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.

Thought Piece 3

When there was or still is a crisis in APs because of bedspace issues and capacity, the community probation officer is then expected to administer a tedious crapshoot of housing referrals- the CAS-3 being War and Peace and the AP one following close behind with a Duty to Refer and then a CRS referral to Single Homeless Project etc. 

Since when did probation become an annex of Right Move and Purple Bricks? I haven't got time or energy to write out form after form after form to cover myself in terms of contingencies because there are too many releases and not enough bed spaces and only certain tiers of offender get priority for those spaces. Where is the planning for all this? Where is the contingency? Where are the temporary APs to deal with the increase? Where is the extra funding? Where is the accountability? It's a complete farce. I don't blame the AP or CAS-3 system- they must be beleaguered, but why put them in that position? 

Probation in the community is a miserable dumping ground for the ill-thought out policies that favour prisons that are in no great shakes themselves. We are sullied with this lack of professional respect and are a clearing house for failure of will, leadership, joined-up thinking and a lack of planning. Yes, the prisons need to reduce capacity. But if you don't just warehouse them in the first place and make sure their needs are identified and addressed rather than wait until they are in the community, we are less likely to have recalls. 

Having an offender off the books of prisons for a few weeks only to be placed back in there is just musical cells and distorts figures.There needs to be proper investment in community probation and for those officers to be given their dignity and professional acumen back and, if necessary, be able to voice concerns before release. It seems the most efficient thing prisons do, is have the POM's name removed on Delius about 5 seconds after they've left the prison gates: Not our problem, matey. Yours now. Ta! Ta! Although... the tapping of that Part A is often not a long way off.

Anon

Can Consistency live with Creativity?

In yesterday's blog post I sought to highlight how extremely difficult it is for innovation and creativity to co-exist within a command and control structure. Traditionally, these were features that made probation work so rewarding and was routinely encouraged by management. I raised the somewhat anomalous position of independent hostels, now referred to as Approved Premises and my concern for their future. The following paper by Andrew Bridges, former CPO and HMI, cogently sets out the issues I think:-    

What should the ‘independence’ of IAPs look like? 

A personal viewpoint piece by Andrew Bridges, Strategic Director, NAPA (views not necessarily shared by every NAPA Associate) 

1. Why are there independent APs (IAPs) at all? 

There are historical explanations, described elsewhere, of how ‘Approved’ homes for delinquent boys and others, run by charitable bodies, evolved over time through several changes of use into the IAPs of today. But now, in the first three decades of the 21st century, there are ‘business case’ reasons why IAPs have moved from being an anomalous relic from the past into becoming a key component of the Criminal Justice System (CJS) of England & Wales. 

This transition started once all the APs in England & Wales began to be used almost exclusively for men and women being released from prisons, a change of use that had been long overdue. Once this new usage had become established, demand for AP places began to grow. Rightly, the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) – established in 2007 – sought to ration the supply of places by restricting eligibility primarily to individuals who were assessed as being of high risk of harm to others, stipulating that the principal purpose of APs was for “public protection”. Nevertheless, the demand for AP places generally has remained high, and projections made by the MoJ still predict further future increases in demand, especially with rising pressures in the prison population overall. 

2. Why does MoJ/HMPPS now want IAPs? 

Because the MoJ is forecasting an increase in demand for AP places, HM Prison & Probation Service (HMPPS) wants to increase the number and range of them that are available at any one time. At first sight, the position looks positive, with HMPPS already directly managing c90 APs itself, besides which the dozen or so independent APs (IAPs) might seem to be making a very modest contribution. But the difficulty is with how to increase the numbers of AP places. Sometimes a few bedspaces can be added to existing premises, and this has been done sometimes, but the need to try to meet potential future demand requires new APs altogether, especially in those geographical areas where there are not enough APs – or any, in some instances.

Opening a new AP is a remarkably difficult task. Not only does there have to be a building that needs to be either purchased or built from scratch, but more importantly it has to gain the right planning permission for it to be used as an AP – and any application to house “ex-prisoners” in a local community almost always leads to a strong adverse public reaction. It is not impossible for HMPPS to establish a new AP directly itself, but in the main it is instead a much more attractive option for HMPPS to invite independent providers to bid to provide an IAP in a specified area of the country. To illustrate this point: During 2021 and 2022, HMPPS managed to open one new directly-managed AP itself (though this was replacing an existing AP), but in contrast was able to gain four new IAPs by commissioning them from independent providers.

So although there are, as ever, financial restraints, HMPPS sees APs generally as a key component in its overall task of managing and supervising individuals who have offended, and sees the IAPs as making a particularly important and valued contribution within that component. 

3. Are there other potential considerations? 

The ‘outsourcing’ of some public services can sometimes be driven by overtly ideological motivations, as was the case with rail privatisation in the 1990s, and the part-privatisation of Probation services in 2014. However, although the commissioning of services by IAPs is consistent with Conservative ideology, there is little in its history or development to suggest that ideology has been the main driver in the case of IAPs – instead it has been the pragmatic ‘business case’ outlined above. Nevertheless, within the ‘business case’ approach, when commissioning any service, the question of ‘competition’ arises, which has two potential elements: competition between potential independent providers, and competition between the independent sector overall and the public sector: 

• Competition between independent providers takes place at the stage of awarding contracts, and in the first two decades or so of the 21st century, MoJ/HMPPS has developed increasing care to ensure that contracts for any of its services are to be awarded following full and fair competition between providers, both current and potentially new providers. This process for awarding contracts is heavily regulated within Government, and in the 2020s decade it is being applied conscientiously. 

• Competition between the independent sector and the public sector, however, is rarely discussed openly at all, and probably with good reason. The lesson from prison privatisation has been that it is next to impossible to make a useful and fair comparison on primarily financial grounds between publicly managed and independently managed prisons because of factors such as the costs of public service pensions, of Crown Immunity (compared with commercial insurance), and the various capital costs, which mean overall that you will never really be ‘comparing like with like’. Although direct ‘competitions’ have been run between public and private prisons the evaluations have necessarily had to be made on a series of qualitative judgements on the information provided. Given that, in such competitions, ‘Government’ is acting as both the commissioner and as one of the competing providers, those competitions have been considered by some to be in principle unsatisfactory too. For this reason, and for the pragmatic reasons outlined further above, the question of direct competition between IAPs and the state-run sector may be unlikely to arise.

4. What does MoJ/HMPPS therefore want from the IAPs? 

Despite the many practical obstacles that make it difficult for Government to compare like with like when evaluating competitive bids, nevertheless the desire to maximise value for money for the public during times of continued financial restraint will still apply. But, for the reasons given above, a desire to drive down cost does not seem to be the main motivation for HMPPS to develop the IAP sector. The ‘business case’ for consolidating, and ideally expanding, the provision of IAPs would appear to be a pragmatic one: There is a growing demand for places, and the independent sector seems to offer a much more promising route to meeting that growth in need. 

This then leads to the key question of this paper: If the provision of AP places for individuals being released from prisons in England & Wales is to be met by a mixture of state-run and independent institutions, how far should those institutions be exactly the same as each other, or can there be differences? (and if so, what?) NB A similar issue arose with ‘public’ and ‘private’ prisons. 

As ever with a national service of any kind, there is a strong drive within HMPPS for consistency, and the reasons for this are understandable. When differences can be found between provision of any public service in different geographical parts of the country, a cry of ‘postcode lottery’ is easily raised by critics, and legal actions based on such arguments have been successful in the past. But how far should that drive for consistency go? 

One lesson that has perhaps been learned from the prison privatisation experience is that certain elements of national ‘infrastructure’ must apply to both sectors, notably the facility to allocate and manage individual cases. Standards of physical security etc need to be consistent nationally too. 

But when we focus specifically on managing residents within each local IAP there is some scope for variety that is both feasible and desirable - a mix of national consistency and local creativity. However, the problem is that although MoJ knows it wants, from its providers, some of that enterprising creativity within a high degree of national consistency, it doesn’t have a framework (or rationale, or ‘strategy’) for defining how that mix of consistency and creativity should be made up. 

Without this framework, MoJ/HMPPS goes into its ‘default mode’ of driving for consistency; it has a tendency to slide into setting increasingly detailed prescriptions about how the work should be done. The unfortunate effect of this is to ‘squeeze out’ much of the creativity that MoJ actually wants to see from IAPs. 

In short, MoJ knows that it wants a mix of consistency and creative initiative from its providers (it talks helpfully of “Social Value”), but – I argue – it does not know how to define that mix. 

5. Therefore, how should the mix between consistency and creativity be defined? 

As already indicated, this question probably needs answering under two separate sub-headings, National infrastructure, and Local delivery:

 i) National infrastructure: 

It might sound unnecessary to say it, but there does need to be a high level of consistency in the way that the IAPs function as part of the ‘national system’: standards of building security, drug testing arrangements, being part of whatever case allocation systems that HMPPS establishes, and operating the same national case management, and email/comms systems. The reason that it perhaps needs saying is that with early private prisons they were allowed to establish their own case management IT systems, which led to difficulties with maintaining case management when individual prisoners were moved between prisons and were then release on licence. This arrangement had to change. 

In the AP world, it is already the case that HMPPS acts almost as direct management when it comes to such matters of ‘national infrastructure’, including direct arrangements for providing upgraded security equipment in IAPs. To a very large extent, under this heading there is very little scope for ‘local creativity’, and therefore for good reasons ‘consistency’ is the dominant consideration.

 ii) Local delivery – work with individual IAP residents:

Here, the picture should be quite different. In principle, the answer to the question is not complicated, even though the detailed implementation requires some additional thinking-through: The principle is: 

Prescribe WHAT is to be achieved, but only Advise HOW it should be achieved: 

• The commissioner should specify, wisely, the operational outcomes – the measures of what success looks like – and Prescribe that this is WHAT it requires from its independent providers – 
• But although it might offer Advice, it should avoid prescribing HOW those outcomes should be achieved, because working with individual residents is – of course! – an individualised service. 
• For example: You commission the taxi, the destination and the agreed price, but you don’t then ‘backseat drive’ the driver through every step in the journey. 

The difficulty is in the application of this principle within the ‘messy reality’ of the AP world - indeed in Probation work generally – especially while MoJ/HMPPS continues to make a poor job of defining and managing the outcomes it wants for Probation. However, I have previously demonstrated, both in principle and in my own past practice, how the core outcomes of mainstream Probation work, the Three Purposes of Probation, can be defined, managed, implemented and even inspected. 

The Three Purposes are: Reducing Likelihood of Reoffending, Implementing the Sentence, and Containing Risk of Harm to others. I have also set out how these should be measured as outcomes (and have done so in practice myself in the past). It is difficult to operate this, but it can be done, though it requires a determined focus.

There is then the further additional challenge of trying to focus on just one, relatively ‘short’, stage in the rehabilitation journey that is being undertaken by each person on Probation, such as a period of residence in an AP. (Individuals deemed to be of High Risk of Harm to others will normally stay at an AP for no more than 12 weeks on their release from prison.) In principle there is the need to set ‘interim’ outcomes for this stage of the rehabilitation journey – i.e. achievements by the individual that will mark progress towards, or ‘stepping stones’ towards, future desistance and the other longer-term outcomes. It is these that provide the basis for the ‘WHAT’ that the commissioner needs to specify for AP work. APs make their contribution to the longer-term outcomes by enabling residents to achieve such ‘stepping stones’ of progress on their individual desistence journeys, and APs – particularly IAPs – need to be able to demonstrate that they are delivering that contribution. So, it is argued here, IAPs should be accountable for demonstrating that they are making that contribution, but there should be the scope to be creative in how they make that contribution. 

Accordingly, when MoJ/HMPPS asserts that it wants a mix of consistency and creativity from its IAPs, it is logical to argue that the consistency should be with WHAT it wants to see achieved during the period of residency, and the creativity is about the HOW it is to be achieved.

6. For example ….. 

Quality of practice: Rightly, both managers and practitioners like to talk about this. It can be defined as a key ‘Enabler’ in the process – that enables the individual to progress on his or her desistance journey. Assessment and preparation before arrival, induction and assessment after arrival, and continuing interaction during residency, all require good quality practice by IAP staff. 

Unfortunately, there has for many years now been a tendency to try to promote such Quality by issuing ever more detailed stipulations, guidances, checklists, forms and formats – all with the best of intentions – often designed by skilled current or former practitioners; but this is a mistake. These wellintended initiatives are based on the fallacy of ‘comprehensiveness’ as they endeavour to cover every eventuality. Yet a single format, such as OASys (Offender Assessment System), cannot cope with every eventuality anyway, and meanwhile it runs the great risk of becoming ‘a long form that you just have to fill in’ rather than an opportunity for the practitioner to engage with and think about the unique features of the individual they are working with. This ‘comprehensive stipulation’ approach is a classic example of Prescribing the HOW, which, as well as being time-consuming, also stifles creativity.

 Alternatively, when defining Quality of practice, it is instead possible to Prescribe the WHAT. You define what you want the individual to have experienced as a result of the interaction – i.e: the resident will have been assessed well before arriving, is inducted well on arrival, and is managed well during their stay. Doing each of these things “well” can be made more specific, e.g. For Induction, “The resident will have experienced a humane and respectful face-to-face interaction in which she/he has been made aware of her/his rights, responsibilities, constraints and opportunities while at the AP.” 

By Prescribing the WHAT instead of the HOW, skilled practitioners will undertake and write their assessments, plans and reviews in way that is focused, succinct and appropriate to the needs of the case, rather than as a series of ‘answers’ on a long form that was designed to meet some external ideal of comprehensiveness.

Staffing: In terms of staffing of any individual AP, this is also a matter for local delivery – not national infrastructure – so again it should be Prescribed in terms of WHAT is to be achieved – that residents will be in an environment which is safe, and where they are treated with respect, and are being expected to work to progress their own rehabilitation journey etc. It is not necessary or desirable to prescribe HOW the staff profile or establishment should be made up.

7. Why is this all very difficult? 

‘Drawing the line’ between the WHAT and the HOW is difficult at the best of times. It is especially difficult for the commissioning authority – MoJ/HMPPS – to do this while it remains insufficiently clear about the overall outcomes it wants from Probation work overall. While that overall strategy remains unclear at the macro level, it is not surprising when at the micro level its managers and commissioners find themselves composing increasingly detailed procedure manuals, guidance documents and forms in their efforts to stipulate how Probation work should be carried out.

It is not the purpose of this paper to set out the full case for how Probation work overall could and should be much better managed – that has been done elsewhere. But in a nutshell, a clear focus on the core Three Purposes of Probation would make it clear to Parliament and to the public what Probation work is aiming to achieve, and at the same time would provide a framework within which the various elements of the ‘Probation world’ should make their contributions towards the achievement of those Three Purposes. In the case of APs – both state-run and independent – although they generally keep a resident for no more than 12 weeks, they can still be expected to make their contribution towards that person becoming less likely to reoffend, complying with their sentence, and having their Risk of Harm to others contained and managed. When successful, a period of AP residency serves as a ‘stepping stone’ on an individual’s desistance journey. 

These ‘contributions’, or ‘stepping stones’, are difficult to define at the best of times, but when the overall strategy is insufficiently clear, then micromanagement, overprescription and setting plausiblesounding detailed objectives will seem to some to offer an attractive way of filling the vacuum, even though these can all easily stifle the individual creativity that is also wanted. That lack of strategic clarity by MoJ/HMPPS is why defining the boundary between the WHAT and the HOW, which is difficult to do anyway, has become especially difficult at the operational level. Instead, a strong focus on the Three Purposes could provide the clarity needed to enable Probation work generally to be managed with the ‘right mix’ of consistency and individual creativity.

8. Summing up: 

A commissioned service, such as an independent AP, should certainly expect to work within a centrally managed national infrastructure as it aims to achieve the outcomes that have been specified (“Prescribed”) by the commissioning authority – it should not expect to be able to decide, ‘independently’, to aim for different outcomes. However, what an IAP should be able to do – independently – is exercise its creativity in how it goes about achieving the Prescribed outcomes. Accordingly, the commissioning authority should Prescribe WHAT outcomes are to be achieved, but should do no more than Advise HOW those outcomes should be achieved. 

It is understandable that MoJ/HMPPS, the commissioning authority, finds it difficult to carry out this approach in practice because it does not yet focus clearly enough on the core Three Purposes of Probation supervision. Once that focus is reached, it will become a little easier to specify the interim outcomes – the “stepping stones” – that IAPs need to be aiming for in order to demonstrate that they are making their contribution towards making more likely the achievement of the Three Purposes. 

Andrew Bridges 

Strategic Director, National Approved Premises Association CIC 

December 2023

A Good News Story

First Approved Premises report published

Published: 17 September 2025

The launch of our Approved Premises (APs) inspection programme comes at a pivotal point for the Probation Service. The number of places available in APs has been under pressure in recent years, and this is pressure is likely to increase following the introduction of Probation Reset, SDS40 early release scheme and the implementation of the Sentencing Review.

The national network APs is one of the least visible and least well-known corners of the criminal justice system, yet they provide essential support for people leaving prison who are assessed as a risk of serious harm. These individuals require an increased level of monitoring in the community and APs help them to rehabilitate and resettle while ensuring the public are protected during those early months back in the community.

Within our inspections of probation delivery units and regions within the Probation Service, we routinely find public protection to be an area of weakness, with insufficient work being done to keep victims and the public safe from harm. The role APs play in public protection cannot be underestimated and it is crucial that we gain some oversight into this extremely important aspect of probation work. AP staff and managers also deserve to know what they are doing well, and we believe there should be a mechanism for learning from best practice from the AP network.

Currently, APs face no accountability to the public through inspection processes to see how far they are achieving their aims. We believe people deserve to know how well the Probation Service is working to protect communities through the national network of APs.

I am delighted to announce the Southview Approved Premises, the first service inspected in the programme, has been rated ‘Outstanding’. While in our inspections of probation delivery units we routinely find concerning public protection work, at Southview our inspection team found no areas for improvement relating to public protection. Inspectors spoke enthusiastically about the leadership and staff working on the premises and I again want to congratulate them on the invaluable work they do to keep communities safe and reintegrate prison leavers back into the community.

Read the full report of Southview Approved Premises here.

Foreword

Approved premises (APs), formally known as probation hostels, play a key role in managing the risks posed by people released from prison who are deemed too complex or high risk to live independently. Until now, APs have not been subject to any form of independent scrutiny, despite the vital role they play in keeping communities safe and providing effective rehabilitation.

I am therefore delighted to announce that Southview AP – the first in our new AP inspection programme – has been rated as ‘Outstanding’.

We found strong and inspiring leadership, stable staffing, and a passionate and motivated team operating in a safe and welcoming environment within which residents felt respected and supported. As a consequence, managers and staff at Southview AP were deploying effective public protection strategies and engaging its residents in a meaningful programme of rehabilitation.

Striking a balance between protecting the public and rehabilitating people on probation, by establishing a quality relationship, is complex, and in other probation inspection programmes, we often find deficits here. It is clear that the psychologically informed planned environment (PIPE) approach embedded at Southview AP is succeeding in getting this crucial balance right.

We have identified a small number of areas for improvement which would enhance delivery at Southview even further – some of which are the responsibility of national leaders to address. In particular, the slow response to outstanding repairs and required building alterations is causing significant frustrations for staff and residents and must be addressed so as not to detract from the outstanding work being undertaken.

The team at Southview should be extremely proud of what they are achieving. I wish them well for the future.

Martin Jones CBE
HM Chief Inspector of Probation

Lifting the Lid on Hostels

Entirely as expected, last night's BBC Panorama programme on Fleming House Approved Premises in Kent was a tough watch. Although I've never worked in a probation hostel, I've visited many over the years and supervised many clients who have been through them. It goes without saying that such facilities are a vital element in how probation seeks to work with offenders making the transition from custody back into society, but I suspect have always been under-resourced and almost certainly, misunderstood. 

Watching the programme, with the constant reminders of 'protecting the public' ringing in my ears, I found it just served to remind me of Rob Canton's recent paper Probation as Social Work and his oft-repeated mantra that maybe the best way to protect the public is to 'advise, assist and befriend'.

Of course there was plenty of sloppy practice, administrative failure, budget constraint and possibly lack of training on display, but what about any 'work' going on with residents? Some evidence of interest in them; some constructive and supportive interactions or activity? (As an aside, in the circumstances it is unfortunate that the election announcement led to cancellation of Tuesday's Newsnight examination of sex offenders and treatment programmes because this is a vitally important area of work.)  

Clearly all the extra layers of control, monitoring, testing etc etc have changed the nature of hostels as they have become the exclusive preserve of the high and very high risk, but to be honest is it not a fruitless exercise should they appear to be losing any ability of fostering rehabilitative benefit along the way? There doesn't really seem to be much point in setting people up just to be recalled.   

The austere, institutional feel of the place hardly fostered any notion that any efforts at 'rehabilitation' would even be possible and it did rather confirm in my mind that Fleming House was directly managed rather than independent? In my experience there is a marked difference and I know there have been 'tensions' surrounding the contractual arrangements between HMPPS and the voluntary sector. 

It's very much to be hoped that the independent sector is supported and encouraged because in my experience, that is where innovation, positive role modelling, meaningful engagement and less bureaucracy is likely. Just as HMPPS and the civil service are proving to be the kiss of death to community probation, it would sadly seem to be the case with hostels as well.  

--oo00oo--

Postscript    

Panorama - Napo's Position

Many people will have watched last night’s Panorama programme and be left feeling angry, anxious, saddened and undervalued.

The footage shown was only a tiny reflection of what would have been recorded by the undercover reporter during their time at Fleming House, and so necessarily has been subject to significant editing. That said, we can’t avoid what appears in the footage to be some individuals doing and saying things that were difficult to watch, no doubt most of all for them and their immediate colleagues.

But an issue seems to be that the undercover reporter, and the production company involved in making the programme, didn’t seem to at all understand some important issues related to the nature and purpose of Approved Premises and the wider work of Probation. Also, the failings of others – such as the ‘tagging’ company involved and the Police – were attributed to us and examples of normal working practice were misunderstood and misrepresented. If Napo had been approached before the programme had been broadcast we’d have been able to help them make a better-informed programme. Instead, we got the ‘expert opinion’ of someone who, before they retired almost a decade and a half ago, spent the vast majority of their career in the Prison Service, and has no front-line Probation experience.

The pity of it is that there were so many themes that were raised by the programme that we’d completely agree with, and which we’ve been raising for years at every opportunity with Ministers, HMPPS, the media and campaigning groups. Examples of this include; the devastating impact on us and our families and friends from the impact on our mental and physical health of working in Probation; the ongoing harm caused by ‘Transforming Rehabilitation’; the impact of years of public sector cuts and the inadequate funding of Probation compared to other parts of HMPPS and the wider criminal justice system; the true nature of the work that we do and how vital it is in our communities. Unfortunately, because of the confused and misinformed approach of the programme, these could be lost and the opportunity to properly publicise these wasted, made even worse by the fact that it was by luck scheduled for broadcast on the first full day of a general election campaign.

In the coming days we will see what further response HMPPS have to this programme. Even at the earliest stage of our contact with them this week Napo have raised the issue of what appears to be an abject failure in their staff vetting processes to enable this undercover reporter to spend, by their own account, 6 weeks as an HMPPS employee. Similarly, we have questions for HMPPS over the use of covert surveillance, data protection breaches – including the naming of some residents and use of unpixellated images – and the potential for fraud that appear to have occurred in the making of this programme. Napo believe that the BBC, and the production company involved, have more serious questions to answer. Their idiotic and reckless decision to broadcast information that could help some people better avoid detection for the preparation or commission of sexual offences is completely baffling. While Panorama asked ‘Can Probation Keep Us Safe?’ there is no question that in doing this they have endangered members of the public.

As discussed, Napo has been in contact with the employer in anticipation of the programme to seek assurances from senior leaders on support offered to staff going forward as well as a full review to find out how this situation could have happened.

Please do check on your colleagues and if you have concerns speak to Napo either locally or via your National Link Officer and Official. If you or your fellow members have been impacted by this because you work at Fleming House or undertake sessional work there please contact your local Branch. Napo will provide further updates in due course.

Fancy Being a Probation Officer? 3

As a prison crisis necessitates emergency early release of prisoners up to 60 days early, it rapidly turns into a probation crisis, thus making a terrible situation even worse:-

Tragedy and my condolences to the victims of these horrific crimes.... We should contrast the significant time and resources available to the Probation Inspectorate to produce this report with that of the frontline Probation Workers who have to deal with terrifyingly high caseloads with no time and little experience of how to do so.

*****
I note that the HMIP report concerning this tragic SFO references the lack of experienced staff due to them leaving the Probation Service. I am one of them, having retired early after 3 months shy of 41 years as a probation officer (CQSW trained). Having given some months notice of my desire to retire early, I repeatedly raised with senior managers in the area in which I worked, that nothing was being done to retain staff. I left due to the impossibility of being able to work reasonable hours as an OMU PO.

On another point, I am aware that other posters have referenced more experienced probation officers being unwilling to offer support to trainees and less experienced probation officers. As an experienced probation officer, I did my level best to help others and to offer opportunities for learning but I was very aware that my own workload considerably reduced my capacity to assist less experienced staff and this was something that did not sit well with me as I previously supervised students as a practice teacher via their attendance on CQSW/Diploma in Social Work courses.

*****
Interesting comments regarding APs. Where I worked, we were encouraged to spend as much time with the 'Residents' . But things changed. No longer were we to spend time with them, just observe via CCTV. The amount of useful 'Int' gathered over a coffee and smoke was more useful than any structured meeting, just glad I'm out of it all now.

****
APs are shockingly under resourced. The same number of Residential Workers in each AP regardless of whether it accommodates 10 or 40 residents. One manager, who is normally the only qualified officer in the building, but their brief is to manage the building and the staff. One part time admin staff for the whole AP!

APs are now part of a separate directorate so don't routinely get sent the comms that go to PDUs so miss out on what changes are taking place. APs are the forgotten section of a forgotten service. The new referral process is horrific, with many managers now having limited overview of who is sent to their AP. The focus is on filling beds rather than appropriate placements. Gone are the days where you'd leave a few days between one resident leaving, before placing someone else in that room, just in case accommodation isn't sourced in time and they need an extension.

More and more leaving APs homeless, shocking given that most referrals state they need an AP as the alternative is being released homeless or it will increase risk. Indeed, CRU will often allocate with a note to say the AP manager will need to reduce another residents stay in order to fit them in. We won't start on the leadership in the CRU but there is no support for AP staff there. The Early Release Scheme is placing more pressure throughout. APs are getting more and more emergency referrals, with no time to do pre-arrival work - the bedrock to a successful stay. APs are an invaluable intervention but are more and more being treated like B&Bs. But no one cares and no-one listens.

****
Lots of panic about in HMPPS right now. Early release scheme being increased from 18 to 35 days. Announcements also coming around not supervising PSS or those in the final 1/3 of their orders - to try and ease pressures.

****
You’d be lucky to find a genuine J-Cloth these days. It is a bit of a Cinderella service and convenient punch bag for vile Tory blamists. We used to complain about not being recognised or noticed but now we are front page news as if we actually have any control or influence over anyone these days. It is common to blame the unions for not doing enough but the Chief Probation Officer seems missing in action. Kim Thornton wotsit was MIA. Why wasn’t she doing the rounds explaining crushing workloads, the necessity of binging in young inexperienced staff because experienced staff won’t put up with the crap. Let’s ask what the heck she is doing first then ask whether the unions have also asked her to act. Don’t put it all on the unions. She needs to earn her title otherwise she is just another fat cat civil servant.

****
I'm unconvinced that the early release scheme will reduce the prison population. In fact it may have the reverse effect. They will fill any empty spaces with new prisoners, and there will be a significantly greater number on licence that will be subject to recall. I'm guessing that many that are released early will be from the 12mth and under cohort, and in my view, they are the very cohort that are most likely to get recalled.

****
The ECSL has reduced some of my colleagues to tears this week. It was already stressful and only getting 24-48 hours notice of release is a joke. Escalating to try and get gold command to look at it impossible. No duty of care given to individuals being released early with no accommodation and the only support being probation. Experienced staff will continue to leave while this is happening and ministers make decisions on a sector they have no experience or knowledge about. It’s going to end up with more overcrowding due to recalls and then the SFO’s. AP’s are at breaking point and there is so little accommodation that the early released will be street homeless or residing in unapproved addresses. This is not the service I came into and I really don’t know how long I will last with a caseload of over 150% and the added pressures of ECSL.

****
Probation relies on a fully functioning well resourced welfare state and fully functioning local authorities with local services to be effective. Probation cannot compensate for years of neglect and lack of services. Levelling up was a huge con job perpetrated against the north. The Red Wall was feared by the Tories with its erosion the Tories have been able to get a foothold and attack Labour strongholds. This will mean less investment not more.

****
High risk cases are already being released under ECSL. They have from the start. Soon all non-high risk recalls will be released after 14 days. Probation officers expected to arrange housing, drug service, mental health support at short notice and blamed when they can’t. It’s a joke.

****
Very vulnerable young person released homeless on ESCL. We tried to plead with the powers that homelessness would increase his vulnerability in relation to required health medication. The powers that be released him anyway. Tearful and scared he wandered to his licence induction. A reception member took pity and gave him a tent and a sleeping bag. Reception member received a verbal warning after the local council complained to senior management about ‘how that made the local town centre look’. Suffice to say, his sleeping bag and tent were removed and the whole PDU were given strict instructions not to help homeless people in this way.

****
Here we go again. Another recall yesterday as another high risk had successfully completed 8 weeks in an AP. The problem was there’s no move on accommodation that would support the 4 months he had left on HDC. We congratulated him by allowing the HDC to recall him. An awful way to treat a human life. We do try to negotiate with the HDC escalations team as to why we try and avoid early releases for this reason but it falls on deaf ears. I agree we should not keep them longer in custody than absolutely necessary but we desperately need move on accommodation, mental health support and adult social care. Housing stock is barely existent. MH and ASC have been all but decimated. We simply don’t have what we need to support the reintegration of people in society, so we send our successful clients back to prison instead. We all cry at night.

****
If staff are crying at night, they should visit their GP for support ASAP instead of trying to soldier on. Do not destroy your mental health by attempting to function in a system which is broken.

****
Interesting comments about ‘what happens to caseloads when officers are off sick’. One of the other offices in my PDU is short staffed due to a lot of them being off sick with burnout. They’ve decided the SPO over there should manage the cases himself. I think he has about 200 of them now but it looks like he is still managing what’s left of his team as well. They send ISP’s to our office to complete for him. There’s still a lot more cases just dangling in the names of officers who are off long term.

****
There are many young people and young women who have life experiences. When I joined probation I had been in detention centres, in gangs. I failed at school and had been on the streets for a long time. I knew what it was like to have nothing and to fend for myself. I work many dead end jobs, put myself through university and later joined probation.

The difference back then was the variety of life experiences and personalities when I joined. This included younger and older people who did and did not have a clue. Length of service rarely equated to mean good probation officer. Burnout was a thing back then too. Sometimes the longer serving the probation officer the more they were best avoided. The exception were the ones that went above and beyond for everyone. The ones we all learned from.

Probation offices could be just as toxic and discriminating as when I joined, but everywhere I worked we were a team. Over the years the pressure of the lack of staffing and resources has stripped away staff resilience and camaraderie. Trainees are expected to learn from managers who never properly learnt to be probation officers and from ‘elders’ who are too fed up or busy to be probation officers. This won’t change until probation offices cease being run on shoestring budgets with skeleton staff.

Probation must reset and decide what a probation officer should be. Put the relevant degree or social work training back in place, require prior relevant work experience and work out how to bring in the young, old, life experienced and life inexperienced alike. Until then, my advice to those thinking about probation is that it’s a job, but there are better paid and more rewarding careers out there.

****
I trained new officers for ten years or more and it was always a two way exchange of ideas. Then one morning my SPO sent me a message saying that they were no longer going down the mentor route , and I was no longer to do it, by lunchtime I had two new cases…..the osmosis style of learning is now king….i would suggest that the attrition rate has increased accordingly as new officers don’t have a named mentor, least not in my corner of the probation universe……..

****
Senior and line management obsession with performance management and so-called quality assurance has condemned the workforce to a life of unbearable stress and a laptop probation service. Result: exit experienced and newly-qualified staff under demoralised mega-stress. NAPO must build a fight back and show campaigning leadership as opposed to simply turning up to negotiations knowing they are paper tigers.

****

I have never accessed the EAP stuff. The trust between me and the employer is zero, so why would I in any state of vulnerability and distress dial in to their shitty and doubtless cheap and outsourced EAP? Would I feel safe? Be safe? It's there to tick a box. And box ticking does nothing for anyone other than the bean-counter and the manager blissfully thinking they're more powerful than the counter of beans.

Recall and Scapegoating

Yesterday saw publication of the second part of the Probation Inspectorate's report into the handling of the Joseph McCann case. There remains widespread anger and concern amongst practitioners that they continue to be 'scapegoated' for the consequences of what are essentially organisational policies and procedures.     

Foreword 

The power to recall a person to prison is a significant one. It is one of the most important decisions probation officers make and over 27,000 of these decisions were made in 2019/2020. The immediate consequences for the recalled prisoner are self-evident, but the decision also has consequences for victims, potential victims and the public at large. In part one of this independent review, published in June 2020, we reviewed the case of Joseph McCann and expressed serious concerns about decision-making in relation to recall during the period 2017 to early 2019. We have not found a repeat of those concerns in part two, our review that looks at current recall culture and practice in the period since then. Probation staff are clear that public protection is the primary concern in recall decisions, and this was reflected in the cases we reviewed. 

Recall decisions are often complex and frequently rely on the analysis of detailed information and behaviour. It is important, therefore, that they are supported by a methodical, consistent and fair process. The National Probation Service (NPS) and Community Rehabilitation Companies (CRCs) currently have different processes for recalling individuals, and these are applied inconsistently. It is important that recall decision-making is prioritised and operational staff are given the necessary time and management support to make effective decisions. Probation staff have concerns about the professional and personal consequences if they fail to instigate a recall and a high-profile incident subsequently occurs. A professional culture needs to be at the heart of recall decisions. This requires a consistent process and operational staff having the confidence that they will be supported if they make considered, defensible decisions. 

We have found that the current system for licence warnings, which are designed to prevent the need for a recall, varies both between and within organisations and its effectiveness has not been evaluated. Nearly all of the cases we reviewed where a warning had been issued still resulted in recall, raising questions about the impact of this approach. Furthermore, license warnings are not subject to additional scrutiny outside of the normal management oversight of cases. This requires urgent attention. It potentially results in inconsistent licence enforcement and is also unfair from the perspective of procedural justice. Alternatives to recall are often used alongside licence warnings, but the effectiveness of this strategy has not been reviewed since it was implemented in 2017. We are satisfied that when alternatives to recall are considered they are balanced against the requirements of public protection, but there is inconsistency in both their accessibility and use. 

Decisions on recall and licence warnings often rely on the judgement of individual practitioners, but these decisions and practice judgements are not routinely monitored for bias and unconscious bias. Disproportional outcomes, particularly for black, Asian and minority ethnic service users, have been identified in other parts of the criminal justice system, but they are not routinely monitored in relation to recall decisions. This needs to be addressed to ensure that recall decisions are routinely scrutinised and any learning can inform improvements in probation practice. 

Decisions on recall and licence warnings are complex. Across the nine organisations we inspected, there were examples of responsible officers taking recall decisions to protect victims, potential victims and the public. There were also examples of probation staff coordinating comprehensive support packages for individuals in an attempt to break entrenched patterns of criminal behaviour. This professionalism should be built on with the aim of developing a confident, professional organisational culture. To this end, our recommendations are designed to strengthen the process and support probation staff in their decision-making.

Justin Russell

HM Chief Inspector of Probation

Executive summary 

Context of the review 

On 05 March 2020, the Secretary of State for the Ministry of Justice announced that an independent review of the case of Joseph McCann would be undertaken by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Probation. The review would be in two parts. Part one was to focus on the supervision of Joseph McCann by the National Probation Service (NPS) and part two would review the current probation culture and practice in respect of recall. Part one was published on 30 June 2020. This report constitutes part two of the review. 

Part two was completed against the background of COVID-19. Nine probation providers were involved in the review and 39 meetings with managers and operational staff took place remotely via video or telephone conference during July and August 2020. We inspected a sample of 50 release licence cases that had been recalled or had warnings issued between October 2019 and February 2020. Where available, we also interviewed the allocated responsible officer. The case sample predated the probation exceptional delivery model (EDM) introduced at the end of March as a result of the COVID-19 crisis. The EDM ensures that public protection continues to be the priority for probation providers. The learning and recommendations from this inspection apply to probation practice both before and after the introduction of the EDM. 

Recall decision-making and threshold 

We found that public protection and the protection of victims are central to probation service decision-making on recall. Operational staff are clear that this is the primary focus of recall practice. Alternatives to recall are routinely considered where appropriate, but this does not compromise the focus of decision-making on public protection. 

In 2019/2020, 34 per cent of recalls included a failure of the service user to keep in touch with their supervising officer as the reason. Responsible officers make impressive efforts to engage non-compliant service users and often put comprehensive support packages in place. These cases are resource-intensive and frequently result in a recurring cycle of release and recall. 

Licence enforcement and recall requires a consistent process that must allow for individualised decision-making. It is rarely a simple decision and probation practice must allow for the key information to be assessed and reviewed. Responsible officers require the necessary time and management support to obtain and analyse information and make good decisions. Office practice and procedures should enable such a process to ensure that recall and warning decisions are defensible and not overly cautious. We found that this varied between offices and organisations. 

Probation organisations have communicated the Recall, Review and Re-Release of Recalled Prisoners Policy Framework (RPF)2 to their staff, but staff and managers’ knowledge of the specific processes and criteria is inconsistent. Operational staff were, however, clear that decisions on recall must focus on increases in the risk of serious harm linked to previous patterns of behaviour. Communication of the revised framework has been stronger in the NPS than in the CRCs, but communication within individual divisions has not been part of a coordinated national strategy. This lack of coordination has reduced the impact of a key national policy. 

Licence warning and alternatives to custody 

A breach of licence conditions does not automatically result in the instigation of recall. Where probation providers assess that individuals can still be managed safely in the community, they can issue a licence warning. Licence warnings can be accompanied by amended licence conditions. These may include increased levels of contact; cooperating with activities such as drug testing; or additional restrictions in relation to residence or curfew. 

Current licence warning practice is inconsistent both between and within organisations. There are inconsistencies in the threshold, recording and delivery of warnings. This makes it difficult to identify cases where the service user has been warned and not recalled and to operate effective quality assurance processes. In most cases where warnings have been issued, recall to prison is still the eventual outcome. This underlines the need to review practice and issue a revised licence warning process. 

Practitioners now take a balanced approach when deciding between recall and alternatives to recall, and this approach is considered good practice across organisations. However, access to and use of alternatives to recall, such as approved premises (APs) and electronic monitoring, are inconsistent. Probation organisations have not analysed the effectiveness of the overall strategy on alternatives, or whether it averts or simply delays an eventual recall. The role of APs as an alternative to recall requires clarification. NPS responsible officers, in contrast to AP managers and staff, regard APs as an important alternative to recall.

Quality assurance 

Rates of recall vary both between and within organisations. This variation cannot be accounted for solely by the circumstances of the individual case. In the NPS, divisions receive information on performance on a quarterly basis. This includes the number of recalls and the reasons for them, along with the number of licence variations. There are no performance targets in relation to recall numbers, but the reports highlight local delivery units where recall rates significantly deviate from the national average. NPS divisions use this information to monitor variations. The CRCs generate information on recalls as part of their enforcement monitoring. Again, there is no performance target for the number of recalls, and organisations do not monitor any actions taken as an alternative to recall. CRCs do, however, monitor the rates of recall. For example, one CRC identified a low rate of recalls and amended its practice as a result. 

The routine quality assurance of recall decisions is reliant on each senior manager’s endorsement of the practitioner’s decision as part of the decision-making process. Licence warning decisions are not the subject of any targeted monitoring or review. Some probation providers use the national Alternative to Recalls and Recall Report Part A quality assurance tool, 3 but this focuses on recall cases only rather than looking also at cases where recall was decided against. NPS London and NPS North East have undertaken their own quality assurance and dip-sampling initiatives to monitor recall cases for disproportionality. However, probation providers do not routinely review recall decisions to check for bias and unconscious bias. 

Organisational culture 

Recall culture and practice are directly influenced by national policy and high-profile serious case reviews. In recent years there was a widespread belief among operational staff that recalls should be minimised. More recently there have been fears that responsible officers will be unfairly held responsible for any adverse consequences resulting from a failure to instigate recall. Both perceptions undermine professional decision-making, which must be at the core of the process. The current correct balance between alternatives to custody and public protection is understood by operational staff. To ensure operational staff do not become too cautious in their approach, there needs to be a consistent decision-making process both for recalls and decisions not to recall. The development of a professional culture depends on operational staff feeling confident that defensible, professional decisions will be supported if a serious incident does occur involving a person under supervision. 

There are significant differences in recall practice and culture between the CRCs and NPS divisions. These include differences in the level of management endorsement; staff expectations; the understanding of the RPF; and differences in types of recall. These differences were recognised by Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) Wales in the training activities its staff undertook in the three months after reunification in December 2019. The NPS divisions and CRCs in England should learn from this example. Given the importance of recall decision-making, the NPS and CRCs should prioritise communicating the RPF to staff and embedding a consistent recall process when they are re-joined. 

Public Protection Casework Section (PPCS) and the post-recall process 

The relationship between the central HMPPS PPCS and probation providers operates efficiently. Emergency and out-of-hours recalls are processed promptly, and the PPCS’s advice on the recall threshold is viewed positively by both senior and operational managers. 

Following a standard recall, both responsible officers and the PPCS can review cases and decide to re-release a recalled prisoner under the executive release scheme. The operation of executive release is inconsistent. Responsible officers are uncertain about the operation of the process and the number of releases varies between providers. Consideration for release should not depend on which organisation a person is supervised by. The administration and use of the process should be reviewed. 

The PPCS must refer all standard recall cases to the Parole Board within 28 days of a prisoner’s return to prison. This includes consideration of the Part B risk management report that responsible officers submit to the PPCS within 10 days of a prisoner’s return to custody. This timescale allows time for prisoners to make representations to the Parole Board on the contents of the document. Part B risk management reports include a recommendation as to whether the prisoner should be re-released. The current process for completion is not working efficiently. To complete the report within the timescale, responsible officers must have quick access to prisoners immediately after their return to prison. Access, however, is inconsistent and responsible officers are frequently left without the necessary information to make an informed recommendation on re-release.

--oo00oo--

Comments from yesterday:-

Probation staff felt “pressure” from the government to send fewer criminals back to prison for committing new crimes or breaking their licence conditions, a watchdog has found. HM Inspectorate of Probation said a sharp drop in the rate of recall to prison across England and Wales from 2016 onwards was linked to policy changes, and that a reversal was only sparked by a high-profile murder case. Senior National Probation Service (NPS) leaders said that when an “alternatives to recall” strategy was implemented four years ago, there was "pressure from the Ministry of Justice to reduce the number of recalls in their divisions". Someone should take the hit for this.

******
"I agree. I really don't think it's fair for Probation Officers and Probation Service Officers to be SFO'd, investigated, suspended then sacked for not recalling Offenders when encouraged and pressured not to recall. I now upload all email communications to Delius that involve recall or not to recall decisions, this would have been unthinkable for me a decade ago."

Latest From Napo 210

Here we have the latest Napo Covid Bulletin No 21 published yesterday:-

Unions joint statement on risk assessments for Black/BAME staff

The current C-19 pandemic is an unexpected catastrophe that has wreaked havoc on the world economy and has led so far to over 2 million fatalities globally. Here in the UK, the statistics for infection and death show little sign of abating despite the implementation of lockdown policies that have been widely criticised as having been too little in substance and very late. Now a further debate is raging over what many believe to be an irresponsible approach by Government to start easing them.

One thing has become inescapably clear from this crisis, which is the morbidity rates of people with underlying health conditions. But the problem runs much deeper than that; with the emergence of compelling evidence which shows that Black/BAME staff are especially at risk of becoming seriously and possibly fatally ill.

There are any number of medical theories as to why this is so and what extra steps should be taken to acknowledge the position and take precautions. For many weeks now it has been truly shocking to see the number of C-19 related deaths within the care community, yet it can be argued that the disproportionate numbers of deceased Black/BAME health workers is also a national scandal which merits serious scrutiny.

While this issue is the subject of a Government inquiry, the view from trade unions and the TUC is that immediate action is needed now to address the specific risk that puts a substantial number of highly vulnerable key workers in danger of succumbing to this dreadful virus. As members would expect, Napo and our sister unions are seeking to pressure employers into recognising the threats and to issue revised instructions on customised Risk Assessments for Black/BAME staff.

This why we have today issued the following Joint Statement which will be brought to the attention of all the employers that we engage with. We will issue regular updates following engagement with employers.

JTU15-20 21 May 2020 

BLACK/BAME PROBATION STAFF AND COVID19 JOINT UNION STATEMENT 

Probation unions, NAPO, UNISON and GMB/SCOOP are working together to protect our Black/BAME members in the National Probation Service and in the 21 Community Rehabilitation Companies in relation to the increased risk from Covid19 affecting members of Black/BAME communities in the UK. 

EVIDENCE OF INCREASED RISK TO BLACK/BAME COMMUNITIES 

NHS England confirmed on 7 May 2020 that members of Black/BAME communities are among those groups who are clinically vulnerable to Covid19*. The NHS stated: 

‘We now know there is evidence of disproportionate mortality and morbidity amongst black, asian and minority ethnic (BAME) people, including our NHS staff, who have contracted COVID-19.’ 

The NHS has subsequently issued detailed guidance for NHS employers to undertake specific risk assessments of the vulnerability of Black/BAME staff to Covid19 and appropriate action to reduce exposure to, and the risk from, Covid19 for Black/BAME staff. The police service has quickly adopted the same approach for police officers and police staff. 

UNIONS DEMAND HMPPS TAKES ACTION NOW 

In a recent meeting with senior HMPPS officials the three probation unions called on the NPS and CRCs to proactively respond to the NHS statement, and follow the NHS risk assessment programme to protect Black/BAME probation staff now. We expect the NPS and the CRCs to take the same approach. 

The unions do not believe that there is time to wait for further research on the risk of Covid19 to Black/BAME communities, which Public Health England is due to publish in a few week’s time. We need action now to protect our Black/BAME members. 

NOTES: 

NHS Statement on Increased Risk of Covid19 to Black communities: https://www.england.nhs.uk/blog/note-for-all-bame-colleagues-working-in-the-nhs

Assessment Framework for Black staff in relation to Covid19: https://www.nhsemployers.org/covid19/health-safety-and-wellbeing/risk-assessments-for-staff 

Yours sincerely, 

Ian Lawrence General Secretary Napo

Ben Priestley National Officer UNISON

George Georgiou National Officer GMB/SCOOP

HMIP Report into SFO Investigations

On 14th May HMIP published their report into SFO investigations. Whilst it won’t make comfortable reading for HMPPS, it does highlight the same concerns that Napo have been raising for some time. Napo has been supporting a number of members who have found themselves under investigation from the initial stage right through to the inquest in some cases. What is clear is that the approach to SFO investigations has taken a very punitive turn which has led to members being under extreme stress, going through disciplinary hearings and in some very sad cases, losing their jobs. As a result Napo has been in a position to regularly raise members fears and concerns with HMPPS. This report is further evidence that these were not unfounded and that there needs to be a significant review of the SFO process. 

Some Key Findings:

For some time now HMIP have called for greater transparency of SFO’s for victims. Whilst the report acknowledges some headway in this area, HMIP clearly believe that more needs to be done. SFO’s can take years to complete and the although victims have access to the full review, this is often complicated, and written in jargon. Very few victims actually take up the offer and the reason for this needs to be researched further.

The purpose of an SFO investigation is to understand what went wrong, lessons that can be learnt and how this can improve practice and policy. However, HMIP found a very mixed picture. On a national level there is not enough analysis to identify themes which could inform policy and practice. On a local level it found that areas were much better at implementing lessons learnt. However, what was significant was that HMIP felt that this was overtaken by the fear the process invokes in staff, and this undermined the ability to learn. The findings in the report confirm what Napo has been saying for the last few years. Staff perception that SFO reviews focus on individuals and not on organisational responsibility were in fact true.

The central SFO unit takes too long to complete the review with staff and victims waiting on average 6 months.

There is a lack of multi-agency contributions with SFO reviews. They focus solely on probation. A multi-agency review would make it easier for victims to understand case management and provide a better context.

SFO reviews lack independent oversight, unlike domestic homicide reviews or MAPPA serious case reviews. Independent oversight ensures quality assurance, enable public reporting and allow the SFO teams to focus on the lessons to be learnt which in turn can then drive policy and practice. Napo has long argued that the review process should be in the hands of HMIP but we welcome the idea of a greater oversight by the Inspectorate.

Napo will be now pushing for HMPPS to acknowledge this and to seriously review how the SFO process is carried out. We will be calling for a meeting to specifically look at the reports findings and asking HMPPS what steps they will be taking to improve and to meet the HMIP recommendations.

A more in depth piece on the report will be published in the next Napo Magazine. A copy of the report in full can be found HERE

AP Engagement Update 13-05-20

Generic Risk Assessments (GRA)

AP’s have recently completed GRA’s relating to their place of work and the documents were shared with TU’s at the above meeting. Common themes were evident across all AP’s and these have been collated into one document with recommended measures in place. The documents are available for all AP staff to view. 

PPE

Napo raised the issue of PPE masks and the importance of staff being able to use this equipment properly. It was agreed to send a video link to staff to access guidance regarding putting on and taking off face masks appropriately. If members require this information please seek assistance from your line manager in the first instance.

AP Occupancy

All staff will be aware that to provide staff with a safe working environment a decision was previously made to have single room occupancy. The priority referral process also ensures accommodation for service users who meet the priority one criteria. These steps were taken to assist staff and residents to adhere to the social distancing guidance and provide accommodation to individuals whose risk dictates the need for close monitoring. Napo members have been informed that in some AP’s social distancing has proved very challenging, members have also raised their concerns about increasing AP occupancy. These concerns were raised and we were advised that AP staff should follow PHE/W guidance regarding social distancing for example; screens, demarcation areas, ventilation, workforce planning, and PPE. Clarity was also sought about increasing AP occupancy and we have been advised the Secretary of State has a responsibility to provide AP accommodation for individuals who are deemed to pose a high risk of serious harm to others. AP’s do need to continue to take residents who are leaving custody but we have been assured this will be undertaken in a safe and planned way with an increased level of collaboration and information from the discharging prison. If this is not happening please raise with your line manager in the first instance.

AP Staffing

We have been informed that the recent recruitment drive for areas where it has proved difficult to recruit has been successful. There were a couple of AP’s which were forced to close due to staff shortages and it is anticipated they can be reopened shortly.

Rota Review

The majority of AP’s have settled into the new APRW rota and reports have been positive. There are still some AP’s who have yet to change to their preferred rota but due to unforeseen circumstances this has not been possible. It is anticipated this will occur as soon as practicable.

Training

There are a few compulsory on-line training events for AP staff to complete if they haven’t already and all staff will be given encouragement and support to complete the necessary training. Face to Face conflict resolution training has been placed ‘on hold’ due to Covid-19 but it is hoped this will commence as soon as its safe to do.

AP Residential Worker Job Evalutation

Many RW’s will be aware their role will shortly be job evaluated. The process for this is as follows; A Job description questionnaire is completed by RW’s (this has already been done) and submitted to the Job Evaluation Scheme (JES). A panel of three people (including a TU rep) is selected from a group of TU reps who have undertaken the training and a matrix is used to score the tasks and the role will be then banded and the outcome circulated. Napo believe that RW’s undertake a vital role in AP’s and should be remunerated accordingly. I can confirm this view is widely shared.

Monthly Staff Dial In

Finally, many of you may be aware of the monthly all staff dial in. Dates, times and details can be found on the AP Directory. The call is usually 10 – 11 on the final Friday of the month, the next one is on 29th May. Napo encourages all staff to dial into these meetings if possible to raise issues directly with AP Senior Managers.

A Better Recovery

The TUC hosted a mini-conference (on zoom) to launch its new report A Better Recovery this week. The report sets out a plan to getting Britain growing out of the crisis and preventing mass unemployment. TUC General Secretary, Frances O’Grady, was joined on the panel by Shadow Chancellor, Annalise Dodds, and Financial Times Economic Correspondent, Martin Sandhu. READ MORE

Napo HQ