The Inspector Speaks

Sentencing Act January 2026

I was pleased to see the Sentencing Act receive royal asset yesterday evening, together with the government’s reassurance that the reforms are supported by plans to rebuild the Probation Service – including investment of up to £700m over the next three years, increased ability to tag offenders, and new technology aimed at reducing administration, so staff can focus on work that reduces reoffending.

It is positive that the Act will not take effect immediately, giving the Probation Service time to prepare for the incoming changes. However, we know that some measures, including the extension of Suspended Sentence Orders and changes to Remand, will come into force in just two months, while implementation planning continues for more complex changes.

I have spoken recently about my support in principle for many elements of the Act and the opportunity it provides to transform the justice system.

However, I have been clear that there will be challenges in ensuring the gap between probation resource and the requirements of the Act are reconciled, and that difficult choices will need to be made around what to prioritise for maximum impact.

I have also warned that there is a danger of the reforms collapsing public confidence in probation unless they are implemented with great care and thought, and the right investment is made in the service in the short to medium term. Failing to address these point risks setting the service up to fail.

I look forward to continuing to work closely with the Department throughout 2026 to advise on how our inspection findings can inform next steps. In particular, I will be sharing the results of our Dynamic Inspection of Public Protection programme, which publishes its first report next week (29 January), with a focus on what improved probation practice can do to make the public safer and reduce harm to victims.

--oo00oo--

Dynamic Inspection of Public Protection in Kent, Surrey and Sussex

Chief Inspector’s judgement

This review of the Probation Service’s public protection across Kent, Surrey and Sussex revealed that, whilst there had been improvements since our last inspection, concerningly, work to keep people safe met the required standard in less than half the cases inspected for ‘assessment’ and ‘implementation and delivery’. In addition, just over half the cases met this standard for case ‘planning’ and ‘reviewing’.

The region’s public protection work had been made more challenging by large-scale national changes in response to prison overpopulation. We found that more support was needed for staff managing complex cases, particularly those involving domestic abuse, and work needed to be done to ensure consistency across all cases.

A primary concern was a lack of quality information sharing of the risks posed by individuals on probation, with probation service and police colleagues highlighting the challenges faced by both organisations to balance public protection with proportionate, compliant information sharing. We were encouraged to see work underway and resource allocated to strengthen relationships. However, there remained no centrally driven directive on what should be shared. This was a long-standing issue which continued to undermine the region’s ability to understand fully the risk posed by those they supervised. A national strategic approach to ensure consistency and compliance from both probation and partners was required to facilitate effective public protection work.

The region was affected by ongoing workforce challenges, with understaffing at both probation officer and senior probation officer grades at the time of the inspection. This inevitably affected capacity to manage demanding caseloads and risk to the public. Constraints including proximity to London, associated high costs of living, lengthy vetting procedures and limited autonomy in recruitment continued to compound these workforce pressures.

In response, the region had introduced a range of innovative strategies to optimise resources, including the use of technology and artificial intelligence, and was working to address training gaps to improve the quality of case management, despite limited resources.

While sufficient work to keep people safe was not evident in enough of the cases we inspected, following the region’s inspection in 2024, we also saw strategic progress in strengthening public protection work, improved staff accountability and engagement, and a commitment to building a culture that supported learning and psychological safety.

--oo00oo--

Inspection commentary (highlights)

Case inspections highlighted that, for both assessment and implementation and delivery, less than half the cases met the required standard to keep people safe. Planning and reviewing met the required standard in just over half the cases. There were indicators that the sufficiency of work to keep people safe was on an upward trajectory in Kent, Surrey and Sussex across all the above areas. Practitioners were completing meaningful home visits and speaking to the families and support networks of people on probation where appropriate to improve risk management. MAPPA cases (multi-agency public protection arrangements) were also managed effectively. Planning for restrictions and monitoring was generally stronger than planning for interventions and programmes to address risk. Restrictions were consistently included in plans and compliance arrangements were clear, although there was less detail on interventions that would take place to address attitudes and behaviour.

Large-scale national change and responses to prison over-population, as well as delays in sentencing, had a destabilising effect on people on probation, making public protection work in Kent, Surrey and Sussex more challenging. Those sentenced and released on the day from court, due to time served on remand, meant pre-release planning could not be delivered in a meaningful way. The increase in people on probation due to early release from custody schemes also affected the time available to set services up to meet their needs and manage their risks. Short recall periods were at risk of disrupting continuity and partner agency involvement, often leaving probation practitioners as the only consistent presence throughout the sentence.

Although Probation Reset arrangements were outside the region’s control, they had a detrimental impact on public protection work. Planned service delivery including challenging conversations or interventions were often disrupted by reset, a concern that was most pronounced in complex domestic abuse cases. Regional leaders were implementing a model to transfer all reset cases to a dedicated hub, though this process was still being refined and audited. ‘Quick guides’ outlined eligibility criteria and checklists for pre-reset tasks, with guidance focused mainly on recording and concluding processes. However, casework inspections highlighted varied and inconsistent practices in which victim and risk information was prioritised at transfer, creating a sense of instability and lack of coherence. Reset hubs were in the early stages of implementation, with communication and monitoring mechanisms already in place, though their intended effect on consistency had not yet been fully realised.

Challenges faced in managing risk to the public were compounded by long-standing staffing challenges, influenced by proximity to London and the associated high cost of living. Since the previous inspection, the percentage of qualified probation officers in post had declined, with current staffing at approximately two-thirds of the target level. There was also understaffing of senior probation officers by over 10 per cent. This inevitably affected capacity to manage demanding caseloads. The region was actively implementing measures within its control to optimise resources, such as a focus on the retention of PQiPs, where significant numbers were resigning or withdrawing. However, additional constraints, such as vetting processes and limited autonomy in recruitment, continued to complicate efforts to address these workforce pressures.

In response to continuing staffing pressures, the region had introduced a range of innovative and accountable strategies to optimise resources. These included the use of technology, artificial intelligence, and the See the Way Forward approach, which streamlined complex or duplicate processes. Sometimes tasks were reallocated, to free practitioners’ time for meaningful work, including activities that promoted public protection. The region sought to identify gaps in training by conducting training needs analyses and exploring new ways to improve this activity. The region introduced a range of activities to strengthen staff capability and support informal learning. Examples included deploying quality development officers (QDOs) to provide specialist guidance and development in key areas and implementing pod structures to promote informal learning and peer-to-peer knowledge sharing. Technology had been particularly effective, offering practitioners practical support and reassurance that solutions were being developed to alleviate workload pressures. The region was proactive in engaging in trials from central HMPPS, designed to improve the recording and accessibility of information for practitioners.

Capacity issues with APs were identified in both weeks of the inspection, compounded by lack of available bed spaces, transfers, co-working arrangements, and contingency measures that were not always effective. The region was concerned about this issue and had pursued conversations with national AP colleagues, which they felt had reached a conclusion but with no resolution. People on probation posing the highest risk of serious harm in Kent, Surrey and Sussex were often refused an AP bed due to capacity issues or placed throughout the country. This contradicted public protection principles of developing stability through support networks and resettlement.