Key findings

The bulletin provides a clear summary of the key findings and implications of inspectors’ analysis. The headline conclusion is that less than half of all inspected court reports were deemed to be sufficiently analytical and personalised to the individual, supporting the court’s decision making.

Alongside each of the key findings below, is a clear recommendation from the inspectorate on the changes they wish to see:

• There were notable differences in quality between the types of court report, with oral reports meeting our overall quality judgement in about four out of 10 cases, short format reports in half of the cases, and standard delivery reports in more than six out of 10 cases. Allowing sufficient time for high-quality reports has advantages in allowing report authors to build a sufficiently complete picture of an individual, supporting judges and magistrates to make well-informed and tailored sentencing decisions, as well as laying the foundations for effective post-sentence delivery. Allowing sufficient time can also help to minimise the potential for error and bias, which is critical for maintaining sentencer confidence in the reports and potentially impacting their views regarding the credibility of probation more generally.
• Court reports for those individuals from a Black, Asian or minority ethnicity background were less likely to be deemed sufficiently analytical and personalised, supporting the court’s decision making. To help improve the quality of such reports, practitioners should be encouraged and assisted to develop cultural competence and to overcome any reluctance and anxiety in discussing issues of race, culture, faith, and experiences of racism. At the organisational level, it needs to be ensured that policies, procedures and tools are unbiased and fit for purpose, with appropriate quality assurance, monitoring and training in place.
• Comparing the data in this bulletin with the findings from our 2020 report, it is striking that the specific area where inspectors’ judgements on quality had deteriorated was in relation to the information and advice drawing sufficiently on all available sources of information, including child safeguarding and domestic abuse information. This area of work was also the main driver of inspectors’ overall quality judgements, reflecting the fact that it was not being done well enough in a significant number of cases; enquiries were made with the police domestic abuse unit and with children’s services in only half of those cases when they should have been and before the report was presented to the court.
• The focus upon information exchange at the court report stage has increased over recent years, following concerns that insufficient attention was being given to indicators of risk of harm and that critical information to address safety concerns and support rehabilitative outcomes was being missed. Probation services should intensify their efforts to establish and maintain strong collaborative working arrangements with other key agencies to facilitate the necessary flows and exchanging of information.

The video below provides a seven minute summary of the findings of this research and analysis bulletin.

Thanks to Andy Aitchison for kind permission to use the header image in this post. You can see Andy’s work here