPS Quarterly Bulletin* this is defined as the date of prison release or the date of sentence for court orders.
Follow-up period This is the length of time over which proven reoffending is measured. For the *Interim Proven Reoffending Statistics for CRCs and NPS Quarterly Bulletin* instead of measuring reoffending with a defined follow-up and waiting period, this interim estimate would count any proven reoffending to date as recorded on the MoJ’s PNC data extract (see diagram below). Some offenders in the three month cohort will have a longer follow-up period in which to reoffend.
Exclusions
- Supervision default order
- Youth rehabilitation orders
- Other pre-CJA community sentences
- Unpaid work only
- Curfew only
- Electronic monitoring only
- Any combination of unpaid work/curfew/electronic monitoring only
- Standalone Suspended sentence orders
Probation – all offenders:
- released from a custodial sentence;
- who begin a community order;
- who begin a suspended sentence order;
- Aged 18 or over
Exclusions
- Supervision default order
- Youth rehabilitation orders
- Other pre-CJA community sentences
- Unpaid work only
- Curfew only
- Electronic monitoring only
- Any combination of unpaid work/curfew/electronic monitoring only
- Standalone Suspended sentence orders
NPS division performance measure cohort CRC Payment by results cohort
An offender enters the cohort if they are released from custody or are sentenced to a community order or a suspended sentence order in the period October to December 2015. Proven reoffence The same as for the headline proven re-offending figures presented in the Proven Re-offending Statistics Quarterly Bulletin.
Measures of interim proven reoffending Interim proven reoffending data are presented in the following ways:
- The number of eligible offenders.
- The number of measurable offenders.
- The proportion of measurable offenders who are proven reoffenders.
- The average number of proven reoffences among reoffenders.
- The offender group reconviction scale average score.
Multiple offender entries Each individual offender is allocated to a quarterly cohort only once, based on their first eligible entry in a given quarter. For the final results, annual cohorts will be formed by combining the four quarterly cohorts of the relevant year. An individual offender can, therefore, appear up to four times within a single annual cohort (one from each quarter).
Interim proven reoffending by CRCs and NPS divisions An offender can move within the three month cohort period and supervision can be transferred to another CRC provider. An offender can also be transferred from being supervised by a CRC to being supervised by an NPS division if a high risk offence is committed within the three months. If an offender is managed by more than one different CRC or NPS division within the same three month cohort period, reoffending is measured against the first CRC or NPS division the offender is allocated to.
Offender Group Reconviction Scale For the final reoffending results, CRCs’ performance in reducing reoffending will be assessed against the baseline year of 2011. As proven reoffending is related to the characteristics of offenders, the actual rate of proven reoffending will depend, in part, on the characteristics of offenders coming into the system. This actual rate provides users with sufficient information on what the level of reoffending is and how it is changing over time.
In addition to the actual rate, the Offender Group Reconviction Scale version 4/G3 is used to control for some differences in offender characteristics across different offender groups. OGRS4/G is based on a well-established, peer-reviewed methodology for assessing and representing reoffending risk.
3 For more details on the Offender Group Reconviction Scale see Chapter 8 of the publication at: www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/449357/research-analysis-offender-assessment-system.pdf OGRS4/G uses age, gender and criminal history to assess the reoffending risk of a given group of offenders by producing a score between 0 and 1. These scores can be used to compare the relative likelihood of reoffending either over time or between different groups of offenders, with a higher rate meaning a group of offenders who are more likely to reoffend.
For the final reoffending results, the reoffending rate for each CRC will be adjusted by using OGRS4/G, to take account of the influence that differences in offender mix can have on binary rates. OGRS4/G adjusted rates will be used to determine final PbR outcomes. The frequency rate will not be adjusted.
The OGRS4/G adjusted reoffending rate for a given CRC cohort will be calculated as the observed reoffending rate for that cohort plus any difference between the OGRS4/G score in that cohort and the 2011 CRC baseline cohort. This calculation standardises the mix of offenders in each cohort of a given CRC to the 2011 mix for that same CRC.
It will not be possible to adjust the reoffending rate for interim results because OGRS4/G only offers a one and two year prediction of reoffending and interim results are based upon a reoffending-to-date measure. Data quality
The data required for measuring proven reoffending are based on a range of data sources (prison data, probation data, young offenders in secure accommodation, and criminal records from the Police National Computer) from a range of agencies (the National Offender Management Service, the Youth Justice Board, local authorities and the National Police Improvement Agency). These figures have been derived from administrative IT systems which, as with any large scale recording system, are subject to possible errors with data entry and processing.
Police National Computer data
Information regarding the proven reoffending behaviour of offenders has been compiled using the Ministry of Justice’s extract from the Police National Computer (PNC). The process involves matching offender details from the prison and probation data to the personal details recorded on the PNC. A proportion of cases cannot be matched and the figures presented in Table 2 below and are expressed as a percentage of the offenders that are matched. Like any large scale recording system, the PNC is subject to errors with data entry and recording. The PNC is regularly updated so that further analysis at a later date will generate revised figures.
The quality of the information recorded on the PNC is generally assumed to be relatively high as it is an operational system on which the police depend, but analysis can reveal errors that are typical when handling administrative datasets of this scale. The extent of error or omitted records on the PNC is difficult to estimate because it is a unique data source. As a result, there is not always an obvious source of data to provide a baseline from which to assess data quality. For some types of results, however, comparisons can be made. For example, the trend in receptions into prison in each month is very similar using the PNC and prisons data (see below for details).
Although the number of receptions recorded on the PNC is consistently slightly lower because prisons data include cases on remand whereas the PNC does not. Another example is the number of cases that are given a custodial sentence, broken down by offence type, which is similar using the PNC and the Court Proceedings Database with a match rate of 97%.
A number of improvements are routinely carried out:
- Updates to the coding and classification of offences and court disposals, including the reduction of uncoded offences, the reduction in the use of miscellaneous offence codes and the clarification of the coding of breach offences;
- Updates to the methods used to identify the primary offence, where several offences are dealt with on the same occasion, and the methods used to identify the primary disposal, where an offence attracts more than one court disposal; and
- Removal of some duplication of records within the database resulting in improvements to the efficiency and reliability of the matching process.
**Prison data**
Prison establishments record details for individual inmates on the prison IT system (Prison-NOMIS or LIDS). The information recorded includes details such as date of birth, gender, religion, nationality, ethnic origin, custody type, offence, reception and discharge dates and, for sentenced prisoners, sentence length. The data from individual prison establishments then feeds through to a central computer database, called the Inmate Information System (IIS).
In May 2009, the National Offender Management Service (NOMS) began the roll-out of a new case management system for prisons (Prison-NOMIS). During the phased roll-out, data collection issues emerged that affected the supply of data for statistical purposes from July 2009 to February 2010. Specifically, statistical information on sentence length and offence group is not available on any of our prison datasets for this period.
In order to ensure the fullest possible set of data from July 2009 to February 2010, sentence lengths were estimated for those prisoners received or discharged before the problems were resolved. At the point when the problems were resolved, a small number of prison establishments were still using the old LIDS case management system; data for prisoners received or discharged from these prisons was assumed to be unaffected.
For those prisoners received or discharged from prisons operating Prison-NOMIS, efforts were made to populate their record with the correct sentence length using other data extracts. For example, many prisoners discharged in January 2010 were originally received into prison prior to July 2009, so their sentence length was taken from unaffected datasets before the problems began. Similarly, the majority of those received in early 2010 were still in prison in March 2010 when the problems were resolved, so the sentence length from the corrected prison population data was used.
Where it was not possible to populate a sentence length using other datasets, prisoners were allocated a sentence length band based on the number of days they spent in custody (taking account of early release schemes where relevant).
As a check on the methodology, an alternative estimation process was designed and the number of discharges in each sentence length band for the second half of 2009 was compared using the two methods. A number of estimation methods were considered and tested on the 2008 data (prior to the data problems) to see which yielded estimates closest to the actual 2008 data. This identified the following method:
1. Calculate data for the first half of the year as a proportion of the full calendar year, for each year from 2001 to 2008; separately for each sentence length band or offence group (the two key breakdowns to be estimated).
2. Apply the average of these proportions to the January to June 2009 data to estimate the 2009 annual totals; separately for each sentence length band or offence group.
3. Scale the estimated numbers in each sentence length band or offence group to sum to the annual total recorded in the raw data (where the totals are known to be correct).
The maximum difference between the two approaches was 2.6% in the band ‘12 months to less than 4 years’; for all other bands the difference was less than 1%.
**Indeterminate sentence prisoners**
In addition to the above, data on the discharge of prisoners on indeterminate sentences, i.e. prisoners given a life sentence or an Indeterminate sentence for Public Protection (IPP), is provided from the Public Protection Unit Database (PPUD). This holds data jointly owned by the Offender Management and Public Protection Group (OMPPG) in NOMS and the Parole Board.
PPUD records details of all indeterminate sentence prisoners at the point of conviction, those engaged in the Generic Parole Process and prisoners (determinate and indeterminate) who have been recalled from licence. It also covers those who have received a restricted hospital order/direction from a Crown Court, and those remand and convicted prisoners who have been transferred from prison/detention centres to psychiatric hospital under the relevant sections of mental health legislation.
All decisions taken by the NOMS casework sections and the Parole Board are recorded on the system.
Personal information recorded includes (but is not limited to) name, date of birth, gender, identifying numbers, ethnicity, last known address, probation area and sentencing information.
OMPPG and the Parole Board run monthly and ad hoc reports to cleanse data that are not otherwise identified by data validation routines built into the system.
For the interim proven reoffending statistics, prison discharge data are sourced from the nDelius case management system (for further information about nDelius, please see the section on probation data below). Probation data
Since 2005, detailed information on the supervision of offenders (at the individual offender level) had been submitted by probation trusts on a monthly basis. These monthly ‘probation listings’ included information on offenders starting probation supervision. Between 2002 and 2005, this information was submitted quarterly, and prior to 2002 a different data collection system was in place, which meant that information on caseload had to be calculated based on the number of people starting supervision and the number of terminations. From June 2014, the Transforming Rehabilitation programme was launched, which changed the way offenders are managed in the community. Management of offenders serving their sentence in the community has been split into two groups, one consisting of high risk offenders who are managed by the National Probation Service (NPS) and another group consisting of low to medium risk offenders who are now managed by Community Rehabilitation Companies (CRCs).
The quality of the information recorded on the probation data is generally assumed to be relatively high as it is a direct extract from an operational system upon which the probation service depends for managing offenders locally. The extract consists of a small number of key fields for which completion is mandatory. Data is received centrally via the nDelius case management system and is subject to another set of data validation processes. Trends from the data are consistent with comparable time series from the Courts Proceeding Database. Any large scale recording systems are subject to possible errors with data entry and processing, but there are no known issues regarding the probation commencements data.
Young offenders in secure accommodation
Information about secure training centres (STCs) and secure children’s homes (SCHs) comes from the Youth Justice Board’s (YJB) eAsset database. Information about young people aged 17 and under and held in YOIs is supplied by the Prison Service and private YOIs.
The YJB monthly custody report has traditionally used data from the Secure Accommodation Clearing House System (SACHS), this was the system used by the YJB to book young people into custody. To meet information management challenges of a growing department and whilst improving our processes, the YJB has migrated to the use of the new eAsset system since March 2012.
As part of the work to implement the new system both SACHS and eAsset were run in parallel from 5th March to 1st July 2012. The YJB now has the ability to produce some reports from eAsset and has done work to quality assure the outputs against SACHS. While this work is ongoing and further reports are being developed we now believe the quality of data from this system is of a suitable level to publish as management information. The quality of the information recorded on the eAsset database is generally assumed to be relatively high as it is a direct extract from an operational system which is used to place young people in custody. The extract uses a number of key fields for which completion is mandatory when booking a young person into custody.
Data processing and analysis
The data underpinning the results are considered by Ministry of Justice to be broadly robust. Considerable work has been carried out ensuring data quality, and the data have been used for research publications. Scrutiny of the data source continues in order to ensure the data remains reliable.
The National Audit Office (NAO) identified risk factors in its review of the reporting of PSA targets (NAO, 2005). The remainder of this section addresses these.
Matching offender records
This process involves matching data on prison discharges and court order commencements to the PNC database. The process uses automated matching routines that look at offenders’ surnames, initials, and dates of birth, using direct name matching along with a variety of ‘sounds like’ algorithms. The matching algorithm also searches through PNC held information on alias names and dates of birth for offenders. However, not all offenders are matched and a thorough analysis of bias in the matching system has yet to be undertaken.
Table 2 below shows that the overall matching rates between 2000 and 2012 have remained high.
Table 2: Matching rates for the different data sources for 2000, 2002 to 2012 cohorts
| Year | Prison Discharges | Automatically Matched to the PNC | Matched to an Index Date | Percentage Matched to the PNC | Percentage Matched to the PNC and Index Offences | |------|-------------------|---------------------------------|--------------------------|-----------------------------|-----------------------------------------------| | 2000 | 87,083 | 80,572 | 73,810 | 92.5% | 84.8% | | 2002 | 87,338 | 81,211 | 75,121 | 93.0% | 86.0% | | 2003 | 85,920 | 80,121 | 73,327 | 93.3% | 85.3% | | 2004 | 86,970 | 81,125 | 73,390 | 93.3% | 84.4% | | 2005 | 84,897 | 79,398 | 71,246 | 93.5% | 83.9% | | 2006 | 83,725 | 78,285 | 68,185 | 93.5% | 81.4% | | 2007 | 87,340 | 81,874 | 70,668 | 93.7% | 79.9% | | 2008 | 95,824 | 90,021 | 74,189 | 93.9% | 78.8% | | 2009 | 94,114 | 88,745 | 65,278 | 94.3% | 70.1% | | 2010 | 93,137 | 87,845 | 67,512 | 94.3% | 75.2% | | 2011 | 89,773 | 84,950 | 71,059 | 94.6% | 78.1% | | 2012 | 91,009 | 86,333 | 71,059 | 94.9% | 78.1% |
1. Data are not available for 2001 due to a problem with archived data on Court Orders.
2. A new data collection method began in March 2012. The total number of offenders matched to the PNC is substantially higher than the final figure for the cohorts – for example, in 2012 there were 252,071 matched offenders, but a final cohort size of 219,347. The main reasons for these discrepancies are:
- Conviction dates for the beginning of the community, suspended or custodial sentence do not match the conviction date within seven days of the criminal records from the PNC database;
- The index offence was not dealt with by a Home Office police force – this ensures that only offences in England and Wales are counted;
- Exclusion of all offenders where the index offence is a breach, since we are only interested in new offences; and
- Exclusion of multiple offender entries (see section above titled “Multiple offender entries” for further details).
**Counting rules**
The counting rules for choosing which prison discharges to include offer a variety of choices. For instance, it makes little sense to include offenders deported on release or who have died. These counting rules were enumerated and discussed to ensure a more accurate and consistent count and are reviewed on an annual basis to ensure a consistent approach.
Note that an offender is counted more than once when the offender was initially in the juvenile cohort, then in the adult cohort in the same cohort period.
**Complexity of data processing and analysis**
The data processing involved for measuring reoffending is complex. To analyse reoffending behaviour by previous offending or disposal history requires the extraction of criminal histories that can span a number of decades, and the subsequent matching of these histories against the probation caseload files and prison discharges in order to generate a dataset.
**The extraction of the criminal histories**
To quality assure the extraction of criminal histories, a small set of random samples of offenders was taken after the analysis to check, via a basic validation, that outputs of the SQL (Structured Query Language) program were accurate. The Ministry of Justice is confident that this process has been successful. Level of subjectivity
There is relatively little subjectivity in the system. Occasional judgements are required (e.g. where to classify an offence), but these will not significantly influence the results.
Maturity and stability of the data system
The system is well established having been used a number of times to produce reoffending statistics for publication. Nonetheless, vigilance continues to be exercised to ensure the validity of the results.
Expertise of those who operate the system
Prison and court order data-feeds are continually monitored and improvement work is regularly undertaken to improve the reliability and the accuracy of datasets. The internal processing of the results within the Ministry of Justice has been subject to dip sampling of criminal histories and the statistical model has been extensively tested.
Interpreting trends in the proportion of offenders who commit a serious reoffence against the person
Care should be taken when interpreting the severity rate for the following reasons:
- **Time through the Criminal Justice System** – more serious offences are likely to take a longer time to progress through the Criminal Justice System than less serious offences. The proven reoffending statistics track proven reoffending behaviour for a year upon offenders entering the cohort, plus an additional six months for convictions to be updated on the system. There is a risk that this time scale is not long enough to capture the most serious offences. However, analysis suggests that the number of serious proven reoffences picked up by the measure remains comparatively stable year on year, ensuring performance is comparable over time.
- **Reporting variation** – variation in reporting time between police force areas and courts may also have an impact on how many serious offences are captured during the one year follow-up period. Data on historical trends
The data used to measure proven reoffending is from the PNC. Police forces started to enter criminal records locally in 1995. In order to allow time for good practice among police forces in entering data onto the PNC to become embedded, PNC data was used to measure proven reoffending for the first time in 2000. Prior to the 2012, headline bulletin results were compared to 2000 to highlight long-term trends. From 2012, results are compared to 2002, and in the future the year of comparison will move forward by one year for each calendar year publication. Results prior to 2000 cannot be compared to results from 2000 onwards for two main reasons:
- Change in data source – reoffences are measured using data from the PNC (which covers recordable offences), whereas data from years before 2000 were measured using the offenders index (which covered a narrower range of offences).
- Change in measurement – the concept being measured from 2000 onwards in these reports is that of using the offence date to measure reoffences (a period of time is allowed for offences to be committed, and a further period allowed for these offences to be proved by caution, reprimand, final warning or court conviction), whereas the concept being measured prior to 2000 was that of using the conviction date to measure reconvictions (any conviction occurring in a set period of time, whether or not the offence occurred in that time period).
However, the Compendium of Reoffending Statistics and Analysis 2010, published in November 2010, provides the most consistent statistical series possible between 1971 and 2006, adjusting for known methodological changes. For more information, please refer to Chapter 4.4 at the following link.
Results for 2001 cannot be calculated for offenders on court orders because of a problem with archived data on court orders.
Local breakdowns of the headline proven reoffending rates are available from 2005 onwards. Proven reoffending data are broken down by locality using the address and post-code information of the offender. Where this information is missing, the location of the processing police force is used instead. This is not a completely reliable indicator of the offender’s home address as offenders may offend in a different locality than where they reside. The completeness of this information has improved over time. In 2000, this information was omitted for 29% of cases, which was considered too high to produce reliable results. By 2005, this was reduced to 16.5%, and there has been a continuing downward trend since then. Confidentiality
This statement sets out the arrangements in place for protecting persons' confidential data when statistics are published or otherwise released into the public domain. Principle 5 of the Code of Practice for Official Statistics states that:
*Private information about individual persons (including bodies corporate) compiled in the production of official statistics is confidential and should be used for statistical purposes only.*
It also states that arrangements for confidentiality protection should be:
*sufficient to protect the privacy of individual information, but not so restrictive as to limit unduly the practical utility of official statistics.*
To comply with this and with the Data Protection Act of 1998, and to maintain the trust and co-operation of those who use reoffending statistics, the following provisions have been put in place.
Private information collected by the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) is stored in line with MoJ data security policies. Electronic data are held on password protected networks. All new staff undergo MoJ security vetting before receiving access to data systems, and all staff undertake mandatory training on information responsibility annually.
Three types of disclosure risk are considered in relation to reoffending statistics: general attribution, identification (including self-identification) and residual through combination of sources.
Assessment of the risk of disclosure considers the following:
- Level of aggregation (including geographic level) of the data
- Size of the population
- The likelihood of an attempt to identify
- Consequences of disclosure
As a result number of offenders, reoffenders, reoffences and previous offences based on five or fewer offenders are suppressed for individual prisons, probation areas and the following geographical areas; County, Upper Tier Local Authority, Lower Tier Local Authority and Youth Offending Team. This is to prevent the disclosure of individual information. Appendix A: Glossary of terms
Reoffending terms
Cohort – this is the group of individuals whose reoffending is measured.
Index offence – the index offence is the proven offence that leads to an offender being included in the cohort.
Index disposal – the index disposal of the offender is the type of sentence the offender received for their index offence.
Start point (index date) – this is the set point in time from when reoffences are measured.
Follow-up period – this is the length of time proven reoffending is measured over.
Waiting period – this is the additional time beyond the follow-up period to allow for offences committed towards the end of the follow-up period to be proved by a court conviction, caution, reprimand or final warning.
Reconviction – where an offender is convicted at court for an offence committed within a set follow-up period and convicted within either the follow-up period or waiting period.
Proven reoffence – where an offender is convicted at court or receives some other form of criminal justice sanction for an offence committed within a set follow-up period and disposed of within either the follow-up period or waiting period.
Cohort definition used in the Proven Reoffending Statistics Quarterly Bulletin – the proven reoffending cohort consists of all offenders discharged from custody, otherwise sanctioned at court, receiving a caution, reprimand or warning in each year. This cohort’s criminal history is collated and criminal behaviour is tracked over the following one year. Any offence committed in this one year period which is proven by a court conviction or out-of-court disposal (either in the one year period, or in a further six months waiting period) counts as a proven reoffence.
Cohort definition used in the Interim Proven Reoffending Statistics for CRCs and NPS Quarterly Bulletin – the payment by results proven reoffending cohort consists of all adult offenders in any one quarter (January to March, April to June, July to September, October to December) who begin a community order, a suspended sentence order or who were released from custody. This cohort’s criminal behaviour to date is tracked and collated. Any offence committed in this period which is proven by a court conviction or out-of-court disposal counts as a proven reoffence. Cohort definition used in the Local Adult Reoffending Quarterly Bulletin – the local adult reoffending measure takes a snapshot of all offenders, aged 18 or over, who are under probation supervision at the end of a quarter, and combines four such snapshots together. This cohort’s criminal history is collated and criminal behaviour is tracked over the following three months. Any offence committed in this three month period which is proven by a court conviction or out-of-court disposal (either in the three month period, or in a further three months waiting period) counts as a proven reoffence. The latest available publication is available at this link.
Disposal (sentence type)
Fine – a financial penalty imposed following conviction.
Court orders – court orders include community sentences, community orders and suspended sentence orders supervised by the Probation Service. They do not include any pre or post release supervision.
Criminal Justice Act 2003 (CJA03) – for offences committed on or after 4 April 2005, the new community order replaced all existing community sentences for adults. The Act also introduced a new suspended sentence order for offences which pass the custody threshold. It also changed the release arrangements for prisoners. See Appendix A of Offender Management Caseload Statistics 2009 for more information.
Community order – for offences committed on or after 4 April 2005, the new community order introduced under the CJA 2003 replaced all existing community sentences for those aged 18 years and over. This term refers to all court orders except suspended sentence orders and deferred sentences which may have a custodial component to the sentence. The court must add at least one, but could potentially add all 12 requirements depending on the offences and the offender. The requirements are:
- unpaid work (formerly community service/community punishment) – a requirement to complete between 40 and 300 hours’ unpaid work;
- activity – for example, to attend basic skills classes;
- programme – there are several designed to reduce the prospects of reoffending;
- prohibited activity – a requirement not do so something that is likely to lead to further offence or nuisance;
- curfew – which is electronically monitored;
- exclusion – this is not used frequently as there is no reliable electronic monitoring yet available;
- residence – requirement to reside only where approved by probation officer; • mental health treatment (requires offender’s consent); • drug rehabilitation (requires offender’s consent); • alcohol treatment (requires offender’s consent); • supervision – meetings with probation officer to address needs/offending behaviour; and • attendance centre – between a minimum of 12 hours and a maximum of 36 in total which includes three hours of activity.
Typically, the more serious the offence and the more extensive the offender’s needs, the more requirements there will be. Most orders will comprise of one or two requirements, but there are packages of several requirements available where required. The court tailors the order as appropriate and is guided by the Probation Service through a pre-sentence report.
**Suspended sentence order (SSO)** – the CJA 2003 introduced a new suspended sentence order which is made up of the same requirements as a community order and, in the absence of breach is served wholly in the community supervised by the Probation Service. It consists of an ‘operational period’ (the time for which the custodial sentence is suspended) and a ‘supervision period’ (the time during which any requirements take effect). Both may be between six months and two years and the ‘supervision period’ cannot be longer than the ‘operational period’, although it may be shorter. Failure to comply with the requirements of the order or commission of another offence will almost certainly result in a custodial sentence.
**Pre CJA03 Court Orders – Community sentences**
**Community punishment order (CPO)** – the offender is required to undertake unpaid community work.
**Community rehabilitation order (CRO)** - a community sentence which may have additional requirements such as residence, probation centre attendance or treatment for drug, alcohol or mental health problems.
**Community punishment and rehabilitation order (CPRO)** – a community sentence consisting of probation supervision alongside community punishment, with additional conditions like those of a community rehabilitation order.
**Custody** – the offender is awarded a sentence to be served in prison or a Young Offenders Institute (YOI). If the offender is given a sentence of 12 months or over, or is aged under 22 on release, the offender is supervised by the Probation Service on release. It is important to note that the sentence lengths and youth disposals awarded will be longer than the time served in custody. For more information please refer to Appendix A of Offender Management Caseload Statistics 2009. Short sentences (under 12 months) – those sentenced to under 12 months (made under the Criminal Justice Act 1991) spend the first half of their sentence in prison and are then released and considered ‘at risk’ for the remaining period. This means they are under no positive obligations and do not report to the Probation Service, but if they commit a further imprisonable offence during the ‘at risk’ period, they can be made to serve the remainder of the sentence in addition to the punishment for the new offence. The exception to this is those aged 18 to 20 who have a minimum of three month’s supervision on release.
Sentences of 12 months or over – the CJA03 created a distinction between standard determinate sentences and public protection sentences. Offenders sentenced to a standard determinate sentence serve the first half in prison and the second half in the community on licence.
Youth disposal (sentence type)
Reprimand or warning – a reprimand is a formal verbal warning given by a police officer to a juvenile offender who admits they are guilty for a minor first offence. A final warning is similar to a reprimand, but can be used for either the first or second offence, and includes an assessment of the juvenile to determine the causes of their offending behaviour and a programme of activities is designed to address them. Reprimands and warnings for youths were abolished under Legal Aid Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 with effect from 8 April 2013 and replaced with youth cautions.
Youth cautions – are a formal out-of-court disposal that can be used as an alternative to prosecution for young offenders (aged 10 to 17) in certain circumstances. A Youth Caution may be given for any offence where the young offender admits an offence, there is sufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction but it is not in the public interest to prosecute.
First-tier penalties
Discharge – a juvenile offender is given an absolute discharge when they admit guilt, or are found guilty, with no further action taken. An offender given a conditional discharge also receives no immediate punishment, but is given a set period during which, if they commit a further offence, they can be brought back to court and re-sentenced.
- Fine – the size of the fine depends on the offence committed and the offender’s financial circumstances. In the case of juveniles under 16, the fine is the responsibility of the offender’s parent or carer.
- Referral order – this is given to juveniles pleading guilty and for whom it is their first time at court (unless the offence is so serious it merits a custodial sentence or it is of a relatively minor nature). The offender is required to attend a Youth Offender Panel to agree a contract, aimed to repair the harm caused by the offence and address the causes of the offending behaviour. • **Reparation order** – the offender is required to repair the harm caused by their offence either directly to the victim or indirectly to the community.
**Youth Rehabilitation Order** – a community sentence for juvenile offenders, which came into effect on 30 November 2009 as part of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008. It combines a number of sentences into one generic sentence and is the standard community sentence used for the majority of children and young people who offend. The following requirements can be attached to a Youth Rehabilitation Order (YRO):
- activity requirement
- curfew requirement
- exclusion requirement
- local authority residence requirement
- education requirement
- mental health treatment requirement
- unpaid work requirement
- drug testing requirement
- intoxicating substance misuse requirement
- supervision requirement
- electronic monitoring requirement
- prohibited activity requirement
- drug treatment requirement
- residence requirement
- programme requirement
- attendance centre requirement
- intensive supervision and surveillance
- intensive fostering
The following community sentences are replaced by the YRO, but will continue to exist for those that committed an offence before 30 November 2009. The YRO is only available for those that committed an offence on or after the 30 November 2009.
- action plan order
- curfew order
- supervision order
- supervision order and conditions
- community punishment order
- community punishment and rehabilitation order
- attendance centre order
- drug treatment and testing order
- exclusion order
- community rehabilitation order
**Prison categories**
**Category B and category C prisons** hold sentenced prisoners of their respective categories, including life sentenced prisoners. The regime focuses on programmes that address offending behaviour and provide education, vocational training and purposeful work for prisoners who will normally spend several years in one prison.
**High security prisons** hold category A and B prisoners. Category A prisoners are managed by a process of dispersal, and these prisons also hold a proportion of category B prisoners for whom they provide a similar regime to a category B prison. The category B prisoners held in a High Security Prison are not necessarily any more dangerous or difficult to manage than those in category B prisons.
**Female prisons**, as the name implies, hold female prisoners. Because of the smaller numbers, they are not divided into the same number of categories although there are variations in security levels.
**Local prisons** serve the courts in the area. Historically their main function was to hold un-convicted and un-sentenced prisoners and, once a prisoner had been sentenced, to allocate them on to a category B, C or D prison as appropriate to serve their sentence. However, pressure on places means that many shorter term prisoners serve their entire sentence in a local prison, while longer term prisoners also complete some offending behaviour and training programmes there before moving on to lower security conditions. All local prisons operate to category B security standards.
**Open prisons** have much lower levels of physical security and only hold category D prisoners. Many prisoners in open prisons will be allowed to go out of the prison on a daily basis to take part in voluntary or paid work in the community in preparation for their approaching release.
**Miscellaneous terms**
**National Probation Service** – the National Probation Service generally deals with those aged 18 years and over. (Those under 18 are mostly dealt with by Youth Offending Teams, answering to the Youth Justice Board.) They are responsible for supervising offenders who are given community sentences and suspended sentence orders by the courts, as well as offenders given custodial sentences, both pre and post their release. **Police National Computer** – the Police National Computer (PNC) is the police's administrative IT system used by all police forces in England and Wales and managed by the National Policing Improvement Agency. As with any large scale recording system the PNC is subject to possible errors with data entry and processing. The Ministry of Justice maintains a database based on weekly extracts of selected data from the PNC in order to compile statistics and conduct research on reoffending and criminal histories. The PNC largely covers recordable offences – these are all indictable and triable-either-way offences plus many of the more serious summary offences. All figures derived from the Ministry of Justice’s PNC database, and in particular those for the most recent months, are likely to be revised as more information is recorded by the police.
**Recordable offences** – recordable offences are those that the police are required to record on the PNC. They include all offences for which a custodial sentence can be given plus a range of other offences defined as recordable in legislation. They exclude a range of less serious summary offences, for example television licence evasion, driving without insurance, speeding and vehicle tax offences.
**Offence group (based on new ONS crime classifications)** – offences classified into 13 separate offence categories using the new Office for National Statistics (ONS) crime classifications.
**Indictable and summary offences** – Proven reoffending statistics quarterly (published 28 July 2016) included a table (B1.1) on serious sexual/violent proven reoffences and serious acquisitive proven reoffences. Another way to classify the seriousness of an offence is to classify the offence as ‘summary’, ‘triable-either-way’ or ‘indictable-only’. Indictable-only offences cover the most serious offences that must be tried at the Crown Court; these ‘indictable-only’ offences include murder, manslaughter, rape and robbery. These are reported in table B1. Note that summary offences are triable only by a magistrates’ court. This group includes motoring offences, common assault and criminal damage up to £5,000. Triable-either-way offences are more serious offences; these can be tried either at the Crown Court or at a magistrates’ court, and include criminal damage where the value is £5,000 or greater, theft and burglary. Summary and triable-either-way are not reported.
**Youth Offending Teams (YOTs)** YOTs work with young people that get into trouble with the law and each one cover a certain number of local authorities. The YOTs have been updated in the proven reoffending publication published on the 28th July 2016. Explanatory notes
The United Kingdom Statistics Authority has designated these statistics as National Statistics, in accordance with the Statistics and Registration Service Act 2007 and signifying compliance with the Code of Practice for Official Statistics.
Designation can be broadly interpreted to mean that the statistics:
- meet identified user needs;
- are well explained and readily accessible;
- are produced according to sound methods; and
- are managed impartially and objectively in the public interest.
Once statistics have been designated as National Statistics it is a statutory requirement that the Code of Practice shall continue to be observed.
Symbols used
| Symbol | Description | |--------|--------------------------------------------------| | .. | Not available | | 0 | Nil or less than half the final digit shown | | - | Not applicable | | * | One or both of the comparison figures are less than 30 | | (p) | Provisional data | Contact details
For queries, comments or further information, please contact:
**Nick Mavron** Ministry of Justice Justice Statistics Analytical Services 7th floor 102 Petty France London SW1H 9AJ
Email: [email protected]
Alternative formats are available on request from [email protected].
© Crown copyright 2015
This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3 or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or email: [email protected].
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/4810-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 31,
"total-input-tokens": 78109,
"total-output-tokens": 15901,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
83,
1
],
[
83,
3164,
2
],
[
3164,
5565,
3
],
[
5565,
6746,
4
],
[
6746,
9203,
5
],
[
9203,
11073,
6
],
[
11073,
12822,
7
],
[
12822,
16663,
8
],
[
16663,
19438,
9
],
[
19438,
21758,
10
],
[
21758,
23451,
11
],
[
23451,
25901,
12
],
[
25901,
27124,
13
],
[
27124,
29813,
14
],
[
29813,
32421,
15
],
[
32421,
34916,
16
],
[
34916,
37743,
17
],
[
37743,
41795,
18
],
[
41795,
43910,
19
],
[
43910,
45789,
20
],
[
45789,
48385,
21
],
[
48385,
50379,
22
],
[
50379,
52694,
23
],
[
52694,
55144,
24
],
[
55144,
57675,
25
],
[
57675,
60538,
26
],
[
60538,
61988,
27
],
[
61988,
64454,
28
],
[
64454,
67137,
29
],
[
67137,
68258,
30
],
[
68258,
68950,
31
]
]
} |
0d78143b1131585159747869bb89088d33d3f648 | Neighbourhood Planning & Local Planning Service Redesign & Capacity Building Fund
DCLG Grant Feedback Report Bath & North East Somerset Council July 2016 Introduction
- £10,500 Grant funding awarded to B&NES Council in Jan 2016 after a competitive bidding process
- The Proposal was to “Pilot Approach supporting Neighbourhood Planning groups developing projects which deliver multiple benefits (using CIL/s106 spend)”. Including:
- Additional Officer support to deliver this new funding model
- Preparation of Case Studies
- Dissemination at conferences etc.
- This report outlines the 4 Case Studies we have prepared.
## Case Study Overview
| Case Study | NDP Status | Funding Source/Model | Stage | |-------------------------------------|------------|----------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------| | 1: Bathampton Riverside Linear Park | Underway | £5k Capital Fund/Community Design Process | Implemented March 2016 | | 2: Freshford Village Recreation & Play Park | Adopted | £16k s106 Funding/Community Design Process | Design Process Complete March 2016 | | 3: West Clews Recreational Play Park | Underway | £37k s106 Funding/Community Design Process | Implemented March 2016 | | 4: Chew Magna King George V Playing Field | Submission draft | £18k s106 Funding/Community Design Process | Design Process Underway March 2016 | Case Study 1: Bathampton Riverside Linear Park Project Before and After
Before: Disconnect between Batheaston High Street and Bathampton Meadows and cycle route beyond. Limited public access.
After: Improved connectivity to walk and cycle between Batheaston and Bath. Links the villages of Batheaston and Bathampton. Improved public access and a new Riverside Park. Shared community project bringing together volunteers from two parishes (200 volunteer hours so far). The Community Vision
Batheaston Vision Plan (2009) identified an opportunity for a new pedestrian and cycle bridge and shared path to connect the village to Bathampton and Bath via National Cycle Route 4 along the Kennet and Avon towpath.
This was then funded by the Dept. for Transport’s Local Sustainable Transport Fund supported by B&NES Council Transport team.
Batheaston Parish Council is currently preparing a Neighbourhood Plan (designated in 2013), they identified potential community projects.
Potential to create a new Riverside Park for the community to enjoy was identified. The Brief
- **The Spend:** £5,000 funding from B&NES Council River Corridor Fund (Council owned land, as shown on right in red).
- **Delivery:** Capital Fund to be delivered as community spend, with volunteer and community support key to the project.
- **Capital Project:** Create a new linear park with new planting, seating/picnic tables, community notice boards etc. and a landscape design created by the shared route and pedestrian bridge.
- **Management:** Riverside Park to be managed by the Parish Councils and their working party of volunteers going forward.
- **Context:** Pilot supported by the WaterSpace partnership – who have a remit to identify and deliver projects which revitalise waterways. Bathampton Meadows Path
Landscape schematic Area 1
Drg 556 P 10 Not to scale Feb 2016 NB This part is not yet implemented – future phase, which funding is being sought for. Bathampton Meadows Path Landscape schematic Area 3
3.
- Seating & lifebelt station adjacent to riverbank
- Long grass area adjacent to riverbank
- Longer term tree planting
- Seven Crack Willows
- Public right of way
- Pedestrian / cycle route
- New footbridge
- Seating area
- Information point
- Tree planting Bathampton Meadows Path
Landscape schematic Area 4
Drg 556 P 05 Not to scale Feb 2016 Bathampton Riverside Linear Park Project
Project delivered in March 2016
Partners:
Bathampton Parish Council
Mullein Moth spotted in the new Riverside Park
New Planting, Benches and Community Notice Board “It all looks really superb. Previously under appreciated, there are now many plans being progressed by both the volunteers and Parish Councils to take advantage of this wonderful local asset. A total of 200 volunteer hours has been put into the project to date”
*Peter Fear, Bathampton and Batheaston River and Footpath Friends*
“The energy and commitment of local volunteers in progressing the vision for Bathampton Riverside is impressive. They are creating a wonderful amenity for residents and visitors alike, as well as space for wildlife.”
*Project Coordinator - Avon Frome Partnership*
“Volunteers from both Batheaston and Bathampton have been working tirelessly to improve the appearance of the riverside area, and where new benches and community noticeboards have now been installed. It is looking great.”
*Project Coordinator – River Avon, Bath & North East Somerset Council* Case Study 2: Freshford Village Recreation & Play Park
Partners:
- Freshford Village Memorial Hall
- Freshford Parish Council
Freshford & Limpley Stoke Neighbourhood Plan Frontrunner Group with DCLG The Project
The creation of a fully renovated playground space for the Freshford community. Project design and neighbourhood consultation have been completed, construction to be implemented Summer 2016.
The Neighbourhood Plan Community Vision:
7.3.06 The playgrounds in Freshford and Limpley Stoke are important sources of play and recreation by the children in the community and they will continue to be improved and upgraded by the respective Parish Councils. The Play Area Project is located at Community Facility 2 on this map. Project Location
OS Grid Ref: 378,423m, 160,086m Existing Play Area
“Nearing the end of its safe life, rotting and corroding” Parish Clerk Project Design Concept
“We have invited all members of the community to provide their ideas for new play equipment” Parish Clerk Quotes
“The enhanced playspace behind Freshford Memorial Hall will offer a significant benefit to the local community.”
“Given the importance of play in the development of a child, any space which gives a child free reign to do just that should be seen a crucial component in a child’s life.”
“Provides a social focal point for carers to meet and socialise promoting community spirit.”
“A good playground will also help to increase customers to the adjacent Galleries community shop”
Dr Claudia Towner, Freshford Village Memorial Hall Case Study 3: Midsomer Norton Outdoor Gym at West Clews
Partners:
Midsomer Norton Recreation Ground Trust Project Summary
West Clewes Recreation Ground is the home of a new free-to-use outdoor gym and a short running track for people in the town and surrounding. Midsomer Norton Town Council, manages the ground as the Trustee of Midsomer Norton Recreation Ground Trust, and has implemented the project to complement their Neighbourhood Plan objectives using S106 Greenspace Planning Obligation contributions.
The Neighbourhood Plan Community Vision:
Midsomer Norton Neighbourhood Plan Draft Objectives include: “Expanding and developing opportunities for events and activities to be held in public spaces” and “Ensuring the level of health facilities and infrastructure meets the needs of our growing community.” West Clews Recreation Ground Project Location
OS Grid Ref: 366,514m, 154,558m
Photo and aerial photography prior to project implementation. Statement from the project manager and parish clerk, Clive Stillwell
The new Outdoor Gym at West Clewes in Midsomer Norton has been installed on land that Midsomer Norton Town Council holds in trust for the local community. The project was initiated to widen the appeal and use of the land which, as well as being home to a local football club who lease part of the land from the Trust, offers a children’s play area and free car park.
After seeking initial designs and quotes, the Town Council held a consultation event with the preferred bidder and the public which helped finalise the apparatus to be included. A 40m running track, seven exercise stations and a “boot camp” workout frame were included in the final design. Two of the stations are inclusive in their design, allowing wheelchair users to take advantage of the facility which is easily accessible via a level tarmac path from the car park. A submission to B&NES Council for S106 funds was successful and the project was completed in May 2016.
Most of the current use is by individuals who may not have joined a formal Gym Club but want to improve their fitness. In addition, the Town Council has made the facility available to organised groups who will be charged a modest fee for access. Each station has a unique QR code attached along with basic instructions for use. Accessing the QR Code downloads a complete video showing how to use the equipment which is based on weight resistance rather than hydraulics, reducing the maintenance burden and ensuring that it can be used safely by anyone over the age of 14. Project Delivered 2016
Outdoor Gym
Running track
Information panels Case Study 4: Chew Magna King George V Playing Field
Partners: OS Grid Ref: 358,061m, 163,737m Project Summary
The proposal is to provide a modern, safe and pleasant play area that will be more extensively used by the local community.
The key features of the proposed development are: • Replacement of the existing children’s play area with a new bespoke multi-play design • Inclusion of a ‘Nest Swing’ suitable for young children and disabled children • Replacement of wet-pour surface and new layout to ensure the complete play area complies with latest safety standards • Picnic area for use by all age groups to encourage greater use of area • Development of a ‘Nature’ area for use by the local primary school Facilities - maintain and enhance good quality, accessible facilities, including community, leisure and recreational facilities, such as local pubs and shops, thus ensuring that the diverse economic and social vitality is sustained and enhanced. This must be in keeping with the character and distinctiveness of the seven parishes.
Policy BF3a Enhancing Community Facilities The Neighbourhood Plan will support planning applications to upgrade or replace any of the community facilities within the Plan Area, subject to it not interfering with any existing ecological function on or near the site. Consultation & Quotes
The parish council has undertook an extensive survey with the local primary school and children’s groups including Chew Mums social media site to understand the needs of the village. In total they have received around 100 responses.
“The King George V playing fields in Chew Magna is the main ‘Green Space’ area in the village but it’s use has been declining in recent years. “
“Play equipment does not meet the latest safety standards “
Chew Mums Project Design Concept
Your New Bespoke Chute Play Unit Lessons learnt
• Support from local partnerships to help with consultation, delivery and design processes on the ground is invaluable. • The approach to community design works in areas that have built capacity and consensus via Neighbourhood Planning and that have clear community priorities. • Communities need support with procurement and concept development to get multi-benefits. • Capturing the projects as case studies is a useful exercise for reflection and can be used to celebrate achievements of the volunteers involved. • Volunteer hours is a major resource, and can help sustainable maintenance of community assets (taking pressure off stretched Council maintenance budgets), but community design requires up-front investment of officer time. Thank you!
To DCLG for this grant which enabled us to increase B&NES Council support to these projects, prepare case studies and disseminate this learning.
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/3356-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 34,
"total-input-tokens": 44547,
"total-output-tokens": 3749,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
155,
1
],
[
155,
629,
2
],
[
629,
629,
3
],
[
629,
1603,
4
],
[
1603,
1658,
5
],
[
1658,
2073,
6
],
[
2073,
2664,
7
],
[
2664,
2664,
8
],
[
2664,
3377,
9
],
[
3377,
3465,
10
],
[
3465,
3552,
11
],
[
3552,
3866,
12
],
[
3866,
3954,
13
],
[
3954,
4164,
14
],
[
4164,
5056,
15
],
[
5056,
5257,
16
],
[
5257,
5722,
17
],
[
5722,
5792,
18
],
[
5792,
5842,
19
],
[
5842,
5933,
20
],
[
5933,
6063,
21
],
[
6063,
6603,
22
],
[
6603,
6711,
23
],
[
6711,
7422,
24
],
[
7422,
7564,
25
],
[
7564,
9149,
26
],
[
9149,
9220,
27
],
[
9220,
9316,
28
],
[
9316,
9938,
29
],
[
9938,
10537,
30
],
[
10537,
11011,
31
],
[
11011,
11068,
32
],
[
11068,
11824,
33
],
[
11824,
11980,
34
]
]
} |
8d50d704299e1f2af4f46a0a4dfc760d3c576614 | English Indices of Deprivation 2019: Calderdale Dashboards
Dashboard User Guide and Glossary
What are the Indices of Deprivation? The English Indices of Deprivation (IoD) is a set of relative measures of deprivation for small neighbourhoods (known as Lower layer super output areas or LSOAs) across England. It is based on seven different domains of deprivation:
- Income deprivation;
- Employment deprivation;
- Education, skills and training deprivation;
- Health deprivation and disability;
- Crime;
- Barriers to housing and services;
- Living environment deprivation.
Each of these domains is based on a basket of indicators. There are 37 indicators overall.
The Index of multiple deprivation (IMD) is combines information from the seven domains. It is the mostly widely used IoD data set. It is also the Government’s official measure of relative deprivation at neighbourhood level.
Three domains include sub domains:
| Domain | Subdomain 1 | Subdomain 2 | |---------------------------------------------|------------------------------|-------------| | Education, skills and training deprivation | Children and Young People | Adult Skills| | Barriers to housing and services | Geographical | Wider | | Living Environment deprivation | Indoor | Outdoor |
There are two supplementary indices – Income deprivation affecting children index (IDACI) and Income deprivation affecting older people index (IDAOPI).
LSOAs are statistically defined areas of approximately 1,500 created by the Office for National Statistics. There are 128 LSOAs in Calderdale. However, the IoD results are also reported at other geographical scales.
Source: www.gov.uk/government/statistics/english-indices-of-deprivation-2019 Dashboard User Guide
- Getting started
- Home page
- Individual dashboards
- Downloading maps
- Further information
- Glossary
Getting started Click on the following link to view the ‘English Indices of Deprivation 2019: Calderdale Dashboards’ home page opendata.calderdale.gov.uk/extensions/IoD-home/Iod-home.html.
Home page The Home page provides links to eight dashboards: one for the Index of Multiple Deprivation and for each of the seven domains.
Click on an icon to view charts and maps about that topic by ward and LSOA (lower layer super output area). Individual dashboards – key features
Each dashboard includes:
- Three maps, showing:
- results for 2019;
- percentage change between 2015 and 2019 (when the Indices were last published), and;
- results for 2015.
- Option to customise maps using zoom function and filters. Filters are deprivation decile, ward(s) and / or lower layer super output areas;
- National percentage results for each lower layer super output area;
- “Clear filter” links in the top right and bottom right of each dashboard;
- Links to further information at the bottom of each dashboard including information on data sources.
Three dashboards (Education, skills and training; Barriers to housing and services, and Living Environment) include a further two maps showing 2019 results for subdomains. How to download a map as an image
This will vary depending on your web browser.
For Google Chrome
1. Click on the map you wish to export;
2. Right click ‘Save image as…’.
Snipping Tool This is a free tool on all Windows PCs. It is a great way to take a copy of an image from your screen
If you have not used Snipping Tool before you can find it as follows:
- Click on the Start button or Search icon next to the Start button
- Type ‘Snipping Tool’ in the search… box
- Snipping tool will appear in your search menu.
- Follow the instructions in the tool to use. Further information
If you have any further questions about the guide or glossary or the Calderdale IoD dashboards contact [email protected]
Calderdale IMD 2015 data and fact sheets are available at dataworks.calderdale.gov.uk/dataset/calderdale-imd-2019-results
More information is available from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government: English Indices of deprivation 2019, at www.gov.uk/government/statistics/english-indices-of-deprivation-2019
Glossary
1. Acronyms and terms
2. Index map legend
3. Percentage change map legend
4. Acronyms and terms
| Acronym / Term | Description | |----------------|-------------| | Domain | Term used to describe seven individual indices that underpin the Index of Multiple Deprivation | | IDACI | Income deprivation affecting children index | | IDAOPI | Income deprivation affecting older people index | | IMD | Index of multiple deprivation | | LSOA | Lower Layer Super Output Area. A statistically defined area created by the Office for National Statistics. Each area contains approximately 1500 people. LSOAs tend to be larger in rural areas compared with urban areas due to the difference in population density. There are 128 LSOAs in Calderdale. The English Indices of Deprivation 2015 was based on 32844 LSOAs. Each LSOA has a label: eg Calderdale 001A. | | National percentage | Statistic used to indicate if a neighbourhood is more or less deprived when compared to all other neighbourhoods in England. The lower the percentage the more deprived. | | Neighbourhood | Term used in the English Indices of Deprivation to describe an LSOA area | 2. Index map legend
| Colour | Label | Description | |--------|------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------| | | 10% most deprived | Within the 10% most deprived neighbourhoods in England | | | >10% to 20% most deprived | Between 10% and 20% most deprived | | | >20% to 30% most deprived | Between 20% and 30% most deprived | | | >30% to 40% most deprived | Between 30% and 40% most deprived | | | >40% to 50% most deprived | Between 40% and 50% most deprived | | | >40% to 50% least deprived | Between 40% and 50% least deprived | | | >30% to 40% least deprived | Between 30% and 40% least deprived | | | >20% to 30% least deprived | Between 20% and 30% least deprived | | | >10% to 20% least deprived | Between 10% and 20% least deprived | | | 10% least deprived | Within the 10% least deprived |
3. Percentage change map legends
These vary depending on results. The examples below are indicative
| Colour | Label | Description | |--------|-------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------| | | -16 to -20 | Between 16% and 20% fall in ranking compared with results in last Index | | | -11 to -15 | Between 11% and 15% fall in ranking | | | -6 to -10 | Between 6% and 10% fall in ranking | | | -1 to -5 | Between 1% and 5% fall in ranking | | | 0 to 4 | Up to 4% improvement in ranking | | | 5 to 9 | Between 5% and 9% improvement in ranking | | | 10 to 15 | Between 10 and 15% improvement in ranking | | | 16 to 20 | Between 16% and 20% improvement in ranking |
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/3357-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 6,
"total-input-tokens": 11696,
"total-output-tokens": 2033,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
1842,
1
],
[
1842,
2407,
2
],
[
2407,
3195,
3
],
[
3195,
3761,
4
],
[
3761,
5456,
5
],
[
5456,
8009,
6
]
]
} |
Subsets and Splits