Dynamic inspections of public protection
In October last year (2025), the Chief Inspector of Probation Martin Jones took the unprecedented step of pausing the inspectorate’s core inspection programme to try to drive up the probation service’s performance at protecting the public. The inspectorate had judged two thirds of the cases it had inspected in the last year were failing in this crucial activity.
In a blog post, Mr Jones announced a six months programme of dynamic inspection activity, focusing solely on the Service’s delivery of public protection. The aim was to inspect all twelve regions and deliver follow-up activity with strategic leaders and managers to identify what can be done to support and guide regional leaders into improving work, increasing knowledge and confidence and providing a solid foundation for further improvement.
Essentially, the Chief Inspector felt that repeatedly assessing probation areas as “inadequate” or “requires improvement” was only serving to depress morale further and was not helping improve matters.
The scale of the problem was made very clear yesterday when the inspectorate published its first report in this Dynamic Inspection of Public Protection programme which focused specifically on public protection work being delivered across the Kent, Surrey, and Sussex region of the Probation Service.
Concerningly, the inspectorate found that work to keep people safe had improved since its last inspection, but still met the required standard in less than half of cases for ‘assessment’ and ‘implementation and delivery’.
Context
Fifty-six cases were inspected where the Inspectorate examined assessment, planning, implementation and delivery, and reviewing, all through the lens of public protection work. At the time of the inspection (November 2025) the region was implementing several national policies aimed at managing workloads across the prison and probation estates, including prison early release schemes, Probation Reset, Impact and changes to recall policy.
At the time this inspection was announced (October 2025), the region was operating with just under two-thirds of the target staffing for probation officers, reflective of the longstanding staffing challenges for the region linked to proximity to London, high costs of living and high numbers of PQiP (professional qualification in probation) withdrawals.
Findings
- Case inspections highlighted that for both assessment and implementation and delivery, less than half of the cases met the required standard to keep people safe. Planning and reviewing met the required standard in just over half of cases.
- While sufficient work to keep people safe was not evident in enough of the cases inspected, this report’s results do indicate an upward trajectory in the KSS region since the Inspectorate’s May 2024 regional inspection.
- In particular, organisational delivery demonstrated notable improvement in public protection work than had been evident in previous inspections.
- Large scale change and responses to prison overpopulation as well as delays in sentencing had a destabilising effect on people on probation which made public protection work in KSS more challenging.
- Probation Reset arrangements were outside the region’s control, however they had a detrimental impact on public protection work. Regional leaders were implementing a model to transfer all reset cases to a dedicated hub, though this process was still being refined and audited.
- Challenges faced in managing risk to the public were compounded by longstanding staffing challenges
Conclusions
Mr Jones summed up the inspection report:
“Despite ongoing challenges, we were encouraged to see 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, we were encouraged to see 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.”
This report makes five recommendations. Two of these are for the KSS region, including to ensure probation service officers have sufficient skills, knowledge and experience to adequately assess, plan, work with and review risk of harm to others. Three recommendations are for HMPPS including to develop a national strategic approach to information sharing with police and children’s services.
It will take several months at least to see whether this initiative from the Chief Inspector makes a positive impact in driving up the quality of public protection work across the probation service. Staffing levels will inevitably be the most important factor in determining this.
