Dynamic inspection of public protection. Guidance manual

Published:

2 October 2025

V1.0 – Published 02 October 2025

1. Statement of purpose and values (Back to top)

1.1. Statement of purpose (Back to top)

His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Probation is the independent inspector of probation and youth justice services in England and Wales. We set the standards that shine a light on the quality and impact of these services. Our inspections, reviews, research and effective practice products provide authoritative and evidence-based judgements and guidance. We use our voice to drive system change, with a focus on inclusion and diversity. Our scrutiny leads to improved outcomes for individuals and communities.

1.2. Values (Back to top)

Influential

We care about making a positive impact on the organisations we inspect and the individuals they work with.

Independent

We ensure that the judgements we make are supported by evidence, are fair, and impartial.

Professional

We work in a respectful, transparent, professional way, listening to and sharing learning internally and externally.

Inclusive

We will work as ‘one HM Inspectorate of Probation’, valuing and respecting each other’s viewpoint and skills, so that everyone feels a part of what we do.

Diverse

We are passionate about diversity and the value that comes through giving everyone a voice in our inspections and the chance to succeed in our organisation.

1.3. Our mandate (Back to top)

HM Chief Inspector of Probation’s responsibilities are set out in the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 (Section 7), as amended by the Offender Management Act 2007, Section 12(3)(a). This requires the Chief Inspector to inspect (Section 1) and report to the Secretary of State (Section 3) on the arrangements for the provision of probation services.

Under the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 (Section 7(6)), the Chief Inspector is also required to inspect and report on youth justice services, established under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (Section 39), and bodies acting on their behalf.

We are the independent source of fair comment for ministers and the public on the effectiveness of the work of probation and youth justice providers.

We test the effectiveness of the provision and provide assurance. Critically, we make recommendations to identify and disseminate effective practice, challenge poor performance and encourage improvement. Our reports provide evidence-based intelligence for commissioners and providers. They are designed to play a key part in facilitating and encouraging improvement in effective service delivery.

1.4. Confidentiality (Back to top)

In one-to-one and group meetings and case inspection interviews with practitioners, we provide an assurance that information shared will only be used in an aggregated form and will not identify individuals, unless immediate action is needed to protect them or someone else from harm.

We use all available evidence to help us make inspection judgements. We will anonymise information before including it in any publications, but information is not treated as confidential. This extends to all information provided to us in writing or verbally by staff and leaders working for the inspected body or under contract to that organisation. Similarly, information provided to us by stakeholders invited to contribute to the inspection is not treated as confidential.

1.5 Expectations of inspection staff (Back to top)

We expect all inspection staff to uphold the highest professional standards. In meeting this expectation, inspection staff will:

be courteous and professional, treating staff from inspected bodies with respect
uphold the inspectorate’s values in all that they do
approach inspections with integrity and evaluate evidence objectively
work with inspected bodies to minimise disruption, stress and bureaucracy as far as is reasonably practicable
act on concerns about the safety of staff or people on probation promptly
declare any conflicts of interest, whether actual or perceived, prior to undertaking work with an inspected body.

1.6 Expectations of inspected bodies (Back to top)

We expect inspected bodies to be open and transparent, to maintain a positive working relationship with inspectors and inspection support staff, and to uphold the highest professional standards. In meeting this expectation, providers should:

be courteous and professional, treating our staff with respect
approach the inspection with integrity and be open, transparent and honest. This includes providing evidence – or access to evidence – that will enable the inspector to report honestly, fairly and reliably about their provision. It means not withholding or concealing evidence, or providing false, misleading, inaccurate, or incomplete information
work with inspectors to take all reasonable steps to minimise disruption, stress and bureaucracy
ensure the safety of inspectors while on their premises
maintain constructive professional dialogue with the lead inspector and the inspection team
bring any concerns about the inspection to the attention of the lead inspector promptly.

2. Overview of dynamic inspection of public protection (DIPP) (Back to top)

2.1. Introduction (Back to top)

Public protection is the strategic and operational effort to prevent harm to the public by managing the risks posed by individuals under probation supervision. This includes assessing risk accurately, engaging with the person on probation to deliver constructive interventions, implementing robust risk management plans, ensuring compliance with court orders and licences, and working collaboratively with other agencies (e.g. police and social services) to reduce the likelihood of reoffending and harm.

Understanding and, where necessary, mitigating the risk of harm people on probation can represent to the public is one of the key foundation stones of probation practice. Our inspections have shown that the Probation Service is now making some positive progress in terms of its work on engaging with people on probation and helping them on the path to desistance; but the work on public protection has not been strong enough in any Probation Delivery Unit (PDU) inspected in recent years.

Because of these concerns about the consistent poor quality of work being delivered by the Probation Service around public protection, its impact on public confidence and the risk of harm to future victims, we have paused our core probation inspection programme. We are delivering a short series of focused inspections of public protection work, starting in October 2025. Our aim in changing approach is to seek to better understand why we are seeing such consistent deficits and seek to support the Probation Service to improve. We also hope to highlight effective practice that may assist a service which has been under significant pressure, and faced constant change, for more than a decade.

Key elements of the dynamic inspection of public protection include:

inspecting against a set of inspection questions, focusing on public protection
inspecting public protection in casework and interviewing probation practitioners
introducing new public protection organisational inspection questions and case assessment rules and guidance
a case sample which includes a minimum of five cases from each PDU in the region
two weeks of fieldwork in all probation regions with casework being inspected remotely in the first week and meetings being held on-site with key staff, leaders and stakeholders in the second week
publishing a report, including qualitative findings and inspection case data in each region, but not rating the work
delivering follow-up workshops to senior leaders and probation managers in each region, to assist improvement.

2.2. Inspection questions for DIPP (Back to top)

Our inspection questions are based on a set of principles that we know good probation services should meet to deliver high-quality probation practice. They are based on established models and frameworks, and are grounded in evidence, learning and experience. Our research shows a clear correlation between supervision that meets our quality standards and significantly better outcomes for people on probation, including lower reoffending rates[1].

Inspection questions cover organisational arrangements and activity, and work in individual cases. The inspection questions at an organisational level have been designed based on learning from the core probation inspection programme. They cover leadership, staffing and services. Inspection questions for work in individual cases, are derived from the PDU domain two inspection standards, adapted to place a clear focus on public protection work.

Probation Reset and Probation Impact

Since the autumn of 2024, we have inspected some cases where Probation Reset has been applied, using adjusted inspection standards. For the DIPP inspections, we will not exclude cases where Probation Reset or Probation Impact have been applied. Our inspection questions will focus on public protection arrangements, and will be adjusted in some cases where Probation Reset or Probation Impact have been applied.

As an independent inspectorate we focus on the things that make a difference to the quality of work with individuals, including public protection, and we strive to inspect in a way that is fair and proportionate. Our underlying expectations about the quality of work are not driven by specific operational arrangements and we continue to inspect against the evidence base.

Further detail about the standards and additional supporting documents can be found on the HM Inspectorate of Probation website[2].

2.3. Inspection principles (Back to top)

How we inspect

We assess quality in the round, rather than either the specifics of a process or the use of any particular tool, document or process. The wording of our inspection questions reflects this.

2.4. Summary of inspection phases (Back to top)

The inspection consists of three phases:

Phase I: Pre-fieldwork planning and preparation
Phase II: Fieldwork
Phase III: Post-fieldwork.

Phase I: Pre-fieldwork planning and preparation

The pre-fieldwork phase begins at least two weeks before the first fieldwork week, with the inspection announcement. At this point, we issue documentation to assist with planning and preparation and announce the inspection on social media. A planning meeting (held on Microsoft Teams) takes place before the fieldwork starts. The lead inspector reviews written evidence submitted in advance by the region.

Phase II: Fieldwork

Fieldwork week one

During the first fieldwork week, we ask for a briefing by the regional probation director (RPD) and key members of the regional senior leadership team, focusing on public protection. During that week, the inspection team inspects a sample of cases from the region. The case inspections are conducted remotely, including an interview with the probation practitioner via Microsoft Teams.

Fieldwork week two

After the case inspections, the lead inspector spends a week reviewing evidence from cases, and planning for meetings with key staff, leaders and stakeholders which take place during the second fieldwork week. During these meetings, the lead inspection explores key lines of enquiry related to public protection arising from the case inspection findings.

Phase III: Post-fieldwork

On completion of the fieldwork, the lead inspector prepares an inspection report, which is submitted to the region approximately three weeks after the fieldwork, for checking factual accuracy before publication.

Follow-up activity is delivered to the region approximately three weeks after the fieldwork.

We aim to publish the report six weeks after the end of the fieldwork, once factual accuracy checking is complete.

Welsh language scheme

In accordance with the Welsh Language Act 1993, HM Inspectorate of Probation has adopted the principle that it will treat the Welsh and English languages equally when carrying out inspections in Wales. HM Inspectorate of Probation has a Welsh Language Scheme that sets out how we deliver services in Welsh.

More information about the Welsh Language Scheme can be found on our website[3].

3. Phase I: Pre-fieldwork and planning (Back to top)

3.1. Inspection teams (Back to top)

The inspection team consists of:

lead inspector
deputy lead inspector
Assistant Inspectors
information and data team
Inspection Support Administrator
Head Of Probation Inspection Programme
Deputy Head of Probation Inspection Programme

3.2. Pre-fieldwork activity (Back to top)

Before the inspection is announced, the information and data team collates key documents and background information to support the lead inspector in planning the inspection. The HM Inspectorate of Probation Inspection Support Administrator starts to prepare the inspection.

After the inspection announcement, the probation region submits the evidence in advance using Microsoft Teams and confirms meeting dates and interviews with key staff, leaders and stakeholders.

Background information

The information and data team provides the lead inspector with an information pack of published regional information, including:

performance information for each region
numbers of people on probation supervised in the community
workload measurement tool
Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA) data by region.

The lead inspector analyses this information before the fieldwork planning meeting.

Probation Service information at a national level

Probation Service policies and guidance that apply at a national level are provided on a routine basis to HM Inspectorate of Probation by the Effective Practice and Service Improvement Group (EPSIG). We review national policies, to provide an overview and briefing to support all inspections. The information provided by EPSIG includes the following:

Leadership:

Probation Service corporate risk register
national performance and quality strategy
case recording policies.

Services:

resettlement strategy
integrated offender management strategy
national information-sharing agreements with service providers.

3.3. Inspection announcements (Back to top)

Each regional inspection is announced three weeks before the fieldwork begins. The announcement is made by the lead inspector to the RPD or the most senior manager available. It is also announced on social media.

This includes:

a brief overview of the inspection
the timing of fieldwork weeks
allowing the RPD to identify the single point of contact (SPOC) for the inspection
confirmation of the date and time of the planning meeting
instructions on how to access the relevant channel in Microsoft Teams to upload evidence in advance.

3.4. Project plans (Back to top)

The project plan provides the region with details of the key timescales and activities required, from pre- to post-fieldwork. Details of key dates are set out in the announcement letter.

The SPOC for the region should check the key dates and raise any issues with the HM Inspectorate of Probation administrator in the first instance. The SPOC should ensure that all relevant staff involved in the inspection planning processes are familiar with the project plan.

3.5. Planning meeting (Back to top)

The planning meeting takes place remotely, normally on the Tuesday of the week following the announcement. This may be a one-to-one conversation between the lead inspector and the SPOC, or it may involve others.

Optional attendees include:

the RPD (to hear an overview of the briefing purpose and requirements)
the Head of Public Protection
the heads of PDUs
the Head or Deputy Head of Probation Inspection Programme, or deputy lead inspector
others identified by the region who need to be involved in the planning and preparation, if required, for support or absence cover for the SPOC.

The lead inspector chairs the meeting and covers the following:

an explanation of the inspection methodology in more detail
case sample process for case inspections
evidence in advance, organisational data and organisational information required, including submission dates
HM Inspectorate of Probation Microsoft Teams channel and how to obtain access (Section 3.6 sets out the information required from the region). and PDU
information for staff and staff survey
post-inspection staff feedback surveys
confirmation of key dates for fieldwork.

The planning meeting is documented, and a copy issued to the SPOC, and any other relevant people by the HM Inspectorate of Probation administrator.

3.6. Evidence in advance (Back to top)

The region submits evidence in advance in relation to the relevant inspection questions. All evidence should be uploaded into Microsoft Teams to a specific channel set up by HM Inspectorate of Probation. As part of the planning meeting, the lead inspector provides more detailed guidance about the specific evidence requested.

Information on organisational structure and office locations (region and PDUs)

The region provides this electronically to the HM Inspectorate of Probation inspection support administrator after the regional inspection has been announced. It should be sent to the mailbox probationinspections@hmiprobation.gov.uk by the dates indicated in the announcement letter and should not be uploaded into Microsoft Teams:

regional organisational structure chart, including the names of regional leaders and their primary office base, contact details and strategic responsibilities in relation to public protection

the availability of key staff, leaders and stakeholders for the fieldwork and any diversity considerations that we may need to be aware of.

Submission of evidence in advance

The SPOC, or a designated individual, uses Microsoft Teams to upload evidence in advance. We ask that the SPOC only submits documents that have been specifically requested. If any are not available, they should inform the lead inspector. If items are submitted using Microsoft Teams that are not listed, the inspector may not take them into account.
If the region has no available evidence for a particular question, it is better not to submit material that does not inform our inspection.
The lead inspector explains the final date for submission.
Once submitted, the evidence in advance is made available to the inspection team.
The lead inspector may request additional evidence as the inspection progresses. This should be submitted by email.
The lead inspector reviews the evidence in advance as part of the assessment of the region against inspection questions, and to identify lines of enquiry to be followed up during the fieldwork.

Suggested evidence in advance

Below we make the suggestions below about documents that would meet our requirements under the relevant questions.

Suggested evidence in advance:

Regional business plan
Regional risk register
Regional quality improvement plan
Regional public protection strategy
Regional victims strategy
Overview of information-sharing arrangements with local police forces and children’s social care – including performance data relating to domestic abuse and child safeguarding enquiries
Regional resettlement strategy and delivery arrangements

Deadline for submitting evidence in advance

All evidence in advance is uploaded into Microsoft Teams by the Monday, one week before the fieldwork.

3.7. Briefing by the regional senior leadership team (Back to top)

At the start of the fieldwork, the RPD and key members of their senior leadership team give a briefing to enable HM Inspectorate of Probation to understand the regional context in connection with public protection.

The date and time of the briefing is confirmed during the planning meeting. If the RPD is not available, the briefing is delivered by key members of their senior leadership team. The lead inspector is accompanied at this meeting by at least one of the following: the HM Inspectorate of Probation head of programme, the deputy head of programme, or the deputy lead inspector. The Chief Inspector may also observe this or attend site visits during the inspection fieldwork.

Guidance on the briefing

Content:

The briefing by the regional senior leadership team should:

Provide an overview of the regional context and structure to enable the lead inspector to gain an understanding of how public protection arrangements work in the region.
Outline the key achievements within the region in connection with public protection

Outline the key challenges faced by the region in connection with public protection

The briefing should relate to the public protection inspection questions, to support the lead inspector’s understanding. We would like to hear from key regional senior leaders at this meeting, to allow discussion of their specific regional responsibilities, achievements and challenges in relation to public protection.

Any specific examples or evidence should relate to work carried out within the 12 months prior to the inspection. The briefing should not be regarded as a substitute for the evidence in advance submission and should not repeat written evidence already submitted.

Arrangements for the briefing:

The briefing should normally take up to 45 minutes, followed by a further 30 minutes for questions and discussion.

An electronic copy (Word, PowerPoint or PDF) of the briefing should be provided to the lead inspector.

3.10. Preparing probation staff for inspection (Back to top)

We interview probation practitioners to allow them to clarify and add context to the case records; to help us understand some of the reasons underpinning the quality of public protection work; as well as to provide a learning opportunity for them. This is most useful if they feel able to be open and honest about their work. Feedback from practitioners is that perceived pressure to prepare cases for inspection is unhelpful and can increase stress. It can also result in ‘wasted’ effort, as preparation often focuses on issues that are not central to the inspection standards. To avoid this, we ask regions to minimise preparation before the fieldwork week.

4. Case sample (Back to top)

4.1. Selecting the sample (Back to top)

We inspect community sentences (community orders and suspended sentence orders) that have a rehabilitation activity or accredited programme requirement, and cases starting post-release supervision (licence and post-sentence supervision cases). Cases where Probation Reset or Probation Impact have been used to suspend supervision are included in the sample.

We may exclude the following cases:

cases where the same person has more than one sentence in the eligible period
cases where the order or licence terminated within seven days of commencement
cases where there is a current SFO review, domestic abuse related death review, child safeguarding practice review, or other similar investigation.

We inspect a sample of cases where the community sentence or post-release supervision began in two separate weeks in the period between 29 and 30 weeks before the fieldwork. The sample numbers are chosen to reflect the overall numbers of commencements in the region. We ensure a proportionate representation of cases that the region has assessed as low, medium, and high/very high risk of serious harm. Cases are randomly sampled from across the whole region, but we ensure we inspect a minimum of five cases from each PDU, and no more than one case from any individual practitioner. So, exceptionally, we may adjust the random selection to meet that minimum. We allocate inspection resources based on the number of selected cases in the region.

We apply an adjusted set of case inspection question to some cases where Probation Reset has been applied. That includes all PSS-only cases, and any licence cases where contact is suspended up to and including eight weeks after release.

We also apply the adjusted case inspection questions where Probation Impact has been applied up to and including eight weeks after commencement, in community sentence or licence cases.

All other cases, including anywhere contact is suspended after the eight-week point are inspected using questions drawn from our core inspection questions, and we expect to see delivery front-loaded to maximise the impact of intervention delivery to support individuals’ rehabilitation.

4.2. Case sample identification (Back to top)

We use standard nDelius reports, which are available to the Probation Service, to identify cases for inspection. Before the fieldwork is announced, we produce a long-list of cases in the region, and select the sample as described above. This may include cases that have been transferred into or out of the region; we inspect these cases, but our judgements are restricted to the work delivered by the region. The region is issued with the case sample at the time the inspection is announced.

5. Schedules (Back to top)

5.1. Weekly schedules (Back to top)

During the first fieldwork week, the regional senior leadership team deliver a briefing on regional public protection arrangements, achievements and challenges to the lead inspector. Following this, the lead inspector and a team of assistant inspectors conduct remote case inspections, including remote interviews with probation practitioners, using Microsoft Teams. In Wales, Welsh-speaking local assessors are also part of the team for the first fieldwork week.

The lead inspector then spends a week reviewing the data from the case inspections, and finalising plans for the meetings to be held during second fieldwork week.

During the second fieldwork week, the lead and deputy lead inspectors conduct a range of meetings to explore the inspection questions and follow lines of enquiry arising from case inspection findings.

The region is issued with a provisional schedule for case inspection interviews at the time the inspection is announced. The schedule sets out the times of the probation practitioner interviews, which normally last up to 60 minutes. Any requests for changes to the proposed fieldwork schedule are raised by the SPOC by the Wednesday, two weeks before the fieldwork at the latest, and are resolved by the lead inspector. The SPOC also identifies any cases for potential exclusion at this point, for example any subject to SFO or other reviews; the lead inspector confirms any such exclusions. If a probation practitioner is not available during the fieldwork week, the lead inspector and the SPOC agree on whether a suitable substitute is available. If not, the case will be inspected by a file-read. Late changes in availability may also be resolved by inspecting the case as a file-read.

The schedule for the second fieldwork week is discussed in the planning meeting, and a draft schedule is shared with the region before the first fieldwork week starts. At the start of the second fieldwork week, the lead inspector shares headline findings from the case inspections with the RPD. This enables meetings during the fieldwork week to fully explore the lines of enquiry arising from the case inspection findings.

5.2. Meetings (Back to top)

Planning the schedule for meetings during fieldwork week two takes place during the pre-fieldwork phase. The list below sets out meetings that lead inspectors require during inspection fieldwork. Some meetings are fixed in the schedule; for others, the region has the flexibility to identify when it is most convenient to hold them.

Depending on the geography of the region being inspected, some meetings may be scheduled to take place by Microsoft Teams. Depending on the individual arrangements in the region, it may be that one individual covers more than one of the tasks/roles outlined in the list of core meetings. In that case, we need to schedule only one meeting with that person. Similarly, if the role identified is covered jointly by two or more people, the organisation can schedule them both/all to attend.

For meetings with groups, the optimum number of attendees is between six and 10.

We will consider having some meetings with a combination of face-to-face and Microsoft Teams participants; however, we will do this only in exceptional cases, as we have found that this approach is not ideal, particularly for larger meetings with up to 10 participants.

The purpose of these meetings is to gather evidence to support judgements about public protection, and to understand the case inspection findings.

Fixed meetings

RPD and Head of Operations, including feedback from case inspection (Monday)
Head of Public Protection (Tuesday)
PDU heads (Tuesday)

Other required meetings

Scheduling of these meetings and the combination of attendees is discussed at the planning meeting. Where appropriate, additional specialists can be included in meetings to give inspectors a more detailed understanding of these areas of work and how they contribute to regional public protection.

learning and development lead
SFO lead
head of public protection with Offender Management in Custody/resettlement lead
Head of Community Integration and commissioning/contract managers
Head of Interventions
court lead, including enforcement hub
Head of Performance and Quality
learning and development/SFO lead
resettlement/short sentence teams
Regional Prison Group Director
MAPPA lead(s), chairs and coordinators
police (domestic abuse and intelligence)
children’s services
strategic lead for victims
other external partnerships and services providers
Area Executive Director.

6. Phase II: Fieldwork (Back to top)

6.1. Methodology (Back to top)

Case inspections

Case inspection focuses on the quality of public protection practice. We examine tasks that relate to the supervision of people on probation – specifically, assessing, planning, implementing and reviewing of risk of harm. In relevant cases, we also look at the impact of some elements of court work and resettlement activity on overall public protection. The lead inspector and a team of assistant inspectors complete case inspections. The case inspections take place during the first fieldwork week. The ‘Case sample’ section of this manual provides more detailed information about the case selection process and exclusion criteria.

Case inspections include reading and assessing relevant information available through electronic records and tools, such as the national case management system, nDelius, the violent and sexual offenders register, OASys assessments, the victim case management system (VCMS) and any other tools used for assessment and planning. The region is asked to provide access to other documents relevant to the case – for example, minutes of MAPPA, multi-agency risk assessment conferences and professionals meetings.

We undertake remote interviews with the probation practitioner for each case. These involve discussions about assessing, planning, implementing and reviewing in relation to public protection in the selected case. Practitioners are also asked about their experience of learning and development, workloads, management oversight and services, as these have an impact on the management of the selected case. Where the allocated practitioner is unavailable, an interview can be held with a suitable substitute, or the case inspection can be completed as a file-read.

Case inspectors use all sources of evidence to formulate their assessment of the case, including case records and any interview with the probation practitioner.

As part of our case inspections, we also gather other data about the cases and the services they received, to develop an understanding of emerging issues and support our further analysis and research.

Dealing with cases that should have been excluded

Occasionally, during fieldwork, it becomes apparent that a case on the schedule should have been excluded at an earlier stage. This can be a difficult situation, particularly when the practitioner has attended for interview by the time an inspector realises that the case should have been excluded. In these cases, the inspector has a brief conversation with the practitioner to let them We identify a comparable substitute case in these circumstances, which is inspected as a file read.

Organisational arrangements and activity

The lead inspector and deputy lead inspector focus on leadership, staffing, and services, in connection with public protection. Inspectors are looking for evidence of the impact of organisational arrangements and activity on the quality of public protection work in cases inspected.

6.2. Guidance material (Back to top)

We have developed guidance on each element of inspection. This explains how evidence should be assessed and how to form judgements. The purpose of the guidance is to provide advice, and to promote consistency and a shared understanding of the required expectations. The guidance material is separated into the following documents:

organisational inspection questions rules and guidance
case assessment rules and guidance (CARaG).

Purpose of the organisational inspection questions rules and guidance

The rules and guidance explain how evidence should be assessed. The purpose of the guidance is to provide advice, clarity and a consistent understanding of the required expectations. The rules and guidance are based on international and national probation standards and rules, and our own standards and benchmarks. As such, they outline approaches that set high standards to assess quality.

Purpose of the CARaG

The CARaG is a comprehensive set of published rules and guidance to be followed by inspectors in their assessment of cases. The CARaG promotes transparency and consistency in our inspection of cases. Inspection staff should use the appropriate CARaG as a reference document when assessing a case.

The CARaG provides guidance on the case inspection questions. It has been updated to take specific account of the focus on public protection as part of DIPP inspections.

6.3. Inspection sites (Back to top)

During the pre-fieldwork phase, we identify the inspection sites for the second fieldwork week, and allocate the inspection team to specific offices.

On arrival, the region gives an induction to the building, including a health and safety briefing. Inspection staff need access to fobs, and information on opening and closing times.

6.4. IT access (Back to top)

HM Inspectorate of Probation staff have access to various criminal justice IT systems, including OASys, nDelius and the victim case management system (VCMS). To comply with the General Data Protection Regulation, inspectors access only cases identified on case sample lists, or additional cases by arrangement with the inspected body.

6.5. Case records (Back to top)

Inspectors access case records held electronically in OASys and nDelius; we expect all relevant documents in the case to be uploaded to nDelius. In relevant cases, inspectors may access VCMS.

6.6. Probation practitioner interviews (Back to top)

As part of our assessment of a case, the inspector interviews the probation practitioner for that case. This interview provides an opportunity for the case to be discussed in more detail as part of our assessment and to gather evidence to inform the lines of enquiry that the lead inspector follows during the second fieldwork week. Inspectors provide an introduction and overview to help the probation practitioner understand the process of the inspection. Part of the interview will explore the enablers and barriers experienced by the practitioner in connection with public protection work. The interview includes constructive feedback to the probation practitioner, delivered in a productive and sensitive manner to encourage reflective discussions. Inspectors also explore with practitioners the reasons underpinning any strengths or areas for improvement in the case, to support identification of required follow-up activity with leaders and managers.

Details of the interview, including any judgements made about a case, are not discussed with line managers unless there are serious concerns about the case (prompting an ‘alert’ to be raised – see below). Feedback provided to practitioners focuses on key strengths and areas for improvement of the work they have undertaken personally.

If the allocated practitioner is not available, we ask at the planning stage whether another suitable person, with a sufficient understanding of the case, can attend the interview. That would normally be the practitioner’s line manager or supervisor, although in some circumstances another colleague with knowledge of the case may be suitable. If the substitute is the practitioner’s line manager or supervisor, it may be appropriate to provide them with the feedback that would have been given to the practitioner in person. As the conversation is about a case that belongs to the organisation, there is no conflict of confidentiality. However, if the substitute is not in a supervisory role to the practitioner, no feedback is given.

We are sometimes asked if a second person can attend the interview with the current probation practitioner. Our preference is to interview the current practitioner alone, with the following exceptions:

where there has been a recent change of probation practitioner and the previous one can add something useful to the assessment of the case
where a second person has played a key role in the delivery of an intervention
where the probation practitioner is very new to the role (for example, a new trainee) and needs support from a colleague.

Inspectors will ask the second person to leave the interview before giving feedback to the practitioner.

6.7. Alert processes (Back to top)

Individual alerts

During case inspections where we identify a significant and imminent actual or potential risk of harm to other people, or to the person on probation concerned, or where there is organisational practice that requires immediate attention, we have a responsibility to act on our concerns. Our procedures provide all inspection staff with an effective and consistent mechanism for tackling serious situations that require immediate attention.

An alert encompasses practice, or practice omissions, that require immediate remedial action to be taken (usually by the organisation responsible for the case) to reduce or contain an identifiable, significant and imminent risk.

Inspection staff should ask themselves:

What might happen if no action is taken?
How serious is the risk?
When might it happen (that is, how imminent is it)?

If we are concerned that there is a danger to life and limb, an incident from which recovery will be difficult or impossible, or that an offence has taken place or is taking place (for example, fraud), then we need to act.

Through the individual alert process, we are seeking assurance, confirmed by evidence, that actions have been taken. We do not manage the risk directly. The lead inspector’s role is to make sure that the organisation (or third party) responsible for the case takes sufficient action to address the concerns.

Any incidents recorded through the individual alert system may inform the inspection findings or recommendations.

Organisational alerts

The organisational alert procedure provides all inspection staff with an effective and consistent mechanism for tackling situations of identifiable, systemic, significant and imminent risk that require immediate attention. Organisational alerts are not designed to address general poor practice, even if this is on a large scale.

The purpose of the organisational alert procedure is to assist inspected bodies to address issues of identifiable, systemic, significant and imminent risk where this has not otherwise been done. The fact that an organisational alert has been raised will be described in the published inspection report.

Advice to probation practitioners in other situations

Where a case does not meet the threshold for an alert, case inspectors may offer advice to the practitioner as part of their feedback, but any such advice does not constitute an instruction, and no feedback is required from the practitioner or others.

6.8. Meeting format (Back to top)

Ideally, meetings with groups should consist of six to 10 people; in larger groups, some participants could be overlooked, while smaller groups might not generate sufficient diversity of views. Where possible, representatives from different work locations should be included. Staff should be of the same grade (or doing the same role), and should not be included in groups with their line managers or senior managers. If attendees are not of the expected role or grade, inspectors may advise them that their attendance is not required. Meetings with groups last normally between 45 and 90 minutes. We prefer face-to-face meetings unless travel distances make that difficult. Face-to-face meetings should take place in a space that is private, not subject to interruptions and with sufficient comfortable seating. Remote meetings are conducted using Microsoft Teams. The region is responsible for identifying the best location for meetings to take place, and for ensuring that there is good representation from key staff, leaders and stakeholders.

6.9. Closing the inspection fieldwork (Back to top)

The second fieldwork week begins on-site on Monday afternoon and end on Friday, usually between 12pm and 2pm.

On the final day of fieldwork, the lead inspector:

ensures that all fobs/security passes have been returned
meets the RPD to give a brief summary of inspection findings
explains the process for writing and submitting the draft report
discusses the process if there are factual inaccuracies in the draft report
highlights key dates and next steps for publication of the provisional final report
discusses the nature and timing inspection follow up activity
explains that the Head of Probation Inspection Programme will contact the SPOC or RPD after publication of the regional report to get their general feedback on the conduct of the inspection.

6.10. Quality assurance (Back to top)

The HM Inspectorate of Probation Quality Assurance (QA) Strategy aims to ensure the quality and consistency of judgments across all inspection programmes. It focuses on our ambition to maintain high-quality inspection and providing assurance that judgments are sound, evidence-backed, and made by trained inspectors. It aims to ensure high standards in inspection practice, judgements, reports, data integrity, and support programme development.

Quality Assurance framework

The Inspectorate’s Quality Assurance Framework is a comprehensive guide outlining the standards and expectations for new and current HM Inspectors (HMIs) and Assistant Inspectors (AIs). The framework details the induction process before beginning inspections, the professionalisation process, real-time inspection QA, ongoing QA benchmarks, and expectations for operational support. The framework incorporates a feedback loop for individual and organisational learning, and outlines data integrity check processes and responsibilities within the QA function.

The guiding principles of our quality assurance framework are:

Quality assurance must be consistent, comprehensive, proportionate, and equitable
The regularity of quality assurance activities should be transparent
Additional assurance is applied where external factors might influence judgments
Clear accountability is established for quality at different inspection stages
We balance on-site and off-site quality assurance requirements
All inspection domains are subject to quality assurance
Assurance is a collective responsibility within the organisation, not solely dependent on a single lead.

Staff induction

A robust induction for new inspectors at the Inspectorate is crucial as it lays the foundation for their future effectiveness and confidence in their roles. New inspectors receive a comprehensive corporate induction, ensuring a strong understanding of the organisational culture and expectations. Additionally, they are provided with supplementary reading materials to enrich their knowledge base before commencing core skills training. This approach ensures they are well-prepared and equipped with the necessary information and context to excel in their training and subsequent inspection responsibilities.

Certificate in Inspection Skills

The HM Inspectorate of Probation Certificate in Inspection Skills (Certificate) programme is tailored to develop thorough inspection competencies among inspectors. It integrates foundational training, practical experience, and advanced skill development. The curriculum begins with an induction, advancing through specialised training modules, practical case assessments, and role-specific tasks. This progression ensures inspectors are not only versed in theoretical knowledge but also adept in applying these skills in diverse inspection scenarios. The programme’s overarching goal is to elevate the standard of inspection practices, ensuring both consistency and quality across the board. The Certificate programme is externally accredited by Skills for Justice Awards, and we are subject to annual external quality assurance visits to ensure the integrity of the programme.

The implementation of the Certificate programme standardises the training and assessment of all HMIs and AIs to a high level over time, with new recruits prioritised. This programme ensures consistent inspection skills through assessment by an accredited body, provides trained assessors and internal quality assurers, supports staff in working to clear standards, and assures inspected bodies of the quality of inspection work.

Routine Quality Assurance

The Certificate is a structured programme designed for new inspectors to gain the necessary knowledge, skills and understanding to competently undertake their duties. There is a high level of support and knowledge transfer in the first 12 months to ensure high standards of inspection practice. After completion, inspectors engage in regular QA as part of a developmental process, aimed at maintaining the integrity of inspection data and fostering continuous learning. This supportive approach ensures inspectors are consistently growing and enhancing their skills.

Benchmarking

Benchmarking is a crucial aspect of maintaining high-quality standards in the Inspectorate. It provides an opportunity for all inspectors to have their work quality assured, offering insights into general knowledge and practice levels. This process helps identify areas for improvement and ensures consistency in inspection methodology. We ask inspected bodies to assist us with providing access to training cases, to support benchmarking.

7. Phase III: Post-fieldwork (Back to top)

7.1. Report writing (Back to top)

As the public products from inspection, it is important that reports are well presented, credible and accessible to the lay reader. Equally, to drive improvement in practice, the report needs to present the information required by the technical audience. Alongside the reports, we also publish a data workbook, which sets out all the data from inspected cases, and contextual data. Reports may also identify areas of particularly effective or innovative practice that inspectors feel are worth sharing with other regions.

The lead inspector is allocated two weeks to complete the first draft of the inspection report.

The following processes are then carried out to finalise the report:

contract editing (checking on grammar, house style)
structure, accuracy and quality check by the HM Inspectorate of Probation head of programme or deputy head of programme (strategic editing)
review by the Chief Inspector
factual accuracy checking by the region
statistics checking by the data and information team.

7.2. Follow-up activity after fieldwork (Back to top)

The lead inspector and other Inspectorate staff return to the region, normally three weeks after fieldwork has concluded, to deliver follow-up activity. They meet with strategic leaders and probation managers to identify what can be done to guide and support their work, increasing knowledge and confidence and providing a solid foundation for further improvement.

We also share what effective practice looks like by drawing upon our inspection findings, identifying blockers to progress, and highlighting opportunities to improve accountability.

7.3. HM Inspectorate of Probation complaints procedure (Back to top)

We are committed to ensuring that our processes are transparent and fair, and of a professional standard. This includes handling complaints proficiently, in an open and rigorous way, investigating the matters raised thoroughly and replying as quickly as possible to any concerns raised with us.

Organisations can make a complaint if they are dissatisfied with the way in which we carry out, or fail to carry out, our business. This includes the quality of our work or the way we work, including the conduct of the organisation or of individual members of staff. It can also include issues with our inspection judgements. Our complaints policy can be found on our website[4].

While our formal complaints policy covers any issues that organisations may have with the findings of our inspections, the expectation is that these are dealt with informally, negating the need to invoke the formal complaints policy.

There is therefore an opportunity to raise such issues at the factual accuracy check. The chief operating officer is the final decision-maker on any matters of factual accuracy.

We aim to address any concerns or dissatisfaction as early as possible, preferably before they are escalated to a formal complaint.

7.4. Report publication (Back to top)

We aim to publish reports six weeks after the end of the fieldwork. Reports in Wales require at least an additional two weeks to allow for translation.

Footnotes (Back to top)

[1] The links between the quality of supervision and positive outcomes for people on probation – HM Inspectorate of Probation

[2] Criminal Justice Inspectorates

[3] Welsh language scheme – HM Inspectorate of Probation

[4] Complaints – HM Inspectorate of Probation

Cookies on HM Inspectorate of Probation

Table of contents