Real Reason for 'Inadequacy'

Following on from yesterday's publication of damning HMI inspection reports on three London PDUs, reaction has understandably been one of shock and horror. Readers will recall increasingly desperate appeals to fill vacancies over the summer, leading eventually to staff being offered cash inducements to temporarily re-locate to London for up to three months at a time. 

We all remember the much-heralded announcement of 1,000 extra trainee probation officer posts, but have failed to materialise due to widespread PQiP dissatisfaction and defection regularly discussed on this blog. Sickness rates, burn-out, morale and early retirements by demoralised but highly experienced staff have all been compounded by 10 years of salary erosion. 

It should come as no great surprise that the culmination of all this can be seen in these shocking reports, but the staff are not to blame, these are the direct results of an institutional structural malaise brought about by successive political interference by those only concerned with popularity rather than professional understanding. The forced merger with HM Prison Service has been an utter disaster that can only make matters even worse. 

With the undeniable prospect of a significant change in political direction some time within the next two years, we simply must make the case for probation to return to being a distinct discipline able to function independently of civil service command and control. There is evidence of growing support for this across many stakeholders within the criminal justice sphere and is surely the only way a strong case can be made to divert some of the resources currently ear-marked for prison expansion? 

Effective alternatives to imprisonment can only come about with a fully functioning Probation Service and increasingly it's becoming self-evident that is not going to be possible whilst the service is slowly but effectively strangled by civil service command and control as part of HMPPS. Where is the Howard League, Clinks, Nacro, Centre for Crime and Justice Studies, academia, et al on this? We need a campaign and we need it now.  

Meanwhile, here are highlights from the other two London HMI reports:-         

Lambeth

Foreword

This was the first Probation Delivery Unit (PDU) inspection of services within Lambeth since the unification of the Community Rehabilitation Companies (CRC) and National Probation Service (NPS) in June 2021. The overall quality of work delivered to manage people on probation was poor across all four of our standards for casework. Although there were some positives demonstrated in the way this service was organised and led, there was insufficient attention paid to the quality of case management, which should be at the heart of what probation services deliver. As a result of this, the PDU is rated “Inadequate”. 

A common theme emerging in the PDUs we have inspected to date is that staffing levels were insufficient. At the point of inspection, Lambeth PDU had an overall vacancy rate of 27 per cent across probation practitioner and middle manager grades. Staff understandably did not feel their workloads were manageable, and many reflected they were not satisfied in their work, acknowledging that there was not enough focus on quality of supervision within the PDU. 

We were impressed by the governance and accountability framework in place, led by the head of the PDU, which had driven improvements against key performance indicators. But performance measures alone did little to improve the quality of work being undertaken. We were concerned to see examples of unsatisfactory assessments being countersigned by managers in order to achieve a performance target date for completion, while they openly acknowledged gaps in the quality of the work. This is unacceptable. There was an overall lack of quality assurance in all cases. This is also a regional issue due to inadequate resourcing within regional performance and quality teams, which have been raided to make good shortages in frontline staff resources. The issues of resourcing, while needing regional attention, also require intervention from national senior leaders. 

There were positive strategic partnerships across the borough of Lambeth, and this was reflected in the range of services available. These were, however, not then fully utilised by probation practitioners to manage risk of harm or support individuals towards desistance in the cases we inspected. People on probation did not feel involved or engaged in their sentence, or with the Probation Service as a whole. This was reflected in poor engagement and outcome scores across all casework quality standards.

Undoubtedly, both staff and managers will be disappointed with the outcome of this inspection. Whilst we are hopeful that the management structures in place will be able to drive improvements, this will only be achieved when there is a shift to focusing on the quality of supervision, with sufficient staffing in place to facilitate effective delivery. 

Justin Russell 

Chief Inspector of Probation

Ealing and Hillingdon

Foreword 

This was the first Probation Delivery Unit (PDU) inspection of probation services within Ealing and Hillingdon since the unification of the Community Rehabilitation Companies (CRCs) and National Probation Services (NPS) in June 2021. The overall quality of work delivered to manage people on probation was insufficient across all five of our standards for casework, with the PDU being rated as ‘Inadequate’. 

Although staff were positive about the support received from managers and senior leaders, these efforts were not translating into sufficient work being delivered with people on probation and to keep communities safe. 

In common with every PDU we have inspected to date, staffing levels were insufficient. The overall vacancy rate at the point of the inspection announcement was 21 per cent. Vacancy rates within administrative grades and Probation Services Officers (PSOs) were much worse and particularly acute, and this position is clearly unsustainable. The PSO vacancy rate at the time of inspection was 41 per cent. These critical gaps are significantly impacting not only the quality of work, but also the morale of staff within the PDU which could, if left unchecked, lead to even more staff leaving. 

As with other recent inspections we were particularly concerned about the poor quality of work to assess and manage the risks that people on probation may present to the wider community. Only 22 per cent of cases we inspected were sufficient in terms of the services delivered to effectively support the safety of other people and assessments around risk of harm were not much better. A national approach is needed to improve this critical aspect of probation practice. 

Resourcing challenges were also apparent to people on probation in this PDU. Over half of those interviewed on our behalf by User Voice said that there were no positives to report about their experience of probation services in Ealing and Hillingdon. This needs to improve. While there remains much work still to be done and improvements are needed, the leaders of this PDU recognise they are on a journey of recovery from the impacts of both the Covid-19 pandemic and the unification of NPS and CRC services in London in the summer of 2021. 

While Ealing and Hillingdon PDU is rated as ‘Inadequate’ overall, there is evidence that the foundations are starting to form to support the required improvement. This will only be possible however, if the appropriate regional and national support is in place to address staffing and other local needs. 

Justin Russell 

Chief Inspector of Probation

--oo00oo--

Postscript

Email from a reader:-

"Essentially firefighting endless managerial incompetence, poorly resourced offices, lack of organisational integrity, heavy-handed and tone deaf approaches and reliance on the civil service code of omerta to stifle any dissenting voices expressing long-standing concerns on staffing resources, collapse in morale, egregious collusive management-condoned practices to shore up near-empty PDU's due to sickness, recruitment and retention issues and the endless flow of organisational diktats from above on targets, bloated OASys completion demands etc. 

The concerns on impact on judicial confidence was especially significant with union reps ensuring that these concerns reached the Inspectorate and were included in the final report. Some graphic examples, which were aired in open court, included a vulnerable female client who had not been supervised for over 10 months, an embargo on post sentence supervision -that is no supervision! and over-reliance on sessional PSR writers who were out of practice and therefore not conversant with new legislation. 

With 'piles of unallocated cases' - one PDU was so bereft of staff that there were serious concerns that a raft of SFO's was likely to result, given the demography of the demanding and violence-convicted clients, many having to travel further distances due to the closure (commercial reasons?) of the main Central London PDU - and were not being supervised. But the fact that this report is now out in all its gory detail should prompt some urgent remedial action. Noticeably absent will be any senior management performance reviews/resignations as the duty of care to staff and service users and the wider community is almost completely abrogated.

Other London PDU's will be facing similar forensic Inspectoral scrutiny in coming months and this should be a tipping point for overhaul of LP with the dead hand of the civil service carapace consigned to the dustbin! If the newly appointed Justice Secretary had not so many other explosive issues on his hands this would be seen as a spectacular organisational scandal in the largest Probation Service which covers Westminster/Parliament! And throws into sharp relief what currently has to be the hollow probation strapline mantra of assess, protect and change!"