The SPO Role

Continuing with the theme of probation in Wales going its own way, it's interesting to note that both HMPI reports into the role of SPOs published last month include description of the new work in Probation in Wales on the "Human Factors Model" which "acknowledges that we all make mistakes and that we must learn from these", as well as "understanding better why things go right most of the time.” Lets look at the first:-

The role of the senior probation officer and management oversight in the Probation Service

Foreword 

The Probation Service manages a complex and challenging caseload. The work of probation practitioners in court and sentence management teams is fundamental to the Service’s ability to protect the public. Our probation inspection programme found that, where it was required, the quality of management oversight was insufficient in 72 per cent of the inspected cases. It is therefore vital that effective management oversight arrangements are in place. This is currently not the case. We found that management oversight policies are applied inconsistently, and this is underpinned by a defensive operational culture. This undermines the quality of decision-making and the confidence of operational staff and is of serious concern. 

A revised framework is required to enable both day-to-day decision-making and the proactive assurance of cases. Only 39 per cent of senior probation officers in our survey believe that the current management oversight policies meet the needs of probation service delivery, and the probation caseload. Lines of responsibility are not clear, and in relation to staff supervision and oversight, policy implementation has not been well coordinated. It is therefore unsurprising that many operational staff lack confidence in the current framework and are uncertain as to their responsibilities. 

Operational staff in Wales have responded positively to the introduction of the ‘human factors’ approach in sentence management. The new operational structure has resulted in a less frenetic working culture and more considered decision-making. The resilience of this structure and its impact on the quality of delivery still need to be evaluated. However, we welcome the proactive arrangements now in place to meet the challenges of the probation caseload. 

The senior probation officer role should focus on service delivery, and the management oversight and development of their team. The spans of responsibility of the current role prevent this, and their focus is too often on non-operational tasks. This undermines the senior probation officer’s ability to deliver effective management control. Until this is addressed, their focus on operational delivery will continue to be diluted. 

We have expressed concerns about the senior probation officer workload in previous reports, and those concerns remain. Internal probation service reviews have also found the workload to be excessive. During this inspection, we met and heard from many senior probation officers who had unacceptably high workloads across a wide range of responsibilities. Additional administrative support has been provided and there has been significant success in filling vacancies. The responsibilities of the role have, however, remained unchanged. 

The role of the senior probation officer and arrangements for management oversight in the Probation Service need to be reviewed. This will, now, take place within a merged ‘One HMPPS’ governance structure for prisons and probation services. It is important that operational staff are consulted meaningfully and that new policies are grounded in the realities of the probation caseload. Our recommendations, if followed, are designed to support senior probation officers to focus on the oversight of work and, in so doing, to improve public protection. 

Sue McAllister 

Interim HM Chief Inspector of Probation January 2024

Executive summary 

Context 

The role of the senior probation officer (SPO) and the delivery of management oversight are central to effective sentence management and court work in the Probation Service. The probation caseload is complex and challenging. It is therefore important that the teams delivering these key services in courts and the community are supported and that their work is overseen effectively. Since before the unification of the Probation Service, there have been concerns about the workload of SPOs and the effectiveness of management oversight. These concerns have continued following the findings from HM Inspectorate of Probation’s core inspection programme 2021–2023 and recent high-profile Serious Further Offence (SFO) independent reviews. The formation of the unified service has seen several policy initiatives in relation to management oversight – notably, the touch points model (TPM) and the reflective practice supervision standards (RPSS). In addition, the Probation Service managerial role review (HMPPS, 2022) considered the pressures and workload of the SPO in sentence management and court teams. 

This inspection examined the effectiveness of the current arrangements and policies. It focused on management oversight and the SPO role in sentence management and court work because it is in these teams that the key decisions in relation to risk and public protection are taken. As part of this examination, we considered whether the current operating structure meets the requirement of managing the dynamic probation caseload. 

Methodology 

We undertook fieldwork in five probation regions and held focus groups with the key staff groups, including senior staff and operational managers. In the 15 SPO focus groups we met a total of 94 SPOs. In the probation practitioner (PP) focus groups, we met a total of 82 PPs. Fieldwork was also undertaken with senior leaders in the national HM Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) teams. 

We also circulated a national survey to all SPOs which included key questions on management oversight and their responsibilities. A total of 392 SPOs completed this survey, which was 27 per cent of the total number of SPOs in post at that time. In the regions, we also asked SPOs in sentence management and court teams to complete an activity survey. We received 29 responses. 

The management oversight data from our core inspection programme was analysed in relation to SPO vacancy rates and spans of control. 

Policy, strategy, and staffing 

There is no overall strategy for the delivery of effective management oversight in the Probation Service. Different management oversight frameworks for casework and performance management have been introduced, but not as part of a coherent framework. This has contributed to the confusion and uncertainty felt by operational staff. In the future, sentence management and courts will sit in the chief probation officer’s directorate, which will have responsibility for management oversight policy. It is important that the views of frontline staff and an understanding of the probation caseload inform decision-making in the new structure. 

Following a cultural assessment of the organisation, the probation service in Wales has adopted a learning organisation model. Central to this is the implementation of a ‘human factors’ approach in the sentence management teams. A premise of the approach is that humans are fallible, and errors are to be expected, even in the best organisations. The analysis of culture and clarity of communication that supported implementation in Wales is impressive and has helped to embed it in the organisation. Sustaining this change and learning from the experience will now be key. More widely, regional leaders are cautious, doubting that there is an appetite, nationally, for the adoption of a systems-based approach to learning.

Staffing levels for SPOs and PPs have improved but the Probation Service has an inexperienced workforce. This contributes to the dependence and lack of confidence of PPs. Some regions continue to experience high vacancy levels. This inevitably increases the stress on teams, directly affecting the availability, and quality, of management oversight. 

The effectiveness of management oversight in sentence management and court teams

Overall, we found a reactive management oversight culture. SPOs are generally dependent on PPs raising concerns with them before they examine a case. One-to-one supervision meetings between SPOs and PPs have a broad agenda, restricting the time available to review cases. Only 39 per cent of SPO respondents working in sentence management thought that the current management oversight policies met the needs of probation service delivery and the probation caseload. 

The implementation of the TPM and the RPSS varied across the regions. The TPM ensures that all cases are reviewed by an SPO at some point during the management of the case. However, the model is inflexible, and this can precipitate unnecessary management activity. It was introduced with complex recording instructions which are used inconsistently across the regions. In most of the inspected regions, there was little evidence that planned RPSS sessions were taking place. 

In the inspected English regions, we were told that a culture of fear was becoming embedded. This is driven primarily by the fear of SFOs and the consequent need to evidence management oversight activity. This undermines the confidence of PPs, and the effectiveness and quality of management oversight practice. The SPO review (HMPPS, 2020) recognised that the demand placed on SPOs to countersign work was excessive. A countersigning framework was introduced in February 2022 and relaunched in May 2023. However, this has not reduced the burden. 

The human factors approach in Wales has improved team communication and provides a more responsive approach to the oversight of cases. Morning check-in meetings and SPO protected hours are now central to operational delivery. This provides a more effective model for managing the probation caseload, particularly in relation to changes in the level of risk of serious harm. It allows for, and anticipates, crises in line with the often complex, challenging, non-compliant reality of the individuals managed. 

The demands of the court environment are recognised in the management oversight arrangements for court teams. These teams have a large proportion of probation services officers (PSOs) working in them and they could consult either an SPO or a probation officer on matters such as the risk of serious harm or curfew requirements. However, the gatekeeping arrangements for court reports are inconsistent. This is partly due to staffing levels, but also the demands of the court’s timescale. However, all reports on individuals assessed as presenting a high risk of serious harm are gatekept by a qualified PP or SPO. 

The SPO role and the operational structure 

The current management structure and arrangements for the delivery of sentence management do not enable effective management oversight. The structure does not anticipate the demands, or the complexities, of the probation caseload. It is dependent on SPOs being available to make decisions when crises arise. The nature of the caseload means that key management consultations and decisions are needed outside of planned oversight meetings, and the operational arrangements for sentence management should reflect this requirement. 

The SPO span of responsibility includes non-operational tasks, such as facilities management and health and safety. There has been an improvement to the support given to SPOs with the introduction of the case administrator and the relaunch of the managerial hubs for human resources (HR) issues. However, in our national survey, only 17 per cent of sentence management SPOs said that they had time to deliver effective management oversight on cases. 

Unlike the English regions, in Wales the quality development officer (QDO) is located within the probation delivery unit (PDU) structure. Under this line management arrangement, they are involved more directly in operational delivery and more able to look at specific areas of practice relevant to the PDU teams. 

There is no national SPO induction and training programme. The English regions and Wales have developed their own induction and development programmes. A Civil Service e-learning package on generic management skills is available, alongside the recently launched HMPPS ‘people manager handbook’. However, these arrangements do not fully meet the requirements of the SPO role’s demands and complexity.

Recommendations 

HM Prison and Probation Service should: 

1. ensure that HMPPS delivers a clear policy framework for management oversight and first-tier assurance that meets the demands of the probation caseload 

2. ensure that effective management oversight arrangements are in place at the regional and PDU level to assure the quality of work to protect the public 

3. review the business support functions in relation to facilities management and human resources, to ensure that SPOs are focused on the management oversight of casework 

4. design and implement a comprehensive induction and professional development programme for all SPOs working in sentence management and the courts 

5. fully evaluate the human factors approach adopted in Wales and consider implementing it across the English regions 

6. review the operating model to consider locating QDOs within the PDU governance structure, in line with the approach taken in Wales.