Dynamic Inspection of Public Protection in East of England region

Chief Inspector’s judgement (Back to top)

This inspection of the Probation Service’s public protection work across the East of England region was the sixth in our programme covering England and Wales. We last inspected the East of England in 2024. Since then, the region had introduced a number of significant changes, specifically to keep people safe, which reflected the seriousness with which it took its public protection responsibilities. Many of these initiatives were proving effective and we noted a number of improvements. Nevertheless, in three out of four key questions, fewer than half of the cases inspected sufficiently met our standards.

Although we saw an increase in the number of cases where practitioners made enquiries to both the police and children’s services where it was relevant to do so, we continued to see shortfalls in some of the information received. Too often, practitioners were still not sufficiently analysing this information, which undermined the effectiveness of their work. A notable theme that ran throughout our findings was a general lack of engagement with partner agencies, including the police. Limited professional curiosity also continued to be a concern.

Strategically, the region had strengthened public protection work by implementing a regional safeguarding senior lead and setting up the regional safeguarding oversight board, through which developments were managed, monitored and, in some cases, further work was commissioned.

The region continued to experience a significant shortage of probation officers (POs) in some probation delivery units (PDUs), and high numbers of inexperienced probation services officers (PSOs) compounded these challenges further. We were nevertheless encouraged to note that the introduction of the Quality Development and Assurance Framework (QDAF) in the last 12 months was beginning to have a positive impact, especially in conjunction with training. More work remained necessary to ensure practitioners developed confidence in their work, their ability to manage a challenging caseload and their ability to apply theory to practice.

There was a good focus on support for practitioners with challenging cases, including the expansion of the complex case panel. Several planned initiatives were designed to offer more support for practitioners and to ensure consistency, including the regional intelligence hub and referral hub.

Procedures relating to the management of public protection across the region varied between PDUs. While this was perhaps inevitable, and necessary to some degree, it remained important to ensure that the balance between local responsivity and regional consistency was maintained.

Overall, regional leaders were aware that work to keep people safe was not yet sufficiently evident. Nevertheless, progress to date over the last 18 months remained encouraging.

---

Context (Back to top)

The inspection looked at the public protection work delivered by the East of England probation region, with a focus on the work to keep people safe. We inspected 70 cases, covering assessment, planning, implementation and delivery, and reviewing, focusing on public protection activity. At the time of the inspection announcement, the region was supervising 20,900 people, either in the community or custody.

The East of England is a complex region, with eight PDUs: Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, Hertfordshire, Northamptonshire, Norfolk, North Essex, South Essex and Suffolk. The region has eight approved premises, 16 prisons and one military corrective training centre. This complexity is shown through the 52 local authorities, including eight unitary authorities, 13 safeguarding boards, seven police forces and seven police and crime commissioners that the region works alongside. It also has a large mixture of both rural and urban landscape.

Adding to the complexity, some PDUs continued to deliver services under the Probation Prioritisation Framework (PPF): Essex North in ‘Red’; and Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, Bedfordshire, Essex South and Hertfordshire in ‘Amber’. Norfolk, Northamptonshire and Suffolk were ‘Green’ and were expected to be delivering services without the need for prioritisation measures. Organisational data highlighted the challenges and gaps in staffing, showing only 73 per cent of PO grades in post. Alongside these ongoing staffing challenges, the region had experienced further pressure in implementing the national policy changes designed to address workloads across the probation and prison service. These included Probation Reset, prison early release schemes, Impact, and changes in recall policy. Leaders were conscious of the potential for ongoing change due to the Independent Sentencing Review (May 2025) and likely additional demands in the forthcoming year.

The East of England region was last inspected in 2024, with the report published on 29 August 2024. Inspectors found that, while the commitment and dedication of staff were unwavering, the region was not taking sufficient measures to keep the public safe. Inspectors highlighted chronic staffing issues and risk assessments that were not informed by adequate information from domestic abuse and child safeguarding enquiries. They found that information-sharing arrangements with police and local authorities were complex and inefficient. Six regional recommendations were made. Since the previous inspection, a new regional probation director (RPD) had come into post.  

---

Inspection commentary (Back to top)

Inspected casework continued to demonstrate shortfalls in the public protection work undertaken in the East of England. Assessment, implementation and reviewing activity were sufficient in fewer than half of the cases we reviewed. Work was stronger in relation to planning, where 61 per cent of cases were sufficient. In all four of the above areas of work there were notable improvements since the last inspection and indications that both the strategic and operational focus of senior leaders was having the desired effect. However, there remained much to do to achieve better service delivery.

Despite improvements in casework, some of the same key shortfalls remained, largely those we see in most other regions. Too often practitioners did not sufficiently analyse information on public protection, because they lacked either the knowledge or the confidence to seek clarification or more detail. Plans were, too often, generic and lacking necessary detail or bespoke approaches. It was also often the case that the focus of contact by practitioners with people on probation missed opportunities to address issues directly relating to risk management. In too many cases we also saw a lack of professional curiosity. A theme that ran across most of the cases where we saw shortfalls in practice was a lack of engagement with the other agencies that were working with the person on probation.

There was a strong drive from regional leaders to ensure public protection was at the forefront of practice and was understood by frontline practitioners. However, this did not always translate to service delivery. Clear strategic objectives and operational priorities were reviewed through the regional senior leadership team, supported by the operational senior leadership team and the regional assurance and governance groups. Each of these incorporated various forums and sub-groups that focused on public protection, including the quality matters board, safeguarding oversight board and domestic abuse board. Communication was regular and clear, with various policies available on ‘One Page’ documents. This was supported by the Communication for the East of England (ComFEE) intranet, which contained a vast range of information and guidance for staff covering every area of practice. In our survey all but one respondent was clear about what was meant by public protection, and 85 per cent said they were clear about what the region and PDU wanted to be prioritised in relation to public protection. However, given the continued shortfalls we saw in casework, a continued push was necessary.

Leaders had taken swift action in response to concerns raised during the last inspection, in particular those relating to keeping people safe. A number of partner agency representatives spoken to during this inspection spoke positively about the last inspection having ‘galvanised’ the region. As an example, there had been a significant push to ensure that information on domestic abuse and child safeguarding was obtained and used when considering suitability for a curfew. At this inspection, we found that this had happened in 15 out of the 17 such cases we reviewed. The complex case panel, a small pilot project at the point of our last inspection, had been expanded across all eight PDUs. A unique model in the East of England, the panel offered support to practitioners working with some of the most complex and potentially dangerous people on probation. In the year 2025/2026, the region had received over 140 referrals. Feedback from practitioners had been positive, and the region was carrying out a formal evaluation of the programme’s effectiveness at the time of the inspection.

In January 2025 the East of England set up its regional safeguarding oversight board. The board was overseen by one of the heads of operation to ensure priority was given to this work. It brought together regional leads (usually heads of services) responsible for the various strands of safeguarding, including adults and children, as well as domestic abuse and young adult transitioning to adult services. Along with the overarching regional safeguarding plan, each subgroup also had its own specific delivery plan. Data was analysed regularly and objectives set to push performance improvement. The lead manager had sufficient authority to ensure that necessary changes were made and supported where necessary. While the board was still in its relative infancy, it ensured a point of contact to solve problems and offer a consistent approach where appropriate.

A significant priority over the last 18 months, driven by the regional safeguarding oversight board, had been to improve the use of enquiries to both police and children’s services to inform court reports and practitioner assessments. This was previously identified as a substantial deficit. There was evidence that this work had achieved some success. In only seven of the 70 cases we reviewed had an enquiry not been made to the police, and in only four relevant cases had an enquiry not been made to children’s services. However, the quality of information received, particularly from children’s services, continued to be a concern. Information-sharing protocols with children’s services were in place across all eight PDUs, but with most PDUs covering more than one service, many practitioners told us that they were confused about different procedures. While work remained to be done to improve the quality of information received, a number of PDU heads reported better communications and relationships with children’s services mangers.

A regional intelligence hub, monitored through the regional safeguarding oversight board, had direct access to police intelligence systems in Essex. Data from the region suggested that this had resulted in improvements in the speed and quality of information available to practitioners. Negotiations were at an advanced stage to extend its use across the region, where six of the seven police services also used Athena. While senior police leaders were supportive, a challenge remained over differing views about what information could, and could not, be shared.

There remained a backlog of Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA) Level 1 reviews across the region. In November 2025 a six-month initiative was introduced to eliminate this shortfall and ensure a consistent approach for the future. By December 2025 the backlog in all eight PDUs had reduced and leaders were confident that the target would be hit by the end of March 2026. The MAPPA work we reviewed was variable in quality. In particular, there were shortfalls in relation to engagement with other agencies, including the police. MAPPA coordinators were experienced and knowledgeable but raised concerns about inexperienced practitioners. Despite widely circulated guidance and the availability of support, there remained a concern that MAPPA work was not sufficiently prioritised in many cases. As with a number of processes we observed, there was a lack of consistency and different PDUs managed and prioritised the work differently.

Overall, the proportion of staff in post compared with target staffing figures was broadly unchanged across the East of England region since our last inspection. Despite a slight improvement in the number of POs, this was still only around three-quarters of the target, with substantial variations across the eight PDUs. Messaging was, nevertheless, clear about the priority of public protection work, which was reinforced at every opportunity. There was a strong focus on training PQiPs, with over 200 full-time equivalent PQiPs in progress at the time of the inspection. Local recruitment for PSOs had been ongoing but this work was undermined by high attrition rates, as well as the proximity of some PDUs to London and the attendant higher costs of living. This was compounded by delays in national vetting procedures, averaging 77 calendar days for PSOs.

Although low staffing levels and high attrition had been a long-standing issue for the region, and one that senior leaders were working hard to manage, it meant that developing a stable, consistent and experienced workforce was a substantial challenge. This was most powerfully demonstrated by the fact that 35 per cent of all PSOs across the region had less than two years’ experience. Low numbers of POs and high numbers of inexperienced PSOs meant that for many senior probation officers (SPOs) and PDU heads, the balance between managing operational demands and strategic development was a difficult one to strike.

Training for staff on public protection was reasonable overall, and those who responded to our survey were consistently positive about relevant learning. The region prioritised both face-to-face and e-learning across key areas of work, and completion levels were reasonable. New SPO national training had been rolled out, with two regional cohorts across the East of England having completed it. The region acknowledged that PQiP training could never produce practitioners who were fully conversant in all elements of probation practice, and that further professional development was needed for newly qualified officers. With this group, the challenge for the region was less the delivery of specific training so much as ensuring training was translated into effective practice. Mentoring and shadowing with more experienced staff were hampered by staff shortfalls in some areas.

Throughout our inspection we consistently heard that learning focused on the ‘why’ underpinning activity rather than simply the process itself, and there was a strong push by managers for demonstrable evidence of training being consolidated into practice. Positively, the regionally developed ‘newly qualified officer’ programme lasted nine months and incorporated workshops delivered by subject matter experts. There were indications that this was having a positive impact. For PSOs, the range of training and related support was more limited, but it was of significant importance, given the levels of inexperience and high attrition rates. The region’s two-year (2025-2027) quality improvement plan had recognised areas for development that were similar to the ones we identified across the region.

Central to the region’s public protection work was the development of the QDAF. This was introduced in January 2025, and at the time of the inspection the region had just completed its implementation phase. The principle behind the model was to build on case audits by incorporating practitioner session observations by line managers. This was then followed by a post-session discussion with the person on probation and then a reflective practice session (drawing on the Skills for Effective Engagement, Development and Supervision (SEEDS) programme). From this, a professional development plan was created. We heard how the QDAF was a development tool for both practitioners and managers, and throughout our inspection both groups spoke very positively about the approach. Although we found that, overall, management oversight was lacking in the majority of cases we reviewed, a large majority of those same practitioners felt that it had been very or fairly useful. More work was being developed to use the QDAF model to inform ongoing training and identify what was needed to improve practitioners’ learning. Indications were that this was an effective means of building on practitioners’ skills and was helping to embed learning.

We saw a good range of services for people on probation linked to reducing reoffending and keeping people safe, and we saw home visits being undertaken in almost two-thirds of relevant cases. It was encouraging to note that in two-thirds of relevant cases practitioners were having sufficient contact with people on probation to manage and minimise the risk of harm. However, the involvement of other agencies in this work was sufficiently well-coordinated in fewer than half of the cases where it was necessary. We also found that appropriate enforcement action was taken to support public protection in only 14 out of 27 relevant cases. This was an area the region had recognised in its quality improvement plan. In a pilot project, one PDU was using enforcement officers to complete breach reports as an alternative, and reported already seeing improvements in enforcement levels and the quality of reports.

Commissioning processes and contract management of services for people on probation were robust. As a consequence of recent concerns about the commissioned rehabilitative service (CRS) contract for accommodation, the region was about to take the provision in-house. However, other CRS services across the region were consistently under-used, with referrals regularly lower than capacity or projected need. This limited the impact of additional services in being able to support public protection delivery. This was surprising, given staffing pressures and the need for effective service provision. The region’s own analysis suggested that, for many practitioners, the referral process could be a deterrent. It was in the process of setting up a regional referral centre that would manage links to service providers.

Regional Outcomes and Innovations Fund money had been used for a number of innovative initiatives, including the Safety Box (knife crime) project in Northamptonshire and a stalking programme offering support and guidance to practitioners in Cambridgeshire. The latter project had expanded to clinics across the region, demonstrating a responsive approach to identified areas of risk of harm. Around 300 practitioners had attended to date.

From our review of casework, we were able to draw a broad profile of staff between the most and least sufficiently managed cases. In the most sufficient cases, practitioners were more likely to be clear about their own responsibility for managing the risks presented in a given case, to be clear about what the risks were and to ensure, where appropriate, that they took responsibility for ensuring other services and agencies were engaged in the case. In contrast, in the less sufficient cases, practitioners were more likely to be reactive and, in some cases, passive. They were more likely to expect other agencies to take responsibility for sharing information, and simply expressed frustration when this did not happen rather than actively trying to rectify it. In the most sufficient cases, practitioners also, broadly, tended to be well organised, to be clear about what to prioritise and to be open to new opportunities, including training. In the less sufficient cases, practitioners were more likely to feel overwhelmed by the demands of their work and not feel they had time to try new approaches or engage in initiatives designed to improve their practice. While these themes were broad, a number of managers and leaders spoken to during the inspection concurred with these findings, based on their own experiences.

This presented a challenge for leaders. Some of these skills were more than simply experience or knowledge; they were about being organised and understanding how to manage a challenging caseload when experiencing pressures on their time. It was also about knowing about systems and recognising their own developmental needs. In the previous 12 months the region had introduced some of the principles underlying Human Factors approaches to communication and continuous improvement. In particular, this included the model of Situation Background Assessment Recommendation (SBAR), which helped and encouraged practitioners to problem-solve for themselves and build their own skills and confidence. Where it had been adopted, we heard very positive evaluations; however, its use was neither universal nor consistent across the region.

---

Regional recommendations (Back to top)

1. Ensure that PSOs have sufficient skills, knowledge and experience to adequately assess, plan, work with and review risk of harm to others.
2. Ensure that probation practitioners are supported in developing the confidence and ability to manage complex caseloads alongside competing demands.
3. Ensure that probation practitioners are supported in developing the confidence and ability to engage effectively with external partner agencies.
4. Ensure that information from the police and children’s services is of sufficient quality to inform practitioners’ work, that clear escalation routes are in place and used and that information is sufficiently analysed to inform effective risk management.

HMPPS recommendations (Back to top)

5. Reduce delays in vetting and address workforce instability by implementing streamlined and more regionally responsive recruitment processes.
6. Develop a national strategic approach to information-sharing with the police and children’s services to support regions in achieving consistency and in complying with legislation to obtain and use information to protect the public.

---

Scoring (Back to top)

Key question	Percentage ‘Yes’
Does assessment focus sufficiently on keeping other people safe?	46%
Does planning focus sufficiently on keeping other people safe?	61%
Does the implementation and delivery of services effectively support the safety of other people?	44%
Does reviewing focus sufficiently on keeping other people safe?	48%

---

Follow-up activity (Back to top)

In line with the recommendations identified, a range of follow-up activity will take place. HM Inspectorate of Probation will work with the region to identify what can be done to guide and support its work, increase knowledge and confidence, and provide a solid foundation for further improvement. The Inspectorate will also seek to share what effective practice looks like by drawing on inspection findings, identifying blockers to progress, and highlighting opportunities to improve accountability.

---

Key contextual facts (Back to top)

Number of people supervised (on 30 June 2025)1	23,706
MAPPA-eligible offenders (on 31 March 2025)2	9,860
Victim satisfaction performance SL021 (April 2024 – March 2025)3	84%

Staffing level (staff in post (staff in post full time equivalent (FTE))4
SPO	PO	PSO (inc. PQiP)
91%	73%	118%

Average caseload at the point of inspection (FTE)
PO	PSO (exc. PQiP)	PQiP
35.68	43.62	24.29

Recall rates (in the 12 months prior to inspection)	19.2%
Average rehabilitation activity requirement (RAR) wait time (in the 12 months prior to inspection)	Not available
Percentage of RAR days completed (in the 12 months prior to inspection)	54%
Percentage of accredited programme requirements completed for individuals convicted of a sexual offence (in the 12 months prior to inspection)	35.9%
Percentage of accredited programme requirements completed for individuals not convicted of a sexual offence (in the 12 months prior to inspection)	39.79%

Risk of Serious Harm classification of inspected cases
Low	Medium	High/very high
14%	60%	24%

---

Further information (Back to top)

This inspection was led by HM Inspector Keith McInnis, supported by a team of inspectors and colleagues from across the Inspectorate. We would like to thank all those who helped plan and took part in the inspection; without their help and cooperation, the inspection would not have been possible.

---

Footnotes:

1. https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/offender-management-statistics-quarterly. ↩︎
2. https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/multi-agency-public-protection-arrangements-mappa-annual-reports. ↩︎
3. https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/community-performance-annual-update-to-march-2025. ↩︎
4. Workforce data included in this report come from internal management information and some of these data have been derived from a different data source to the published HMPPS Workforce Statistics bulletin and accompanying Probation Officer Recruitment Annex. The Inspectorate needs access to the latest data available and internal management information is deemed the best source to allow this. As such, there could be discrepancies between the data in this report and the data contained in the publication. ↩︎

---