Approved premises inspection: Rules and guidance

Published:

8 July 2025

Version 1.8 - June 2025

Introduction (Back to top)

There are five standards for our inspections of approved premises (APs). These standards focus on the things that make a difference to the quality of work in APs, aligning strategic activity with frontline delivery to residents. We have focused our standards on inputs and activities. We want to ensure that APs deliver activities to protect the public and promote rehabilitation and that these are delivered in a safe and decent environment. These activities are at the forefront of our standards and must be enabled by the right inputs of high-quality leadership and partnerships and effective staffing arrangements.

The judgements that we make are based on a combination of qualitative data, including interviews with staff, residents and other relevant stakeholders, direct observation of practice, examining policies and procedures and data and information, and inspecting casework. Gathering a breadth of different types of evidence in these different ways enables us to triangulate our findings, ensuring that our judgements are fair and valid. The rules and guidance are the basis on which we make our judgements against all elements of each standard.

How to use the rules and guidance

The purpose of the rules and guidance is to provide advice, clarity and a consistent understanding of the required expectations. They outline approaches that set high standards to assess quality. The rules and guidance explain how evidence is assessed and how judgements are formed against the key questions and prompts for each standard. Inspectors should read the guidance, evidence and judgement for each prompt.

The guidance describes in detail what it is that inspectors are looking for in each prompt.

The evidence sources indicate where to find evidence to make judgements for each prompt. The evidence lists are neither exhaustive nor prescriptive; evidence that is not listed may also be used and we do not expect that all the evidence listed will always be useful or required. The evidence lists are there to guide but not restrict inspectors. Where the evidence list includes ‘discussions with staff’, this refers to all staff, including the AP manager.

The judgement section guides the inspector in judging whether the evidence for that prompt is sufficient or insufficient.

Ratings, narrative and recommendations

The standards are set up in such a way that we make judgements at the level at which we seeperformance. This is not always the same as the level at which accountability lies. Our judgements and ratings are based on performance, with our narrative describing the line of accountability and our recommendations made to the right level of accountability. This is because we recognise that contextual, national, regional, local and systemic issues can impact on delivery, such as a national strategy, an area or regional directive, or the engagement of partner agencies in the delivery of services. We pay attention to these issues and set out the reasons for shortfalls in our inspection reports, and tailor recommendations accordingly. However, our judgements and ratings will always reflect the quality of delivery at the level at which we inspect, irrespective of the underlying reasons and rationale.

Inspecting equity, diversity and inclusion

We expect APs to take a personalised approach to their work with residents and with staff. We reflect this throughout our standards framework. Leadership and staffing should support and enable this approach.

We split our definition of a personalised approach into two parts. First, we consider diversity factors, which we define as the protected characteristics set out in the Equality Act 2010. These are race, age, disability, sex, sexual orientation, gender reassignment, pregnancy and maternity, marriage or civil partnership, and religion or belief. Separate to this, we consider an individual’s personal circumstances and how well the AP meets the needs arising from these.

We expect a personalised approach to include relevant equity, diversity and inclusion (EDI) factors and to consider relevant personal circumstances. A personalised approach is one in which services are tailored to meet the needs of individuals, giving people as much choice and control as possible over the support they receive. This personalised approach must include EDI issues related to an individual’s protected characteristics. In inspecting EDI, we pay attention to the interconnected nature of social categories, including protected characteristics and personal circumstances such as race, class, gender and cultural heritage, and how they can create overlapping experiences of discrimination or disadvantage. When we talk to staff and residents and inspect case work, we recognise that everyone has their own unique experiences of discrimination.

Public sector equality duty (the Equality Act 2010)

The Equality Act 2010 requires public bodies to address diversity and equality issues through a general equality duty. Full information can be found on the gov.uk website Public Sector Equality Duty: guidance for public authorities.

The broad purpose of the general equality duty is to integrate consideration of equality and good relations into the day-to-day business of public authorities. The general equality duty requires organisations to consider how they could contribute positively to advancing equality and good relations. It also requires them to reflect equality considerations in the design of policies and the delivery of services, including internal policies, and to keep these issues under review. It aims to shift the onus from individuals to organisations, placing an obligation for the first time on public authorities to promote equality positively, not merely to avoid discrimination. It was developed in order to harmonise the equality duties and include all the protected characteristics. In summary, those subject to the general equality duty must, in the exercise of their functions, have due regard to the need to:

eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment and victimisation, and other conduct prohibited by the Act
advance equality of opportunity between people who share a protected characteristic and those who do not
foster good relations between people who share a protected characteristic and those who do not.

These are sometimes referred to as the three aims of the general equality duty. To meet these, the vision and strategy should set out how the organisation will:

remove or minimise disadvantages suffered by people on probation because of their protected characteristics
take steps to meet the needs of people on probation from protected groups where these are different from the needs of other people on probation
encourage people on probation from protected groups to participate in ways that meet their needs.

Leadership and governance (Back to top)

1. Leadership and governance drive the delivery of a high-quality service.

The leadership and governance standard is based on the Primary Colours Model of Leadership (Pendleton, 2012) and Future-Engage-Deliver: The Essential Guide to your Leadership (Steve Radcliffe, 2008).This model groups leadership arrangements and activity into three distinct sets: strategic, operational and interpersonal leadership. We have reflected these areas in our key questions and prompts and also include how effectively leaders use evidence and learning to improve.

1.1 Do leaders drive the effective delivery of high-quality services for all residents?

a) Is there an appropriate vision that sets out how high-quality provision will be delivered to residents?

Guidance:

Each AP should have a documented vision that describes how it will deliver high-quality provision to residents. There should be evidence of how the vision enables the delivery of high-quality services, and the key actions that leaders and managers have taken to ensure that these are delivered. The strategy should be explicit about the evidence base which underpins the strategic vision.

There may be an overall vision for the division of APs. The vision for groups of APs may be set out for each division but should still capture individual priorities in delivering high-quality provision. The vision should reflect the type of AP and the individual priorities. The vision should include the AP’s aims, objectives and ethos in providing the service and be clear how these align with high-quality provision. Where there is a specialist AP, the vision should reflect that. The vision should:

set out how the AP will remove or minimise disadvantages suffered by people on probation because of their protected characteristics
take steps to meet the needs of people on probation from protected groups where these are different from the needs of other people on probation
encourage people on probation from protected groups to participate in ways that meet their needs.

Evidence:

AP vision document
discussions with the AP manager
discussions with the head of public protection and/or area manager

Judgement:

Where there is a vision for the AP that describes how high-quality provision will be delivered, includes the aims, objectives and ethos of the service, and is individualised to that service, there should be a positive judgement.

Where there is no vision for the AP or the vision does not describe how high-quality provision will be delivered, including the aims, objectives and ethos of the service, and/or is not individualised to that service, there should be a negative judgement.

b) Do leaders promote a positive culture?

Guidance:

Culture refers to ‘the ways things are done around here’, and incorporates the beliefs, behaviours, and values that influence the way people work. Leaders should model behaviour with both staff and residents that is compatible with a positive culture. Respectful relationships should be demonstrated and expected. Leaders should be proactive in taking measures to promote a positive culture in the AP. There should be opportunities for residents to be involved in day-to-day tasks in the AP where appropriate.

A positive culture is one where staff are consulted routinely about issues that affect them and their work, and receive clear explanations for how important decisions are made. Staff should have opportunities to constructively challenge (that is, question) plans and decisions that affect them and their work – for example through team meetings, which are valued by both sides.

Evidence:

discussions with the head of public protection and/or area manager
discussions with staff
discussions with residents
residents’ meetings
staff handovers
team meetings

Judgement:

Where leaders set a positive culture, promoting openness and constructive challenge, with ideas from staff sought, analysed and used, there should be a positive judgement.

Where leaders do not set a positive culture and/or there is a lack of openness and constructive challenge, with ideas from staff not sought, analysed and used, there should be a negative judgement.

c) Are the views of residents actively sought, analysed, and used to review and improve the service provided?

Guidance:

The AP should have an effective and proactive approach to engaging with residents. Residents’ views should be sought, analysed and used to improve service delivery. Residents should be able to put forward their views and suggestions in a variety of ways and should be supported to communicate effectively.

Views may be sought in a variety of ways, including through surveys and questionnaires. AP staff should include more sophisticated approaches, such as focus groups, and less formal approaches, such as meaningful conversations. This will provide a more in-depth understanding of the needs of residents. It will indicate where any gaps are and what can be done to address them.

Once leaders have considered residents’ views, they should provide feedback on the outcomes of suggestions made. They should provide examples of changes made as a result of residents’ feedback and draw these out to improve residents’ confidence in the process.

Evidence:

discussions with staff
discussions with residents
residents’ meetings
examples of changes made in response to residents’ views

Judgement:

Where the views of residents are sought, analysed and used in a variety of ways, and feedback provided to residents, there should be a positive judgement.

Where the views of residents are not sought, analysed and used in a variety of ways, and/or feedback is not provided to residents, there should be a negative judgement.

d) Do leaders collaborate effectively with local communities to utilise opportunities for residents and manage risks?

Guidance:

APs should know the make-up of their local neighbourhood. They should know, for example, if there are schools, nursing homes or pubs. The AP should be proactive in fostering positive relationships with those in the local area and this engagement should be appropriate to the type of AP, the type of community in which the AP sits and any particular opportunities or risks this presents. Establishing and maintaining communication channels with key leaders in the community is vital.

Examples include:

setting up regular meetings with headteachers as a group
meetings with the local GP surgery and local community mental health teams – this is particularly important for psychologically informed planned environments (PIPEs)
regular meetings with local police officers/police leaders – this is important for general risk management but also in facilitating recalls back to custody in a safe way
establishing relationships with pharmacy leaders to assist with administering medication safely
arranging for key organisations to come into the AP to deliver services from there, for example the community mental health team, substance misuse services and Job Centre Plus)
establishing links with local residents associations.

APs may consult externally with key stakeholders as part of strategic planning, to encourage local engagement. Where this happens, the AP should strike an appropriate balance between promoting the fact that the AP is there and having no disclosure/contact.

Evidence:

discussions with staff
minutes/notes from meetings with leaders from key organisations
evidence of work done with community establishments

Judgement:

Where there is effective collaboration with local communities that provides opportunities and manages risks, there should be a positive judgement.

Where there is no collaboration with local communities, or this does not provide opportunities and/or manage risks, there should be a negative judgement.

e) Are risks to delivery understood, with appropriate mitigations and controls in place?

Guidance:

Each AP should be aware of the specific risks to delivery for that AP. Risks may include identifiable potential risks across categories such as service delivery, staffing, safety and reputational risk. For example, any particular AP may be vulnerable to environmental factors such as flooding. Other APs may need to manage the risks associated with housing a high-profile person on probation.

Each risk should be identified and detailed, with appropriate mitigations and a business continuity plan set out for each risk. Controls should be specified, and should provide a warning if a risk is increasing. There should be evidence of regular reviews to identify any new risks and those that no longer require attention. Staff should be able to articulate their role in managing specific risks and how particular risks are to be managed in the case of an emergency.

Evidence:

risk register and risk management plan
discussions with staff
discussions with residents
staff handovers
team meetings
evidence of risks being managed in practice

Judgement:

Where risks to delivery are recognised, planned for, understood and reviewed, there should be a positive judgement.

Where risks to delivery are not recognised, planned for, understood and reviewed, there should be a negative judgement.

1.2 Do leaders use analysis, evidence, and learning to drive the effective delivery of high-quality services for all residents?

a) Where necessary, is action taken promptly and appropriately in response to performance monitoring, audit, or inspection?

Guidance:

The AP should have timely action plans to address performance issues, regardless of how the issues have been identified. These can include performance hub key metrics, assurance visits, dip sampling, audits and inspections. They should be produced in a timely fashion, in line with any relevant guidance, including on taking immediate action to address critical deficits. Action and improvement plans must include monitoring arrangements and should be reviewed at appropriate intervals. They should be subject to suitable governance arrangements, to ensure that specific actions are concluded and necessary improvements achieved.

Evidence:

discussions with the head of public protection and/or area manager
action plans, including monitoring arrangements and subsequent reviews
discussions with staff
discussion with residents

Judgement:

Where the necessary action is taken in a timely way in response to performance monitoring, audit, or inspection, there should be a positive judgement.

Where the necessary action is not taken in a timely way in response to performance monitoring, audit, and/or inspection, there should be a negative judgement.

b) Is a culture of learning and continuous improvement promoted actively?

Guidance:

AP leaders should actively value and promote a culture of learning and continuous improvement. Staff should have access to, and be enabled and supported to engage in, a diverse range of learning and development opportunities. AP leaders should ensure that learning and development opportunities are capitalised on to improve services and should be striving to improve opportunities for learning, which may come through:

evaluation of training and staff development processes
provision of support for external study
support for obtaining relevant qualifications.

These opportunities should be taken up by staff. AP leaders should make clear how they have supported staff learning and continuous improvement, for example by sharing key learning from a training course. They should ensure that opportunities are provided for staff to consolidate learning and development.

Evidence:

learning and development plans
discussions with staff
evidence of sharing learning, such as through team meetings and staff development events

Judgement:

Where staff are actively enabled to undertake a diverse range of learning and development opportunities to contribute to continuous improvement, there should be a positive judgement.

Where staff are not actively enabled to undertake a diverse range of learning and development opportunities and/or these do not contribute to continuous improvement, there should be a negative judgement.

c) Do leaders understand, respond to and utilise equity, diversity and inclusion information in delivery arrangements?

Guidance:

APs should understand the need to adapt service delivery to meet all needs, manage risks and build strengths, including those arising from protected characteristics. At an individual level the AP should respond to individual needs, and at an organisational level it should be set up to enable it to do so. For example, a resident with specific medical needs may need to be provided with a bedroom close to staff. The AP should recognise this and be able to accommodate it.

This requires the AP to collect, analyse and use information about protected characteristics so it can deliver a high-quality service. If an AP does not have information about the protected characteristics of residents, it should be working to fill the information gaps. This could mean undertaking short surveys or carrying out some engagement work.

The AP should use the EDI information that it collects not just to identify, mitigate, or remove poor practice, but also to identify ways to advance equality of opportunity. To maximise learning, any action it takes should be disseminated through appropriate structures, such as team meetings, quality improvement fora, and individual staff supervision.

Evidence:

discussions with the head of public protection and/or area manager
discussions with staff
discussions with residents
evidence of sharing learning, such as through team meetings
case inspections

Judgement:

Where EDI information is understood, generates proactive responses for individuals and is used to promote learning across the organisation, there should be a positive judgement.

Where EDI information is not understood, and/or does not generate proactive responses for individuals and/or is not used to promote learning across the organisation, there should be a negative judgement.

Staffing (Back to top)

2. Staff are enabled to deliver a high-quality service.

2.1 Does staffing support the delivery of a high-quality service for all residents?

a) Is there always a sufficient number of staff on duty?

Guidance:

There should always be a sufficient number of staff on duty. Sufficient means that there are enough staff to ensure that all staff and residents are safe, all needs can be met, all risks can be managed, and all required tasks can be completed to a good standard. Sufficient staffing means that staff have the capacity to deliver all of these things.

As a minimum during daytime and evening hours, there should always be two residential workers on duty, along with sufficient keyworkers to undertake the required duties for the numbers of residents.

As a minimum overnight, there should be two staff on duty. Staff should always have access to support from an on-call manager.

Evidence:

discussions with staff
discussion with residents
handover meetings
staff rotas
observation during the inspection

Judgement:

Where there are sufficient staff on duty to ensure that all staff and residents are safe, all needs can be met, all risks can be managed and all required tasks can be completed, there should be a positive judgement.

Where the number of staff is insufficient to ensure that all staff and residents are safe, all needs can be met, all risks can be managed and all required tasks can be completed, there should be a negative judgement.

b) Are staff competent in their roles?

Guidance:

Staff of all grades working in the AP should be competent to perform all the duties required by their roles. Staff that work directly with residents, including the AP manager, residential workers and keyworkers, should as a minimum be trained and skilled in:

safety and support procedures and practice
safe keeping and administration of medication
de-escalation and behaviour management
risk assessment and management
trauma-informed practice
child and adult safeguarding
EDI
effective relationship-building
record-keeping.

AP managers should also be trained and skilled in managing staff effectively and in line with the AP’s policies and procedures.

Staff in specialist APs should be additionally trained and skilled to ensure that they can meet the needs of residents.

Evidence:

staff learning and development records
shift observations
staff handovers
discussions with AP manager
discussions with staff
discussions with residents

Judgement:

Where all staff working in the AP are competent to perform all of the duties required by their roles, there should be a positive judgement.

Where staff working in the AP are not all competent to perform all of the duties required by their roles, there should be a negative judgement.

c) Do staff understand and meet the individual needs of residents?

Guidance:

Staff should understand residents’ individual needs. These include but are not limited to EDI needs arising from protected characteristics. Staff should be confident in recognising individual needs, and be enabled and supported to adapt services to meet those needs as far as is practicable. Staff should be comfortable in advocating for residents to ensure that an individualised service is provided. Examples of an individualised approach include providing an appropriate menu for those with specific dietary needs, placing residents in particular rooms and adjusting to the dynamics of different groups of residents.

Understanding and meeting individual needs must always be balanced with ensuring the safety and welfare of all staff and residents.

Evidence:

observations of practice
handovers
keyworker sessions
case inspections
discussions with staff
discussions with residents

Judgement:

Where staff understand and meet the needs of individuals through a personalised approach, there should be a positive judgement.

Where staff do not understand and/or do not meet the needs of individuals through a personalised approach, there should be a negative judgement.

d) Are there positive relationships between staff and residents?

Positive relationships between staff of all grades and residents are important to rehabilitation. A residential setting provides innumerable opportunities to build these relationships in formal and informal ways. AP staff should actively create and use opportunities to form positive relationships. This should not just be through formal keywork sessions but through everyday conversations and interactions that staff and residents have and by staff being respectful. There should be opportunities for residents and staff to get to know one another. Staff should support residents to get involved in positive activities. All of this helps to build positive relationships.

Policies and practices should also promote positive relationships between staff and residents while maintaining their safety. The way the service creates and implements policies will influence the quality of the rehabilitative regime. It can help staff to develop constructive supervisory relationships, or prevent them from doing so. For example, the use of a safe open-door policy, which removes the boundary between staff and residents’ areas, can allow for informal interactions and may improve trust. When there is a more distinct boundary between staff and residents’ areas, this can potentially damage relationships, creating an atmosphere for residents of ‘us versus them’. APs should aim to achieve a balance between facilitating good relationships and keeping staff and residents safe.

Evidence:

observations of practice
handovers
keyworker sessions
case inspections
discussions with staff
discussions with residents

Judgement:

Where positive relationships between staff and residents are safely and actively promoted in a variety of ways, there should be a positive judgement.

Where positive relationships between staff and residents are not safely and actively promoted or this is not done in a variety of ways, there should be a negative judgement.

e) Are staff engaged, motivated and proud to work for the AP?

Guidance:

Staff motivation will depend on a range of factors. Staff should take pride in their work, and want to come to work to do a good job and make a difference. Managers should be aware of the various motivations of different staff and diverse groups; they should monitor motivation levels and have approaches in place to sustain high levels of motivation. In speaking to staff and managers, the inspector will get a ‘feel’ for what it is like to work in the AP and whether it has a positive ethos and supportive culture.

Managers should maintain staff motivation both through business as usual and when changes are proposed and implemented, to enable staff to respond positively. Sickness and absence levels can be symptomatic of low motivation and should be managed well and within appropriate limits. High staff turnover rates should be investigated to see whether they are linked to low levels of motivation. High sickness and absence levels and high staff turnover rates can be strong indicators of discontent and a lack of motivation.

Evidence:

discussions with staff
discussions with residents: residents will be able to articulate how motivated/interested they think staff are
evidence of how staff’s views are gathered
staff absence levels

Judgement:

Where staff are engaged, motivated and proud to work for the AP, there should be a positive judgement.

Where staff lack engagement, motivation and/or do not have a sense of pride in their work, there should be a negative judgement.

2.2 Do arrangements for managing and supporting staff drive the delivery of a high-quality service for residents?

a) Is an effective induction programme delivered to new staff?

Guidance:

All staff should receive a comprehensive and accessible induction that is relevant to their role and function within the AP. This should include local induction as well as any induction provided as part of a regional or national programme.

Induction programmes should enable staff to operate effectively within a short period following the start of their duties. In addition to enabling AP staff to understand their role, induction should also cover the overall aims of the organisation, and its approach to addressing diversity issues for staff and people on probation and all of the relevant policies and practices. There should be opportunities to shadow other staff and to observe key practices, such as the administration of medication. Induction should make clear how individual roles work with other roles, to support the joined-up delivery of services for people on probation and other stakeholders.

Evidence:

observations of practice
induction documentation
discussions with staff
staff rotas for new staff

Judgement:

Where there is a comprehensive and accessible induction that is tailored to the specific role and includes opportunities to shadow colleagues and observe practices, there should be a positive judgement.

Where induction is not comprehensive and/or not accessible and/or is not tailored to the specific role and/or does not include opportunities to shadow colleagues and observe practices, there should be a negative judgement.

b) Do staff receive effective supervision and appraisal that enhances the quality of work with residents?

Guidance:

All roles in the AP should be supervised effectively. Supervision should be tailored to the nature of the individual’s work, their stage of development, and their individual learning needs. The AP should have a staff supervision policy that sets out how supervision should be conducted, its aims, what supervisees can expect, and how frequently it should happen. It may include group supervision, and active observations to provide staff with feedback on the quality of their work with residents, the skills they have demonstrated, and any areas for improvement. Any link to appraisal policies should be clear.

Effective supervision should pay attention to personal support and development, as well as accountability for work within the individual’s role or job description. The focus should not be limited to ensuring that tasks are completed, but should extend to how staff are learning, developing, and applying skills that will improve the quality of work with people on probation.

For those involved with the most traumatic or distressing individuals, including those convicted of serious sexual offences, domestic abuse, rape, or murder, supervision may include arrangements for clinical supervision, so that staff can address the impact of their work on themselves, in a confidential setting. Managers should recognise that working in an AP can be emotionally taxing and appropriate support is necessary for staff to continue to do a good job without burning out.

Evidence:

staff supervision policy
staff supervision practices
discussions with staff

Judgement:

Where supervision policy and practice support staff to deliver high-quality work with residents, there should be a positive judgement.

Where supervision policy and practice do not support staff to deliver high-quality work with residents, there should be a negative judgement.

c) Are resources managed actively to maintain service delivery?

Guidance:

The AP’s arrangements for managing resources should be sufficiently flexible to ensure that all services are delivered effectively. It should be clear how decisions about managing resources are to be made and who is responsible for making them.

Appropriate arrangements should be in place to identify and plan for vacancies, high attrition rates and sickness. Flexibility should be built in to respond to changing demands, which may include taking on new or temporary ways of working, to deliver the functions of the AP effectively. Where APs face resource pressures, managers should be provided with the appropriate levels of support and authority to enable them to manage these pressures. They should be given sufficient freedom and flexibility to make changes that will help them to reach solutions.

Evidence:

workload management policy
discussions with staff
discussions with residents
observations of practice
handovers

Judgement:

Where resources are managed actively, with sufficient flexibility, support and authority to enable the AP to make effective decisions, there should be a positive judgement.

Where resources are not managed actively, without sufficient flexibility, support and/or authority to enable the AP to make effective decisions, there should be a negative judgement.

d) Are there effective management oversight arrangements that enhance and sustain the quality of work with residents?

Guidance:

Effective management oversight includes elements of quality assurance, staff supervision, dealing with developing areas of concern in individual cases, and facilitating improvements in practice. Oversight of risk of harm and safety and wellbeing is different from regular staff supervision, although it may sometimes be undertaken at the same time. General oversight of practice and discussions in supervision may help managers to identify the need for oversight.

Management oversight arrangements should support staff and managers, allowing them to form positive relationships in a safe and productive environment. Arrangements for allocating keyworkers to individual residents should enable keyworkers to take an individualised approach, and ensure as far as possible that the keyworker matched with the resident is a good fit. This sets the scene in terms of ensuring relationships are effective. Arrangements for staff cover when keyworkers are absent should be clear and, where appropriate, co-working arrangements should be considered.

Evidence:

discussions with head of public protection and/or area manager
discussions with staff
discussions with residents
management oversight policy/policies
observations of practice
case inspection

Judgement:

Where management oversight arrangements promote an individualised approach for residents, support staff and enable the effective management of risk, there should be a positive judgement.

Where management oversight arrangements do not promote an individualised approach for residents, and/or do not support staff and/or do not enable the effective management of risk, there should be a negative judgement.

e) Are arrangements in place to ensure that staff safety and wellbeing are prioritised for effective service delivery?

Guidance:

Working in APs can be difficult and dangerous on occasions, and there is a legal duty to ensure that staff safety and wellbeing are promoted.

Staff wellbeing goes further than health and safety. It includes the provision of welfare facilities; support after critical incidents; occupational health services (immunisations, wellbeing clinics, and so on); and support for staff experiencing stress and personal problems that are impacting on their work. APs should have strategies and facilities that are designed to support a healthy workforce, so that they are better able to provide high-quality services.

Arrangements should be set out in relevant policies, procedures, and guidance, which should cover, but not be limited to:

health and safety inductions for all new staff who use the premises
arrangements for physical security, including the logging and monitoring of visitors and staff attendance
on-call arrangements
security arrangements based on risk levels
visitor policies
a system of incident alarms and clear procedures for responding
clearly signed and readily available first-aid and welfare facilities
a lone working policy and procedure, along with guidance on making home visits
regularly completed and logged display screen equipment assessments
a health and safety committee
a member of staff appropriately qualified and trained to fulfil a lead health and safety role
health and safety reports featuring in senior management and governance meetings.

Evidence:

discussions with staff
discussions with residents
physical environment
relevant policies, procedures and guidance (see list above)
observations of practice
arrangements for staff breaks, including time and space for these

Arrangements for staff safety and wellbeing should be understood and followed by staff.

Judgement:

Where effective arrangements for staff safety and wellbeing are set out in policies that are implemented, understood and followed by staff, there should be a positive judgement.

Where effective arrangements for staff safety and wellbeing are not set out in policies, and/or are not implemented, understood and followed by staff, there should be a negative judgement.

f) Is poor staff performance identified and addressed?

Guidance:

Formal procedures should be in place to address staff competence issues. Where managers identify poor performance, they should identify its causes, such as heavy workload, lack of relevant training, inefficient processes, lack of resources or staff incompetence. Managers should be transparent with staff about the issues and follow a staged and proportionate response where appropriate. This staged response should start by focusing on support to develop practice but could result in formal improvement plans if practice does not improve. Procedures should also allow for immediate and timely action to be taken where needed.

Performance management processes should be effective. They should include arrangements for progressing performance issues for staff that are not directly managed by the AP, such as catering staff. Examples of ineffective processes may include a manager identifying poor performance and then not responding appropriately if the staff member fails to improve, or where performance improvement processes are used inconsistently or lack a developmental focus.

Managers should be trained and competent in implementing development and improvement plans, with support from senior managers where needed. Senior managers should monitor the use of performance improvement notices and plans, to ensure that they are being used fairly and appropriately across APs. Monitoring should identify any disproportionate use of such processes for diverse groups.

Evidence:

performance management processes
discussion with head of public protection and/or area manager
discussions with staff

Judgement:

Where there are formal procedures to identify and address poor staff performance, which include arrangements for all staff, there should be a positive judgement.

Where there are no formal procedures to identify and address poor staff performance and/or these do not include arrangements for all staff, there should be a negative judgement.

Safety (Back to top)

3. The AP provides a safe, healthy and dignified environment for staff and residents.

3.1 Do AP systems and practices provide a safe, healthy and dignified environment for staff and residents?

a) Are effective arrangements in place to identify and support residents who are at risk of suicide or self-harm?

Guidance:

Arrangements should be in place at the earliest possible opportunity to reliably identify residents who are at risk of suicide or self-harm and to specify as far as possible the nature of those risks, including triggers. Assessments of the risk of suicide and self-harm should be completed as part of a resident’s induction and reviewed in response to any changes as part of regular keywork. Where risks are identified, there should be action to mitigate them, a clear plan of action if the risk is realised and arrangements for regular review. Staff should be confident and competent to carry out any immediate actions that may be necessary.

To effectively identify residents who are at risk of suicide and self-harm, and to specify the nature of those risks, there must be effective liaison and information-sharing between the AP designated staff and the probation practitioner. Any decisions about how to manage the risks of suicide and self-harm should be informed by multiple perspectives. This should include input from individuals who understand the person’s risk, current care and/or interventions that may help to support their issues.

All staff should be aware of each resident’s risk of suicide and self-harm and there should be plans in place to manage individual risks. These plans should include the appropriate responses to be taken which may include roused response, more frequent and/or irregular monitoring and proximity to the office. Arrangements should be individualised, with processes that allow staff to take a proactive, approach. Recording should be clear and current, both in case records and in other relevant documents, such as handover information and observations of changes in behaviour.

Evidence:

discussions with staff
discussions with residents
physical environment
relevant policies, procedures and guidance
observations of practice
safety and support assessments

Judgement:

Where arrangements enable staff to identify and manage the risks of suicide and self-harm, and take an individualised approach, and staff are competent and confident to support residents and keep them safe there should be a positive judgement.

Where arrangements do not enable staff to identify and manage the risks of suicide and self-harm, and/or to take an individualised approach, and/or staff are not competent and confident to support residents and keep them safe re should be a negative judgement.

b) Is prescribed medication, including controlled drugs, securely stored and effectively administered in accordance with a safe system of work?

Guidance:

There should be a safe system for the secure storage and administration of prescribed medication, including controlled drugs. This should enable medication to be stored at the correct temperatures, including refrigerating it where needed.

Medication should be administered by two members of staff who are trained in the safe administration of medication procedures. Both members of staff who administer the medication should check and record that the right medication is given to the right person, in the right dose, via the intended route and in the correct formulation. The time and date of administering should be recorded. Residents have the right to refuse medication. Where this has happened, it should also be recorded and dual signed.

A manager should regularly quality-check and audit the storage and administration of medication processes.

Where appropriate, and based on risk assessment, residents may be able to manage their own over the counter or prescription medications. There should be written guidance for this and staff should be confident and competent in following it. Residents should be required to sign a contract if these arrangements apply. This should be monitored, including in response to any change in a resident’s behaviour or any incidents of concern.

Evidence:

discussions with staff
discussions with residents
physical environment for the storage of medication
medication policies, procedures and guidance
observations of medication administration
records of the quality assurance and audits of medication administration

Judgement:

Where there are safe and secure arrangements for storing and administering medication, supported by appropriately trained staff and quality-assured and audited, there should be a positive judgement.

Where there are unsafe and/or unsecure arrangements for storing and administering medication, and/or arrangements are not supported by appropriately trained staff and quality-assured and audited, there should be a positive judgement.

c) Do staff take appropriate action where there are safeguarding concerns about residents?

Guidance:

Staff should be able to define what safeguarding concerns regarding residents look like and should be enabled, confident and competent to address these. Staff should be considering and taking relevant action in relation to these safeguarding concerns right from the point when a resident is allocated to the AP. The AP’s culture should be one of proactively promoting safeguarding and each AP should consider its own ability to reduce risk within its environment. Staff should be supported in taking action to address safeguarding concerns regarding residents.

Examples include:

helping residents to seek emergency medical attention when they are ill or injured
referring residents to mental health services in times of crisis or when staff have concerns about their mental health and emotional wellbeing
making GP appointments and supporting attendance at them when residents are ill/withdrawing from alcohol or drugs
taking action where the resident is deemed to be a vulnerable adult and there is evidence of exploitation from either other residents or members of the public.

Evidence:

discussions with staff
discussions with residents
physical environment
safeguarding policies, procedures and guidance
observations during inspection fieldwork
handover records
case inspections

Judgement:

Where staff are confident and competent and provided with support to take action when there are safeguarding concerns regarding residents, there should be a positive judgement.

Where staff are not confident and competent and/or are not provided with support to take action when there are safeguarding concerns regarding residents, there should be a negative judgement.

d) Are appropriate arrangements for managing behaviour implemented and fully understood by residents?

Guidance:

Clear and reasonable expectations of behaviour should be set out in a behaviour management policy. This should be accessible to all residents and publicised. It should include routes for escalation, consequences, warnings and sanctions. The policy should be consistently implemented from the point of a resident’s arrival. Residents’ behaviour management plans should be in place where needed and should be individualised and responsive to each resident. Residents should understand how the behaviour management arrangements apply to them.

Behaviour management arrangements should be underpinned by positive relationships between staff and residents. Residents should be encouraged to contribute to policies on acceptable behaviour and take ownership of the living space. It will also help them to understand what to expect. .

Staff and residents should be able to fully and easily describe the expectations about residents’ behaviour and how they are maintained. Policies on behaviour should be consistently implemented and reviewed with input from residents.

On-call arrangements should support staff in implementing behaviour management arrangements. Implementation of behaviour management arrangements should be recorded appropriately and included as part of handovers.

Evidence:

discussions with staff
discussions with residents
resident meetings/surveys
behaviour management policies, procedures and guidance
observation of implementing behaviour management arrangements
records of implementing behaviour management arrangements

Judgement:

Where behaviour management arrangements are appropriate, understood by residents, consistently implemented, and reviewed regularly, including with contributions from residents, there should be a positive judgement.

Where behaviour management arrangements are inappropriate, and/or not understood by residents and/or not consistently implemented, and are not reviewed regularly, including with contributions from residents, there should be a negative judgement.

e) Are there sufficient and appropriate observations of residents’ behaviour?

Guidance:

At any time during a stay in an AP, a resident may feel vulnerable or demonstrate behaviours that cause concern. Observation and recording of residents’ behaviour is therefore crucial. Observations should be tailored to an individual’s needs. Whatever the type of observation, this should be recorded appropriately in order for it to sufficient. Records should be subject to regular quality assurance and audit processes.

The Approved Premises SaSP and CARE User Guide V.2.0 (November 2024) sets out His Majesty’s Prisons and Probation Service’s requirements for observations of a resident’s behaviour. It describes two types of observations: welfare checks and meaningful conversations. Welfare checks are defined as checks to which each resident has responded with a verbal response or other signal such as a ‘thumbs up’. Staff must be able to see the person and be satisfied with the response received. Meaningful conversations can be an informal conversation about any topic, which don’t have to be “how are you feeling?” It is a discussion that is long enough to assess the person’s mood and any change in their presentation. These conversations will happen naturally throughout the day when people are getting medication, signing in or out, or during rehabilitative activities. When there are concerns about a resident, it may be appropriate to have a more formal, in-depth conversation away from communal areas and other people in AP.

Sufficient and appropriate recorded observations of a resident’s behaviour are where an individualised approach is taken for each resident, consisting of a minimum of four welfare checks each day for each resident and a minimum of two meaningful conversations with each resident.

Evidence:

discussions with staff
discussions with residents
resident meetings/surveys
handover records
case inspection
policies, procedures and guidance for observations

Judgement:

Where there are recorded observations of residents, and these are individualised and meet the specified minimum requirements, there should be a positive judgement.

Where observations of residents are not recorded and/or are not individualised and/or do not meet the specified minimum requirements, there should be a negative judgement.

3.2 Do the AP’s facilities provide a safe, healthy and dignified environment for staff and residents?

a) Are residents provided with a clean, decent and well-maintained bedroom?

Guidance:

Residents should all be provided with a room that is clean, decent and well maintained from the point of their arrival at the AP. There should be no outstanding repairs. To be fully functioning, the room should contain, as a minimum, a bed with a clean mattress and bed linen, a wardrobe and a sink with hot and cold water. Rooms are likely to be basic but should be clean and welcoming, free from mould and warm enough. Residents should be encouraged to take care of their rooms and should be able to personalise their space appropriately.

Evidence:

discussions with staff
discussions with residents
resident meetings/surveys
direct observations of bedrooms
repair reports and records

Judgement:

Where residents are provided on arrival with a room that is fully functioning, clean and welcoming and that they can personalise appropriately, there should be a positive judgement.

Where residents are provided on arrival with a room that is not fully functioning, clean and welcoming and/or that they cannot personalise appropriately, there should be a negative judgement.

b) Are adaptations made to bedrooms to manage risk where appropriate?

Guidance:

There should be a clear policy that sets out what sort of reasonable adaptations can be made to bedrooms to manage risk when required. This should include action to address immediate risk, as well as more planned adaptations. Staff should understand the policy. Where appropriate, staff and the resident concerned should constructively discuss the options available and the specific rationale for adaptations, and these should be understood by the resident. The policy should set out that single occupancy is prioritised for residents on the basis of risk and need and practice should follow this.

Examples of where adaptations may need to be made include to manage the risks posed by residents who have committed arson or where the environment poses a risk to a resident, for example by providing ligature points. Specific medical needs may also require some adaptation; for example, a resident at risk of seizures should be placed in a room close to where members of staff are on duty.

Staff should be proactive in consistently adapting bedrooms to manage risk where needed.

Evidence:

discussions with staff
discussions with residents
resident meetings/surveys
building/facilities management policy
direct observation of the physical environment

Judgement:

Where there is a proactive and consistent approach, underpinned by policy and understood by staff, to making adaptations to bedrooms to manage risk, there should be a positive judgement.

Where there is not a proactive and consistent approach, underpinned by policy and understood by staff, to making adaptations to bedrooms to manage risk, there should be a negative judgement.

c) Are residents provided with a clean, decent and well-maintained wider environment?

Guidance:

The residents’ physical environment should be clean, decent and well maintained from the point of their arrival at the AP. There should be no outstanding major repairs. The environment is likely to be basic but should be welcoming, free from mould and warm enough.

There should be enough spaces to enable residents to move away from others if they choose but also to socialise and participate in activities. The dining areas should be large enough for mealtimes to be sociable but should also provide residents with the opportunity to eat alone or in small groups if that is their preference. There should be risk-assessed facilities to enable residents to cook their own meals where appropriate. Residents should be encouraged to take care of their environment.

If there are outside spaces, these should be safe and well maintained.

Evidence:

discussions with staff
discussions with residents
resident meetings/surveys
direct observation of the physical environment
repair reports and records

Judgement:

Where the AP’s physical environment is clean, welcoming, warm and well maintained, and allows residents flexibility in terms of how they spend their time in the AP, there should be a positive judgement.

Where the AP’s physical environment is not clean, welcoming, warm and well maintained, and/or does not allow residents flexibility in terms of how they spend their time in the AP, there should be a negative judgement.

d) Are there clean, decent and well-maintained shower and toilet facilities?

Guidance:

Shower and toilet facilities should be clean, decent and well maintained at all times. Shower and toilet facilities are likely to be basic but should be clean, free from mould and warm enough, with free-flowing water systems with no blockages and with hot and cold water. There should be shower and toilet facilities suitable for residents who have a physical (mobility, dexterity) or sensory impairment.

There should be no outstanding major repairs. When repairs are needed, these should be dealt with efficiently. Residents should be encouraged to take care of their facilities.

There should be sufficient shower and toilet facilities to ensure that residents are not left waiting for unreasonable periods to use them.

Separate toilet facilities should be provided for staff.

Evidence:

discussions with staff
discussions with residents
resident meetings/surveys
direct observation of the physical environment
repair reports and records

Judgement:

Where shower and toilet facilities are clean, decent and well maintained, with minimum ratios met and separate staff facilities provided, there should be a positive judgement.

Where shower and toilet facilities are not clean, decent and well-maintained, minimum ratios are not met and separate staff facilities are not provided, there should be a negative judgement.

e) Is security equipment appropriately used, including to capture and review incidents?

Guidance:

There should be an appropriate policy and guidance in place that covers the use of security equipment. CCTV should be placed in appropriate areas to promote safety and security while maintaining privacy. CCTV should work reliably, and there should be clear protocols followed in terms of the storage and use of CCTV to capture and review incidents. Under usual circumstances, residents should have total privacy in their bedrooms and when using the toilet and washing facilities. There may be circumstances when specific safeguarding concerns are identified that require a different arrangement.

The use of personal alarms should be governed by an appropriate policy and guidance. Personal alarms should work effectively and staff should be confident and competent in responding to personal alarms.

Efforts should be made to ensure that the use of security equipment does not unduly damage staff’s ability to build effective relationships with residents.

Evidence:

discussions with staff
discussions with residents
resident meetings/surveys
policy and guidance in relation to the use of security equipment
direct observation of the use of security equipment
records relating to the use of security equipment

Judgement:

Where security equipment is appropriately placed and used, with its use regularly reviewed, including the impact on relationships with residents, there should be a positive judgement.

Where security equipment is inappropriately placed and/or used, and/or its use not regularly reviewed, including the impact on relationships with residents, there should be a negative judgement.

Public protection (Back to top)

4. The AP effectively protects the public

4.1 Does the AP deliver public protection arrangements effectively?

a) Does the AP attend and contribute to key multi-agency risk management forums including MAPPA?

Guidance:

APs play a vital role in managing risk. As such, they should be fully integrated into the key multi-agency risk management forums. As a minimum, this will consist of local Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA), which is where probation, police, prison and other agencies work together locally to manage offenders who pose a higher risk of harm to others. Level 1 is ordinary agency management, where the risks posed by the offender can be managed by the agency responsible for the supervision or case management of the offender. This compares with Levels 2 and 3, which require active multi-agency management.

AP staff should attend and participate at every MAPPA meeting. They should be at the appropriate level of seniority, which for Level 3 should include the AP manager. It can be helpful for keyworkers to attend too, as they are likely to have the most knowledge of individual residents. Relevant actions and risk management arrangements from MAPPA should be actioned swiftly. For example, additional restrictions may be added to some residents’ licence conditions, such as day-time curfews and sign-in times at various points in the day. All MAPPA agencies should consider the AP’s role in managing risk as part of risk management planning. This will help to make the most of what APs can offer.

Where an offender is being managed out of area, there should be a full exchange of information between the AP and the MAPPA responsible for managing the offender. In particular, the AP should ensure that information is exchanged in a timely manner with the MAPPA.

Outside of MAPPA meetings, there should be effective local links with the police at both a strategic and an operational level. For example, police community support officers should visit the AP.

Evidence:

policy in relation to MAPPA arrangements
policy in relation to multi-agency risk management forums
MAPPA minutes
minutes of multi-agency risk management forums
handover information
case inspection

Judgement:

Where the AP is fully integrated into key multi-agency risk management forums, including MAPPA practice locally, and actively participates in and swiftly actions decisions, there should be a positive judgement.

Where the AP is not fully integrated into key multi-agency risk management forums, including MAPPA practice locally, and/or does not actively participate in and swiftly action decisions, there should be a negative judgement.

b) Does the AP have appropriate oversight and influence in the allocation of residents to the AP?

Guidance:

The AP central referral unit (CRU) allocates individuals to an AP. The AP should review the pre-arrival information that it receives and ensure that staff take this into account, where relevant, when preparing an individualised plan for the arrival of a new resident. Where an AP reviews the pre-arrival information and believes that it cannot meet the needs of or manage the risk of the resident, then it should immediately inform the CRU and attempt to appeal the decision to place the resident at that particular AP. Examples include where a resident has a disability that the AP cannot accommodate, or where an individual poses a significant specific risk to other specific named individuals already at the AP.

Evidence:

case inspection
pre arrival information
policy and procedure relating to allocation
discussions with staff

Judgement:

Where the AP considers pre-arrival information and takes appropriate action where relevant to influence placement decisions, there should be a positive judgement.

Where the AP does not consider pre-arrival information and does not take appropriate action where relevant to influence placement decisions, there should be a negative judgement.

c) Are appropriate enforcement decisions made and sufficiently recorded?

Guidance:

APs should manage the placement of each resident in a way that reduces the risks of reoffending and harm to the public, as well as harm to residents. It should be made clear to residents upon arrival what behaviour or situations would lead to enforcement action being taken. Residents should sign to agree that they understand.

Enforcement decisions should be timely, proportionate and defensible to underpin effective risk management and the rehabilitation of individuals. APs should manage their internal warning and sanction system in a way that ensures that enforcement is appropriate and justified. They should make sure enforcement does not take place prematurely because of a series of minor transgressions of behavioural expectations. For example, a failure to carry out assigned chores in the AP should not lead to enforcement until there is a clear, persistent pattern of failure to comply and all options have been pursued to bring about compliance. Balanced against this, management of the resident group requires that residents are treated fairly and that a consistent approach is taken at all times.

Enforcement and recall decisions should be made where possible with the input of the probation practitioner from the probation delivery unit (PDU). There should be appropriate and reliable arrangements for out-of-hours recall. Where enforcement or recall occur, this should be recorded in line with national and local requirements.

Evidence:

case inspection
behaviour management policy
out-of-hours arrangements
discussions with staff
discussion with residents

Judgement:

Where enforcement decisions, including recall, are appropriately made and recorded, there should be a positive judgement.

Where enforcement decisions, including recall, are not appropriately made and/or recorded, there should be a negative judgement.

d) Do staff take appropriate action where there are safeguarding concerns about children and vulnerable adults?

Guidance:

Staff should be able to define what safeguarding concerns in relation to children and vulnerable adults look like. They should be enabled, confident and competent to address these. There should be a proactive staff culture of awareness and action in relation to safeguarding children and vulnerable adults. This includes making referrals to adult social care when risky situations are observed, for example if a resident is having contact with children/people with children.

Staff should be supported in taking action to address safeguarding concerns in relation to children and vulnerable adults.

discussions with staff
discussions with residents
safeguarding policies, procedures and guidance
observations during inspection fieldwork
handover records
case inspections

Judgement:

Where staff are confident and competent, and supported to take action when there are safeguarding concerns in relation to children and vulnerable adults, there should be a positive judgement.

Where staff are not confident and competent, and/or are not supported to take action when there are safeguarding concerns in relation to children and vulnerable adults, there should be a negative judgement.

e) Are the required monitoring and sharing of information arrangements in place with the PDU to manage risk sufficiently?

Guidance:

There should be information-sharing protocols and effective liaison arrangements in place with PDUs. The AP should have active two-way communication with each resident’s probation practitioner, which should extend to joint working arrangements, where appropriate. This should include the timely sharing of information, such as the results of drug and alcohol testing.

Quality communication between the AP and the probation practitioner is essential. Information that would require a resident’s risk assessment to be changed must be passed to the probation practitioner immediately. In addition, AP staff should bear in mind that residents’ case records in nDelius can be read and used by staff outside the AP, so it is essential that they are kept up to date. Information should be user friendly. Time and workload may not allow data to be entered as soon as an event happens, but records should be updated as soon as possible afterwards, while events are fresh in the memory.

Evidence:

case inspection
information-sharing protocol
discussions with staff
discussion with residents

Judgement:

Where there is active two-way communication between the AP and probation practitioners, supported by a clear and implemented information-sharing protocol, there should be a positive judgement.

Where there is not active two-way communication between the AP and probation practitioners and/or this is not supported by a clear and implemented information-sharing protocol, there should be a negative judgement.

f) Are the required monitoring and sharing of information arrangements in place with other agencies to manage risk sufficiently?

Guidance:

For APs to be successful in protecting the public, joint work with local organisations is essential. Multi-agency information-sharing arrangements, underpinned by clear and implemented protocols, should be in place with, as a minimum, the police, MAPPA, accommodation, health and substance misuse services. APs’ information on the behaviour of residents, room searches, alcohol and drug use, forming new relationships and progress on making positive changes in residents’ lives can be of great value to police public protection units. Information-sharing protocols and arrangements should ensure that this can be appropriately shared.

Where other local agencies, such as charities, faith groups and volunteer groups, are involved in working with residents, there is not likely to be the same information-sharing protocols. However, work with these agencies should be supported by information-sharing arrangements with the AP that ensure both the AP and the other agencies are able to manage risk effectively.

Evidence:

information-sharing protocols
discussions with staff
discussions with residents
handover records
case inspections

Judgement:

Where there are effective monitoring and information sharing arrangements in place with other agencies to effectively manage risk there should be a positive judgement.

Where monitoring and information sharing arrangements with other agencies to effectively manage risk are not in place there should be a negative judgement.

g) Are shift handovers comprehensive and supported by written records that appropriately capture risk management and safeguarding information?

Guidance:

Shift handovers should be completed in person by a member of staff finishing their shift to all staff at the start of their shift. Where the AP manager is on shift, they should attend the handover. Specific dedicated time should be in place to enable handovers to cover the necessary information. Every resident should be discussed at the handover and as a minimum the handover should cover risk and safeguarding issues and any building and facilities issues. Where there are actions to be undertaken by the incoming shift, these should be explained and handed over.

The written handover records should, as a minimum, include risk or safeguarding issues and associated actions and any building and facilities issues and associated actions.

Evidence:

handover records
discussions with staff
observation of handovers

Judgement:

Where shift handovers comprehensively cover risk and safeguarding information, are appropriately attended and are supported by written records, there should be a positive judgement.

Where shift handovers do not comprehensively cover risk and safeguarding information, and/or are not appropriately attended and/or are not supported by written records, there should be a negative judgement.

h) Is drug and alcohol testing undertaken appropriately in relation to risk or safeguarding concerns?

Guidance:

APs can play a major part in achieving a successful outcome in enabling offenders to stop using illegal drugs and alcohol. APs must have a clear written policy that supports the efforts of AP staff and probation practitioners to maintain a drugs and alcohol-free environment. Drug and alcohol testing should be part of a package of individualised risk management arrangements.

APs must ensure that:

provision is in place to carry out tests, if this is not already the case
treatment can be accessed for those who test positive
sanctions are clear for those who test positive and refuse treatment, or who continue to test positive over time.

Arrangements should be in place for confirmatory testing in a laboratory for when results are disputed.

Drug testing

Residents should be selected carefully for testing, based on a history of substance misuse or on reasonable suspicion. APs must test for heroin and cocaine/crack cocaine as a minimum.

Testing known drug users on arrival or when they are suspected of renewed drug use is acceptable.

Random testing of offenders who have a previous history of drug use is acceptable. Testing on reasonable suspicion might include testing an offender where drug paraphernalia have been found in their room. Testing all residents routinely is not consistent with risk management and should be avoided.

There may be occasions when an offender’s drug use is not known, is denied, or has just started, or where there are suspicions of drug use that cannot be linked to individuals (such as where drug-taking paraphernalia are found on the premises). It is important therefore that the AP rules provide for the testing of any resident, on reasonable suspicion and at the discretion of staff, and that this is explained to the offender when he or she signs the rules. Accepting this regime is a condition of AP residence. APs should, however, be mindful that for residents with no history of drug use, and where there are no reasonable suspicions, this might constitute an infringement of Article 8 of the European Convention (the right to freedom from interference with his/her physical integrity), even if the resident has signed the AP rules.

Alcohol testing

Alcohol testing will usually apply where a resident’s licence prohibits alcohol consumption, where alcohol is a known factor in previous offending, or where there is a likelihood of disorder.

This must be on reasonable suspicion and where there is concern about possible outcomes such as disorder in the AP. Residents with a previous history of alcohol-related offending can be tested randomly.

Evidence:

discussions with staff
discussion with residents
observations of practice
drug and alcohol testing policy
case inspections
records of drug and alcohol testing

Judgement:

Where arrangements for drug and alcohol testing are undertaken appropriately in relation to risk or safeguarding concerns, there should be a positive judgement.

Where arrangements for drug and alcohol testing are not undertaken appropriately in relation to risk or safeguarding concerns, there should be a negative judgement.

Rehabilitation (Back to top)

5. The AP delivers rehabilitative activity to reduce reoffending.

5.1 Does the AP deliver rehabilitative activity to reduce reoffending?

a)Are there effective relationships and activity with local services to enable effective rehabilitation?

Guidance:

Ensuring that key relationships with other agencies are working well is an essential part of delivering effective rehabilitation. AP staff should have effective relationships with local services, and work with them. This includes the AP manager engaging with their equivalents to ensure that working arrangements including the exchange of information are effective. In practice, keyworkers should follow key agreements, protocols, and referral or moving on pathways to ensure that information is exchanged, and referrals dealt with appropriately.

The AP should be involved in joint initiatives with key partners to strengthen joint and single agency practice to improve rehabilitation. For example, APs may be involved in local safeguarding arrangements for people on probation, with engagement at relevant subgroups, such as training and effectiveness.

APs should nurture other key relationships, including with adult social care services, including multi-agency safeguarding hubs or their equivalent; multi-agency risk assessment conferences; local prison governors; and forensic mental health services. It will be important to have good working relationships with local authority and independent housing providers over safe and timely accommodation. Other relationships and activity may be with local providers of education, training and employment, who may be able to assist with resources for interviews or provide work trials and placements.

Evidence:

case inspections
discussions with staff
discussions with residents
local protocols meeting minutes

Judgement:

Where effective relationships are in place and supported by activity to ensure local services enable effective rehabilitation, there should be a positive judgement.

Where effective relationships are not in place and/or are not supported by activity to ensure local services enable effective rehabilitation, there should be a negative judgement.

b) Are rehabilitative activities sufficient, planned and delivered to support the reintegration of residents into the community?

Guidance:

APs should provide a range of interventions and constructive activities to support residents to reintegrate into the community. There should be arrangements to ensure that all residents are engaged in interventions and other constructive activities to the nationally or locally required level. Residents’ EDI needs should be supported to fully enable them to participate. Activities should be accessible, including around working hours and curfews. They should be planned in advance and publicised, with each resident having an agreed weekly plan of scheduled activities.

Rehabilitative activities should be driven by the needs of residents. APs should publish a schedule of activities for the week. There may be practical sessions on education, training and employment, on finding move-on accommodation and on addressing drug and alcohol issues or life skills and practical skills, such as cooking, budgeting and maintaining tenancies. Rehabilitative activities should help residents to develop confidence in working in a learning environment with others.

Activities should be sufficiently resourced. This means that they should be safely staffed and not be cancelled because of staff being required for other duties and that any materials required should be provided. Examples include skills learning, cognitive behavioural work and preparation for move-on. AP staff should provide motivational input and reinforcement work to support any residents engaged in accredited programmes.

Evidence:

discussions with staff
discussions with residents
case inspections
observation during inspection
timetables/schedules of activities offered

Judgement:

Where rehabilitative activities are accessible, sufficiently resourced and meet residents’ individual needs, there should be a positive judgement.

Where rehabilitative activities are inaccessible, and/or insufficiently resourced and/or do not meet residents’ individual needs, there should be a negative judgement.

c) Are rehabilitative activities aligned with the work being delivered by the PDU?

Guidance:

Each resident should be assigned a staff member in the AP as their keyworker. An important element of the keyworker role is to liaise with the resident’s PDU probation practitioner. This should begin before the resident arrives and be consolidated during the induction phase at the start of the resident’s stay. Keyworkers should be fully aware of what is detailed in an individual’s sentence plan and what their role as keyworker is in delivering any of that or in liaising with the probation practitioner. All rehabilitative activities should be reviewed in collaboration with the probation practitioner. Work delivered by the keyworker and work delivered by the probation practitioner should be aligned – not contradictory or duplicating.

Evidence:

discussions with staff
discussions with residents
case inspections
observation during inspection

Judgement:

Where rehabilitative activities are effectively aligned with the work being delivered by the PDU, there should be a positive judgement.

Where rehabilitative activities are not effectively aligned with the work being delivered by the PDU, there should be a negative judgement.

d) Do residents receive a suitable and timely induction into the AP?

Guidance:

The aim of an effective induction is that each new arrival should have full knowledge about what is expected of them, and should understand how to comply, how to maximise the benefits of their time at the AP and how to resolve any concerns they may have. Induction should promote a positive period of residence. Induction materials should meet the needs of all residents and be delivered sensitively.

The induction should begin as soon as practically possible. There should be an induction process and checklist that is followed by all staff delivering induction. As a minimum, inductions should cover:

AP rules – the resident must sign to confirm that that they understand these
curfew times, signing-in requirements and the consequences of breaking these
health and safety within the AP, including fire procedures
a tour of the AP
an assessment of self-harm issues, including notification of overdose risks linked to reduced tolerance to substances
an assessment of other factors that may make the resident vulnerable in any way
EDI needs and how to meet them
where applicable, an explanation of the requirements of the Sex Offenders Act 1997
an explanation of the regime, such as mealtimes and interventions
financial arrangements, including applying for benefits, and maintenance charges and how they are collected
the keyworker system and the name of the allocated keyworker
the complaints procedure
safekeeping of personal property
details of resident’s next of kin.

Induction processes should recognise that residents may struggle to take on board all of the detail given to them in this first meeting. It is therefore helpful if residents are given a copy of key documents. The initial induction meeting should be reinforced by a follow-up meeting with a nominated keyworker within the first week of admission. These meetings should help residents to adapt and settle into the regime of the AP and provide clarity about what is expected of them.

Evidence:

discussions with staff
discussions with residents
case inspections
observation during inspection
induction policy and process and supporting documents

Judgement:

Where induction is timely, covers all of the minimum areas listed above and is accessible to all residents, there should be a positive judgement.

Where induction is not timely and/or does not cover all of the minimum areas listed above and/or is not accessible to all residents, there should be a negative judgement.

e) Are sufficient planning arrangements in place before residents arrive?

Guidance:

For all residents arriving at the AP there should be advance planning. This should include contact between the AP and resident before they arrive, which addresses any specific needs or considerations. The AP should actively consider and take the necessary action to ensure that these needs will be met from the point of arrival. Each resident should be provided with information about the AP. For PIPE APs, this should enable potential residents to agree to the placement.

For residents on licence, the AP should be provided with a full risk assessment, risk management plan, supervision plan and any other relevant information. This should state the purpose of the placement, the likely length of stay, the intended move-on plan, and the role that AP staff will play in delivering the objectives of supervision.

For residents on bail, the AP should be provided with a full risk assessment, risk management plan, an indication from the court of the purpose of the placement, the likely length of stay, the intended move-on plan, and the assessments/interventions that AP staff are expected to undertake during the bail period.

Evidence:

discussions with staff
discussions with residents
case inspections
observation during inspection
pre-arrival policy and process and supporting documents

Judgement:

Where planning arrangements are timely, individualised and supported by appropriate risk assessment and management, there should be a positive judgement.

Where planning arrangements are not timely, individualised and supported by appropriate risk assessment and management, there should be a negative judgement.

f) Do relationships between staff and residents support rehabilitative work?

Guidance:

APs should have a core formal programme that enables residents to improve their skills and prepare them for moving on. This rehabilitative work should be maximised by positive relationships between staff and residents. The AP setting provides many opportunities to build these relationships in formal ways through the delivery of rehabilitative work, such as keywork sessions, and in less formal ways in the residential setting. Staff should capitalise on all opportunities, for example by showing an interest in residents, motivating them and encouraging their progress. Staff should be trained and active in their use of pro-social modelling and motivational techniques in order to promote residents’ engagement.

Evidence:

discussions with residents
discussions with staff
case inspections
observation during inspection
pre-arrival policy and process and supporting documents

Judgement:

Where relationships between residents and staff support effective rehabilitative work, there should be a positive judgement.

Where relationships between residents and staff do not support effective rehabilitative work, there should be a negative judgement.

g) Is keywork delivered effectively, with appropriate referrals and signposting for residents to relevant services to support reintegration into the community?

Guidance:

Keywork sessions should take place regularly, be planned in advance, and have clear aims and purpose, ideally agreed with the resident. Keywork sessions should complement the sentence plan. It should not repeat or contradict the sentence plan or any work being undertaken by the probation practitioner or other agencies. Keywork sessions can, however, be used to reinforce or follow up on work delivered by the probation practitioner where it is appropriate and beneficial to do so.

Keywork sessions should be informed by identified risks, needs and strengths and work delivered in keywork sessions should build on these. Effective keywork should lead to referrals and signposting, where appropriate, to services that will meet the individual’s needs, build on their strengths and help to manage their risks. Areas may include accommodation, health services, education, training and employment, and alcohol and substance misuse services.

Keywork sessions should be recorded, including progress achieved and decisions made.

Evidence:

discussions with residents
discussions with staff
case inspections
observation during inspection
key working policy

Judgement:

Where keywork is planned, individualised and complements the work of the sentence plan, in line with the resident’s risks, needs and strengths, including signposting and referrals, there should be a positive judgement.

Where keywork is not planned, individualised and/or does not complement the work of the sentence plan, in line with the resident’s risks, needs and strengths, including signposting and referrals, there should be a negative judgement.

h) Are sufficient arrangements in place to support residents to prepare for moving on from the AP?

Guidance:

APs offer a significant level of contact, supervision and support, with residents seen on a daily basis. Residents are encouraged to make full use of the advice, support and control and supervision offered during their time in the AP. However, when residents move on from an AP, the loss of this contact, supervision and support can leave a significant gap.

Sufficient arrangements to enable residents to prepare for moving must include timely referrals to the right agencies to meet their individual needs. These may be criminal justice services or mainstream or specialist agencies or providers. Ideally there will be sufficient time before the resident moves on for these agencies to make contact and build up a relationship. Accommodation is particularly and immediately important and it is not sufficient for an individual to have to present as homeless on the day of their moving on.

Residents should be fully involved in their moving on arrangements. All work delivered by the AP should align with the plans and activities being driven by the probation practitioner. Move on should be considered at the earliest possible opportunity, ideally from the point at which a resident begins their stay in an AP. This is particularly important for residents with short stays, where time is at a premium.

Evidence:

discussions with residents
discussions with staff
case inspections
observation during inspection
moving on protocols and arrangements with providers

Judgement:

Where arrangements are in place to support residents moving on that are individualised, timely and supported by effective relationship-building with providers, there should be a positive judgement.

Where arrangements are in place to support residents moving on that are not individualised, timely and/or supported by effective relationship-building with providers, there should be a negative judgement.

i) Are residents engaged in appropriate activities to meet their needs and build on their strengths?

Guidance:

Appropriate activities are purposeful, structured activities that are a part of everyday AP life. Examples include catering, everyday maintenance tasks and cleaning. Involving residents in these tasks gives them opportunities to feel part of the regime and develop practical and life skills. Such activities also offer an opportunity to assess the readiness of residents for independent living. All residents should engage in activities that are appropriate, both in terms of the type and amount, to meet their individual needs and build on their strengths.

Residents’ progress through purposeful activity should be reviewed. Requiring residents to complete activities that are no longer likely to be helpful is counter-productive; residents may need to move from one activity to another. Some residents may need to re-start particular activities if they have failed to engage effectively with them.

Evidence:

discussions with residents
discussions with staff
case inspections
observation during inspection
weekly schedules of activities

Judgement:

Where residents are engaged in purposeful, structured activities appropriate to their individual needs and strengths, there should be a positive judgement. Where residents are not engaged in purposeful, structured activities or these are not appropriate to their individual needs and strengths, there should be a negative judgement.

Cookies on HM Inspectorate of Probation

Table of contents

Approved premises inspection: Rules and guidance

Introduction (Back to top)

Leadership and governance (Back to top)

Staffing (Back to top)

Safety (Back to top)

Public protection (Back to top)

Rehabilitation (Back to top)