Findings

Inspectors rated national arrangements for the provision of services ‘Inadequate’ – its lowest possible ranking. Inspectors found these arrangements were not meeting the needs of regions or the people on probation they managed, and inspectors were not assured that public protection and reducing reoffending were central to the commissioning and delivery of services. This was reflected in case inspection findings, where implementation and delivery of services sufficiently supported desistance in just 32 per cent of cases, and contributed effectively to keeping people safe in just 18 per cent of cases.

The overall vision for probation was not underpinned by a current business plan, and the strategic approach, Target Operating Model for Probation Services, had not been updated since the unification of services in 2021. Inspectors found accountability lines for performance and the quality of delivery were unclear, and national governance structures were failing to improve sentence management quality, particularly regarding public protection.

Failures of leadership

Despite an understanding of high workload demands on probation, and action being taken to address this, inspectors found that senior leaders had not done enough to ensure the delivery of quality services. Area business risk registers did not align with the national risk register and did not fully explore all risks affecting probation service delivery. As a result, national action to address local issues was less effective. Chief Inspector Martin Jones was critical of senior leaders:

“Stronger leadership is needed to improve the delivery of the probation service’s two key objectives: protecting the public and reducing reoffending. These should be seen as complimentary and embedded across all delivery outcomes, and we did not see this cohesion at a national level.”

Staffing

The report highlights modest improvements in recruitment and staffing levels, with some action taking place to reduce workloads and create space for practitioners to develop knowledge and skills. However, progress remained slow, with a continued high shortfall of probation officers in some regions. In addition, opportunities for newly qualified and trained staff to implement learning were still often undermined by high workloads and few experienced staff to support them.

ICT

Some strengths were observed in relation to information and communication technology; however, this had not resulted in sufficient improvement in systems used by frontline staff. In addition, significant and prolonged underinvestment in both the probation estate and ICT presented a complex and challenging context for national leaders and their teams.

Recommendations

The report makes eight recommendations to HMPPS, including the most basic one of producing a coherent business plan. It also urges the organisation to ensure significant risks to probation service delivery are identified and acted upon, to provide regional leaders with greater discretion to commission and contract-manage organisations that meet the needs of people on probation, and to develop digital systems that enable practitioners to access, plan, deliver, and record their work in a timely way.

Mr Jones’ concluding remarks make clear that not only is the probation service suffering from a prolonged period of re-organisations and neglect but there appears to be no clear leadership or plan to turn things round:

“Much has been achieved by HMPPS in recent years amidst many challenges, but the improvement to service delivery on the ground remains insufficient. There will need to be further changes to improve the quality of services to reduce reoffending and protect the public. This will mean there need to be difficult decisions about what is done, with whom, to ensure those most at risk of further offending and causing serious harm are managed sufficiently.”