This recently announced by HM Chief Inspector of Probation:-
National Inspection announcementToday we are announcing a national probation inspection, covering England and Wales, and reviewing the ability of regions and PDUs to deliver probation services effectively.
National arrangements for service delivery have a crucial role in enabling effective outcomes in frontline probation work. We see some of the impact of this activity through our regional and PDU inspections, but they do not give us a full picture.
It is clear we are unlikely to see any significant improvement in our core programme of PDU inspections in the short term. Regions and PDUs need more time to allow recent changes, including the implementation of SDS40 and Probation Reset, to embed.
By taking some time ahead of our next regional inspection programme to carry out a national inspection, we will be able to gather a comprehensive overview of the things that help or hinder the effective delivery of probation services. This will allow us to make recommendations to drive improvement and target them where we believe they can have the most impact.
Fieldwork for our national inspection will begin later this month and we look forward to sharing the results in the spring. Our inspection standards have also been designed to allow us to carry out further national inspections in the future, where we think there is a need to do so.
--oo00oo--
Then we have this Press release:-
Inspectorate flags concerns as number of SFO reviews meeting required standards continues to decline
HM Inspectorate of Probation has published its third annual report of Serious Further Offence (SFO) reviews, highlighting a decline in the number of reviews completed to the expected standard for the second year running.
The Inspectorate’s SFO inspectors quality assured 87 SFO reviews this year, rating 46 per cent as ‘Good’, but 52 per cent as ‘Requires improvement’, emphasising the need for SFO teams to be sufficiently resourced and experienced, for more effective management oversight, and for improved centralised training.
The report also highlighted the backlog of SFO reviews due in many regions – causing delays in the probation service identifying and implementing the required learning, and in sharing findings with victims and their families.
Chief Inspector of Probation, Martin Jones, said: “The probation service manages a large and complex caseload in the community. By its very nature, risk is inherent in that work and can never be eliminated. Against that backdrop, the number of SFOs committed each year remain low as a proportion of the overall workload, but the impact of serious further offences on victims and their families cannot be underestimated, and they are an important opportunity for learning. So, it is disappointing we have continued to see a reduction in the number of SFO reviews that meet the required standard. More work is needed to develop and support reviewing managers, alongside more transparency and the sharing of high-quality data and effective practice across regions to support a collective developmental approach.”
For the first time, this year’s annual report also sought reflections from probation staff on their experiences of the SFO review process, and their experiences of the organisational culture linked to SFO reviews.
This raised recurring concerns about the SFO review policy framework, how it is applied, and its outcomes and impact. There was also feedback that the level of support provided to those involved in SFO reviews needs to be improved, with respondents concerned about a ‘culture of blame’ existing within HMPPS. Staff reported they often felt individual accountability was attributed to them, with a failure to acknowledge and address wider and procedural systemic issues.
Last year’s SFO annual report made seven recommendations to HMPPS, which focused on the quality of SFO reviews, the associated action planning, and the embedding of learning. Concerningly, little progress has been made against these recommendations and, as a result, this year they are repeated, alongside a further four recommendations to support the improvements the Inspectorate’s quality assurance activity and staff engagement show are required.
Mr Jones added: “The SFO review process should be utilised as a constructive learning opportunity, yet with backlogs, delays in communicating with victims, and the difficult experiences described by those involved, the necessary learning culture is not being achieved. Improvements must be put in place moving forward.”
Inspectorate flags concerns as number of SFO reviews meeting required standards continues to decline
HM Inspectorate of Probation has published its third annual report of Serious Further Offence (SFO) reviews, highlighting a decline in the number of reviews completed to the expected standard for the second year running.
The Inspectorate’s SFO inspectors quality assured 87 SFO reviews this year, rating 46 per cent as ‘Good’, but 52 per cent as ‘Requires improvement’, emphasising the need for SFO teams to be sufficiently resourced and experienced, for more effective management oversight, and for improved centralised training.
The report also highlighted the backlog of SFO reviews due in many regions – causing delays in the probation service identifying and implementing the required learning, and in sharing findings with victims and their families.
Chief Inspector of Probation, Martin Jones, said: “The probation service manages a large and complex caseload in the community. By its very nature, risk is inherent in that work and can never be eliminated. Against that backdrop, the number of SFOs committed each year remain low as a proportion of the overall workload, but the impact of serious further offences on victims and their families cannot be underestimated, and they are an important opportunity for learning. So, it is disappointing we have continued to see a reduction in the number of SFO reviews that meet the required standard. More work is needed to develop and support reviewing managers, alongside more transparency and the sharing of high-quality data and effective practice across regions to support a collective developmental approach.”
For the first time, this year’s annual report also sought reflections from probation staff on their experiences of the SFO review process, and their experiences of the organisational culture linked to SFO reviews.
This raised recurring concerns about the SFO review policy framework, how it is applied, and its outcomes and impact. There was also feedback that the level of support provided to those involved in SFO reviews needs to be improved, with respondents concerned about a ‘culture of blame’ existing within HMPPS. Staff reported they often felt individual accountability was attributed to them, with a failure to acknowledge and address wider and procedural systemic issues.
Last year’s SFO annual report made seven recommendations to HMPPS, which focused on the quality of SFO reviews, the associated action planning, and the embedding of learning. Concerningly, little progress has been made against these recommendations and, as a result, this year they are repeated, alongside a further four recommendations to support the improvements the Inspectorate’s quality assurance activity and staff engagement show are required.
Mr Jones added: “The SFO review process should be utilised as a constructive learning opportunity, yet with backlogs, delays in communicating with victims, and the difficult experiences described by those involved, the necessary learning culture is not being achieved. Improvements must be put in place moving forward.”
--oo00oo--
Still no sign of the promised 'Probation Review' from the new government, although just like the last government, they seem keen on adding to prison capacity problems by increasing sentences and of course have doubled the length of custody Magistrates can impose.
I guess we ought to mention this, but to be honest holding consultations over Christmas and New Year is pretty daft, unless of course you're not really serious about it:-
The Justice Committee is today (Tuesday, 26 November) launching its first new inquiry of the Parliament entitled ‘Rehabilitation and resettlement: ending the cycle of reoffending’.
Inquiry: Rehabilitation and resettlement: ending the cycle of reoffending
Submit evidence here
MPs on the newly appointed cross-party Committee, chaired by Labour MP Andy Slaughter, will examine the levels of reoffending in England and Wales. They will look in detail at the rehabilitative regimes offered across training and resettlement prisons within the male and female prison estate, including for remand prisoners, IPP prisoners and those in youth custody.
The inquiry comes as latest Ministry of Justice data covering October to December 2022 showed the overall proven reoffending rate was 26.4%, with adults released from custodial sentences of less than 12 months having a proven reoffending rate of 56.6%. For the year ending December 2023, 78% of all offenders cautioned or convicted for an indictable offence in 2023 had at least one prior caution or conviction.
The HM Inspector of Prisons annual report for 2023-24 raised concerns over the length of time inmates were spending in their cells, with 30 out of 32 inspections rated poor or insufficiently good for purposeful activity.
The Justice Committee is today (Tuesday, 26 November) launching its first new inquiry of the Parliament entitled ‘Rehabilitation and resettlement: ending the cycle of reoffending’.
Inquiry: Rehabilitation and resettlement: ending the cycle of reoffending
Submit evidence here
MPs on the newly appointed cross-party Committee, chaired by Labour MP Andy Slaughter, will examine the levels of reoffending in England and Wales. They will look in detail at the rehabilitative regimes offered across training and resettlement prisons within the male and female prison estate, including for remand prisoners, IPP prisoners and those in youth custody.
The inquiry comes as latest Ministry of Justice data covering October to December 2022 showed the overall proven reoffending rate was 26.4%, with adults released from custodial sentences of less than 12 months having a proven reoffending rate of 56.6%. For the year ending December 2023, 78% of all offenders cautioned or convicted for an indictable offence in 2023 had at least one prior caution or conviction.
The HM Inspector of Prisons annual report for 2023-24 raised concerns over the length of time inmates were spending in their cells, with 30 out of 32 inspections rated poor or insufficiently good for purposeful activity.
Chair comment
Justice Committee Chair Andy Slaughter MP said: “Prisons and the Probation Service are facing significant and unsustainable pressures. The Justice Committee’s first inquiry will focus in detail on how to break the cycle of reoffending we are witnessing across our justice system.
“We will examine reoffending rates in England and Wales and assess the current rehabilitation regimes offered within different types of prisons, including training, education and purposeful activity.
“The inquiry will also measure the adequacy of support provided to ex-offenders on release including homelessness prevention, employment opportunities and health and wellbeing services, as well as the role of non-custodial sentences in promoting rehabilitation amid the Sentencing Review.
“With limited opportunities for ex-offenders to reintegrate back into society post release and a rise in the numbers leaving jails homeless, a wide-ranging assessment of the prison revolving door is long overdue. The Committee will listen carefully to those across the sector and make evidence-based recommendations to Ministers to shift the dial on this crucial issue.”
Terms of reference for the call for evidence
The Committee invites written submissions through the inquiry website addressing any or all of the issues raised in the following terms of reference by January 10, 2025.
"It is clear we are unlikely to see any significant improvement in our core programme of PDU inspections in the short term. Regions and PDUs need more time to allow recent changes, including the implementation of SDS40 and Probation Reset, to embed."
ReplyDelete"The Inspectorate’s SFO inspectors quality assured 87 SFO reviews this year, rating 52 per cent as ‘Requires improvement’... The report also highlighted the backlog of SFO reviews due in many regions – causing delays in the probation service identifying and implementing the required learning..."
"For the year ending December 2023, 78% of all offenders cautioned or convicted for an indictable offence in 2023 had at least one prior caution or conviction."
The system is screwed up beyond repair. Successive govts have established a multi-layered society in the uk:
have's (self-defined 'elite' & their chums)
have-not's, especially (but not exclusively):
vulnerable
elderly
children
people of colour
migrants/refugees
(add as you please)
These are the people fighting to keep themselves alive, debating on whether this week's money goes on food or heat/light while facing water bills for shitty water. These are the folks who are drifting into shoptheft, spiralling into debt, going hungry &/or cold... dying.
Anything critical, essential or otherwise of value to a warm & safe society has been turned into a profit-making commodity - social care, justice, heat/light, water, education.
I'm prescient enough to know what the inspection will find.
ReplyDelete1. Our great leaders are doing a splendid job, pay rises and knighthoods all round.
2 Staff at the front line are hopeless and would rather spend more time helping those on their caseload, failing completely to prioritise paperwork and KPIs.
Calling it now!
Prioritise 1900 point 2 helping the caseload or prioritising kpi. The helping is no longer part of the job. Paper performance is .
DeleteSpot on,I’ve been through several inspections over the years and not much really changes, time to scrap them
DeleteWouldn't inspections be more relevant and informative if they provided less advance notice, preventing managers from concealing the true extent of dysfunction and decline?
ReplyDeleteI agree. They should turn up with no more than 24 hours notice.
DeleteBeen said many times and I agree with this but the inspectors do not want to write the truth so notice schedule remains so they don't have to.
Delete19:00 Its all so predictable and soul destroying. We’ll go through wks of torture pre inspection, cases identified, discussions to “tidy” them up. It’s a yearly bloody farce that achieves nothing. It’s infuriating
ReplyDeleteMost of my SFOs have come about because of poor or chaotic initial allocations. But it's never the SPO that gets action planned and told how poor they are. I cannot predict further crime. If i could i would be rich. I work tirelessly for my cases, spinning plates and going the extra mile but there's yet another SFO and i have to sit in a meeting with a sanctimonious twerp who didn't want to do the risky job i'm being criticised for any longer (so they know it's a basket case of a role) and play the blame game, whilst 'balancing' this with platitudes about what was good about my practice. If anyone was to do really dip testing and see how often supervision is cancelled and what cases haven't been updated, the administration of these cases is not linked to the SFO- it's often linked to being exhausted. It's the workload, the lack of support and the poor initial allocations. Everything is fine until there's an SFO and then the scramble to cover backs is legendary. It's really beyond poor that you don't tackle the workloads, really care about wellbeing and just in general realise that most of us are doing their level best and no one wants anyone at further risk of harm. But even the police are poor at letting us know of further offending. if the individual is on probation- indicated by the PNC- then be intelligent enough to let probation know- they may be able to recall. And stop giving primacy to prisons: if the offender is in prison it's completely the responsibility of the POM, not the COM. The POM isn't responsible when the offender leaves the gate, so let's stop this POM/COM handover nonsense and until they leave the gate, the POM has fully responsibility. COMs might have manageable workloads then.
ReplyDelete