Keep up-to-date with drugs and crime

The latest research, policy, practice and opinion on our criminal justice and drug & alcohol treatment systems
Probation not learning from serious further offences
Serious further offences inspection: The government and probation services are not doing enough to learn from past mistakes. Lessons must be learnt to prevent more tragedies in the future.

Share This Post

Probation system ‘not doing enough to learn from past mistakes’

The probation system is not doing enough to learn lessons from serious crimes committed by offenders under supervision, according to a new report from probation inspectors published today.

Nearly a quarter of a million people are on probation in England and Wales. Around 0.2 per cent of these individuals are charged with serious further offences each year while under supervision. These crimes include murder, rape, and other violent and dangerous offences.

HM Inspectorate of Probation examined the way probation services review and learn lessons in these cases. Inspectors also looked at how HM Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) quality assure those reviews, and use information to improve national policies and practice. Victims and their families were asked about their experiences too.

Chief Inspector of Probation Justin Russell said: 

“Serious further offences have a devastating impact on victims and their families. The review process must examine the period leading up to the offence and how the probation service managed the risk of serious harm.
Our inspection found that individual reviews were good in parts, but a fifth (22 per cent) of those we inspected failed to give a clear judgement as to whether all reasonable steps had been taken to manage the risk of serious harm. At a national level, more needs to be done to identify trends and themes to drive changes to probation policies and guidance.
Until this work is done, the government and probation services are not doing enough to learn from past mistakes. Lessons must be learnt to prevent more tragedies in the future.”

Probation services in England and Wales are delivered by a mix of providers. The National Probation Service (NPS) supervises high risk offenders in the community, while 21 Community Rehabilitation Companies (CRC) supervise low and medium risk offenders. 

When an individual who is on probation commits a serious further offence, a manager in the relevant NPS division or CRC conducts an internal review.

Inspectors found:

  • Serious Further Offence reviews often set out the timeline of events, but are less effective at explaining why the offence took place. Reviews should draw clear conclusions on failures of probation practice.
  • Serious Further Offence reviews focus solely on probation practice, unlike reviews conducted in other parts of the criminal justice system, such as those following domestic homicides. Offenders are usually known to other agencies, so these interactions are not explored and important opportunities for joint learning are being missed. Inspectors recommend external agencies that have been involved in the case, such as the police and children’s services, should be involved in the Serious Further Offence review. Consideration should also be given to whether this should be mandatory for all homicide cases not currently covered by other multi-agency procedures. There should be a requirement for SFO reviews that include findings on the actions of other agencies to be shared with those agencies.
  • Individual probation officers involved in cases are interviewed by the Serious Further Offence review teams, but often do not see the final reports and have limited opportunities to question the findings. Some staff view the process negatively and believe its primary focus is to attribute blame. The Inspectorate concluded this ‘culture of fear’ undermines the ability of organisations to learn from the process.

Involvement of victims/families

Relatively few victims or their families ask to see the Serious Further Offence review and take up of this offer is not monitored centrally. More effort needs to be made to increase the uptake of this offer.

Victims and their families that do ask to see the review found the process open and honest about failings, and appreciated the chance to discuss the case with a senior manager.

The Inspectorate found the content and length of the reviews would be difficult for some victims and family members to digest. Inspectors also urged greater consideration to individual circumstances before disclosing reviews, for example to ensure vulnerable victims have proper support.

HMPPS is responsible for quality assuring Serious Further Offence reviews and providing feedback to probation services.

Inspectors found:

  • Reviews are not analysed nationally to identify themes, which could improve policy and practice.
  • Staff shortages have led to backlogs and unacceptable delays – the HMPPS quality assurance process should take 20 days but takes six months on average.
  • There is a lack of independent oversight and transparency in the process with HMPPS auditing the quality of its own work.

Mr Russell said: 

“Significant resources are rightly invested in the Serious Further Offence review process. In our view, the current arrangements are inefficient and lack independence and transparency.
We recommend an independent agency should get involved in quality assuring this vital work. The agency should look at a proportion of completed reviews each year and publish its findings on a regular basis. This will help to increase public confidence in the process.
Following our inspection, we have made a number of recommendations to the Ministry of Justice and HMPPS. These aim to refocus the Serious Further Offence review process on learning lessons, improving probation policies and practice, and increasing access for victims and their families.”

Share This Post

Related posts

Prison van bringing prisoners from court
On Probation
IPP recalls mostly in line with policy

HMI Probation finds IPP recalls mostly in line with policy but deplores lack of support and continuity of supervising officers.

One Response

  1. From personal experience, the principal role of the Probation service is to cover its own arse, nothing more than that.

    As I write this I am awaiting a new charge, a remand in custody and an immediate recall to prison for something which the police know with 100% certainty did not even occur. Yet another easy nicking for Plod!!

    My moron of a probation officer and everyone connected with probation refuse to apply an iota of common sense sufficient to make a single value judgement based upon any facts. “We must act as if you are guilty because you have been convicted” Nothing else is of any importance other than this!!.
    “Our minds are made up, DO NOT confuse us with facts”, they chirrup in unison.

    My offender supervisor in prison REFUSED to complete or even speak to me about preparing my OASYS. Oh your PO can do it when you get out!! grunts he. One of the officers of the old school who still retained his full compliment of common sense, sympathy and understanding, confided to me that ” We have had more complaints about **** ****** than all other OS’s put together”

    I still have not had anything resembling an up to date OASYS prepared despite a letter from the Prisoner Advisory Service to both him directly and, HRH the Governor himself.

    This F***ing Moron, er, Offender Supervisor, refused to give me any quantifiable reason why I am classified as high risk. Nor will my current PO. Oh we can’t answer that, refer to rule one, you’ve been convicted. that’ll do. This of course means that you automatically become a global menace by default.

    Under no circumstances are they able to actually specify a single one of the dangers I present or to whom I present this danger, OMG NO!

    The fact that the Court of appeal has decided that my (non existent) offence would not cause any identifiable individual or the public in general, any danger whatsoever, means absolutely nothing to the bigot brigade.

    I am convinced that with VERY few exceptions, whenever a embryonic Probation Officer passes out from whichever training establishment they use to create these creatures, before letting them loose on prospective recidivists, they MUST go through one final procedure. To this end they are sent to a highly secret facility somewhere in Plodland, where every trace of common sense, humanity and independence is surgically removed and fed to the pigs.

    Would anybody who has had the misfortune to encounter one of the breed disagree with any of the foregoing. If so, please let me know. God Save The Queen and my still wonderful country despite its inglorious Police, Probation Service and apology for a Justice System. Thank you.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Probation posts sponsored by Unilink


Excellence through innovation

Unilink, Europe’s provider of Offender/Probation Management Software


Get every blog post by email for free