A consultation on standards and ratings for a national inspection of the Probation Service
In this consultation, we are asking for your views on our proposed standards for a national probation inspection, as well as how we rate the evidence that we see against the standards. Our aim is to focus on the things that make a difference to the ability of regions and PDUs to deliver probation services effectively. We are proposing four standards for which we will award ratings. Our ratings will continue to follow our established four-point scale and we are interested in your views on whether we should also provide an overall rating. We will make recommendations to drive improvement, targeting them where we believe they can have the most impact, and will publish our findings.
This consultation is hugely important to us in shaping an approach that best drives improvement.
Subject to the outcome of this consultation and resources, we plan to carry out the first national inspection in the first half of 2025. We have designed inspection standards that are future proof to enable us to undertake further national inspections when we think there is a need to do so.
Martin Jones, Chief Inspector of Probation has commented “We are unlikely to see any significant improvements in our findings in the short term and I am concerned at the potential damage to morale on front line services and in public confidence if we merely continue to report similar findings. Regions and PDUs need more time to allow matters, including the recent SDS40 changes and Probation Reset, to embed. We have a brief gap before we start the next regional inspection, and we plan to utilise that time by undertaking a national inspection.”
Our consultation closes at 11:59pm on Sunday 10 November 2024. We would very much welcome your views on the detail of our proposals, and hope you will take the opportunity to respond.
You can read the full consultation document here – A consultation on standards and ratings for a national inspection of the Probation Service (PDF, 357 kB)
In this consultation, we are asking for your views on our proposed standards for a national probation inspection, as well as how we rate the evidence that we see against the standards. Our aim is to focus on the things that make a difference to the ability of regions and PDUs to deliver probation services effectively. We are proposing four standards for which we will award ratings. Our ratings will continue to follow our established four-point scale and we are interested in your views on whether we should also provide an overall rating. We will make recommendations to drive improvement, targeting them where we believe they can have the most impact, and will publish our findings.
This consultation is hugely important to us in shaping an approach that best drives improvement.
Subject to the outcome of this consultation and resources, we plan to carry out the first national inspection in the first half of 2025. We have designed inspection standards that are future proof to enable us to undertake further national inspections when we think there is a need to do so.
Martin Jones, Chief Inspector of Probation has commented “We are unlikely to see any significant improvements in our findings in the short term and I am concerned at the potential damage to morale on front line services and in public confidence if we merely continue to report similar findings. Regions and PDUs need more time to allow matters, including the recent SDS40 changes and Probation Reset, to embed. We have a brief gap before we start the next regional inspection, and we plan to utilise that time by undertaking a national inspection.”
Our consultation closes at 11:59pm on Sunday 10 November 2024. We would very much welcome your views on the detail of our proposals, and hope you will take the opportunity to respond.
You can read the full consultation document here – A consultation on standards and ratings for a national inspection of the Probation Service (PDF, 357 kB)
The national arrangements for the delivery of probation services have a crucial role in enabling effective frontline delivery. We see some of the impact of this national activity through our regional and PDU inspections, but these do not give us a full picture of the impact of national arrangements. We need this information so that we can target recommendations where they will best drive improvement. This is why we are preparing to carry out an inspection of the Probation Service, focusing on the arrangements and activity in place at a national level. This will give us a comprehensive picture of the things that help or hinder the effective delivery of probation services by regions and PDUs.
We have published fifteen reports and two regional inspection reports during 2024. Whilst we have found some positive practice and leadership in some areas, all of those reports have rated PDUs and regions as either Inadequate or Requires improvement. The themes underpinning our scores are consistent. Areas are still hamstrung by staffing deficits (including retention difficulties), consistent shortfalls in our standards on public protection, and the workload pressures.
My conclusion, is that we are unlikely to see any significant improvements in our findings in the short term and I am concerned at the potential damage to morale on the front line and public confidence if we merely report similar findings. Regions and PDUs need more time to allow matters including the recent SDS40 changes and probation reset to embed. We have a brief gap before we start the next regional inspection and we plan to utilise that time by undertaking a national inspection.
In this consultation, we are asking for your views on our proposed standards for a national probation inspection, as well as how we rate the evidence that we see against the standards. Our aim is to focus on the things that make a difference to the ability of regions and PDUs to deliver probation services effectively. We are proposing four standards for which we will award ratings. Our ratings will continue to follow our established four-point scale and we are interested in your views on whether we should also provide an overall rating. We will make recommendations to drive improvement, targeting them where we believe they can have the most impact, and will publish our findings.
This consultation is hugely important to us in shaping an approach that best drives improvement.
Martin Jones CBE
Chief Inspector of Probation
I think that before you inspect anything you should determine exactly what it is we do.
ReplyDeleteAre we an organisation that engages in rehabilitation or are we enforcers.
Do we see people and guide or direct them, or are we data inputters continually filling in forms and ticking boxes.
Much as those excellent leaders would like it, we can’t be all things to all people.
Please give some clarity
Jonesy mate no point in anymore bullshit inspections. If you find crap results sack the managers sack the leadership but no more hogwash your not credible nor are the reports as leaders are always excellent but the results are always shite. In that basis nothing changes. Reports have consequences shape them to such or just fuck off margin playing again.
ReplyDeleteSuggest 1) don’t take your view of what Probation is from Inspectors who jumped ship many years ago when it really was a different organisation 2) start to reflect in your inspections the true picture of senior management and the awful way they treat the frontline staff, just recognise their behaviour and culpability for the destruction of Probation.
ReplyDeleteTruly on point this comment
DeleteNot really inspectors were only secondments for periods of time.
DeleteAnd for many HMIP then offered them jobs. I’ve even seen a few chief officer pop up as HMIP inspectors too. Even ones that sold us out during TR.
DeleteAnon 10:10 is spot on.
DeleteHMIP should a year inspecting probation senior leadership teams all who have presided over inadequate probation services. Let them and not the staff be answerable for the inadequacy, toxicity and failure..
DeleteDear Mr Jones
ReplyDelete"doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results"
The inspection results have been dire for years, but no-one has ever taken the management structure to task over any of those dire results, i.e. most of the culprits are still in post/have been promoted.
Why do I take such a view? Because my experiences of inspections have always been:
1. there is plenty of advance notice (usually months) of the imminent inspection, the cases to be inspected & the purpose of the inspection
2. local management order the toilets to be painted
3. case records are audited, adjusted & staff groomed
4. local mangement have cosy chats with the inspectors
And despite all of these 'advantages' & prep time, probation areas achieve shit scores... the failures are levelled at frontline staff... and not much changes at any level.
You say: "My conclusion, is that we are unlikely to see any significant improvements in our findings in the short term and I am concerned at the potential damage to morale on the front line and public confidence if we merely report similar findings."
I ask:
1. Why are there unlikely to be significant improvements? We've had decades of strategies & policies & consultations & political directives, yet nothing has changed for the better. Everything has just "gotten shitter".
2. Potential damage to frontline morale? Potential? The potential has been reached; and exceeded. I'm not sure frontline morale could be any more damaged than it already is. How about sacking some of the "excellent leaders" who have carelessly & callously led the service into this death spiral while being labelled "excellent" & "strong" by... the inspectors!
3. Public confidence? Most of the general public have no idea who or what probation is, except when some poor bastard on the frontline is being hung out to dry following a dreadful incident beyond their control, while the pisspoor management make tutting noises & chunter about "lessons to be learned" or "a sad lack of professional inquisitiveness".
Have ***any*** lessons been learned?
https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprobation/media/press-releases/2022/09/sfo-2022/
https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprobation/2021/06/09-june-2021/
https://committees.parliament.uk/work/3582/transforming-rehabilitation-inquiry/news/99492/new-probation-system-must-learn-lessons-from-botched-current-model/
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2009/nov/02/probation-service-monitoring-inquiry-sonnex
https://news.sky.com/story/re-offending-fears-as-probation-service-fails-to-learn-from-past-mistakes-11987919
https://www.theguardian.com/society/joepublic/2009/jun/04/sonnex-probation-service
https://www.communitycare.co.uk/2006/02/28/probation-staff-suspended-following-critical-report/
No!
So, seeing as repeating the same format with no improvement is proving unhelpful, maybe HMI Probation could stop using the same tactics & start doing unannounced inspections where inspectors turn up at an office & look at random case records with the case managers, listening to them as they discuss the cases together, getting to grips with the local difficulties & impossibilities, reading the bullying emails, experiencing the true gravity of the situation.
Then, maybe, there might be some real progress in short order.
Having been voluntarily and recently interviewed by an HMPPS inspector, as someone who exited the probation service via early retirement, for an inspection report that is due to be published early next year, my view is that interviews should not be so time-limited. I had a lot more that I wanted to say, given that I had worked as a probation officer for over forty years, when I was explaining my thoughts about my earlier (good) experiences as a probation officer compared with my later experiences, particularly post the so called 'Transforming Rehabilitation' - ultimately the nightmare that led me to exit the probation service prior to my state pension age.
ReplyDelete