Skip to content

All content is available under the Open Government Licence v3.0, except where otherwise stated.

To view this licence, visit:
https://nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3

or write to:
Information Policy Team,
The National Archives,
Kew,
London TW9 4DU

or email: psi@nationalarchives.gov.uk.

This publication is available at:
https://hmiprobation.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk.

© Crown copyright

Approved premises inspections: Guidance manual

Published:

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 and 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 offending teams, 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 group meetings and interviews with staff, we provide assurance that the information shared will only be used in an aggregated form and will not identify individual staff members, unless immediate action is needed to protect an individual.

We will anonymise information before including it in any publications, but we do not treat it as confidential. This extends to all information provided to us in writing or verbally by staff working for the inspected organisation or under contract to that organisation. We use all available evidence to help us make an inspection judgement. 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 our values in all that they do
  • approach inspections with integrity and evaluate evidence objectively
  • work with inspected bodies to minimise disruption, stress and bureaucracy so 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, before 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, inspected bodies 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.

Overview of approved premises inspection (Back to top)

2.1. Introduction (Back to top)

Our approved premises (AP) inspection programme starts at the end of July 2025. Each inspection lasts for one week, with on-site fieldwork taking place over two days, on the Wednesday and Thursday.

2.2. Standards for AP inspections (Back to top)

Our standards are based on a set of principles that we think APs should meet to deliver a high-quality service. There are five standards, which focus on the things that make a difference to the quality of work. Our standards focus on inputs and activities. We want to ensure that activities to protect the public and promote rehabilitation are delivered by APs 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, partnerships and effective staffing arrangements.

The judgements that we make are based on a range of of qualitative and quantitative data. During the fieldwork we:

  • interview staff, residents and other relevant stakeholders
  • observe practice
  • inspect casework
  • examine policies and procedures
  • analyse data and information pertaining to the individual AP.

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 provide the basis on which we make our judgements against all elements of each standard.

Each standard is underpinned by key questions and prompts (Figure 1), which aim to be coherent, sufficiently comprehensive and balanced.

Figure 1: The standards structure

Diagram showing flow of standards structure: Domain, Standards, Key questions, Prompts

This manual sets out the arrangements for the inspection programme, covering all aspects of the inspection process and methodology, as well as the roles, responsibilities and conduct of HM Inspectorate of Probation staff. Further details about the standards and additional supporting documents can be found our inspection documentation page.

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 key questions and prompts reflects this.

More information can be found on our inspections page.

What we judge

We decide on a rating based on what and how an organisation is delivering and the outcomes achieved. We also acknowledge the effort that delivers current performance in the report narrative. We are interested in the impact that the inspected body is having now, and we do not make judgements about how policy and practices may influence future impact.

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 planning and preparation phase for APs is short. The inspection is announced by telephone on a Monday, two days before fieldwork starts. The announcement letter and supporting documents are issued to the AP management team by 9.30am on the Monday of the inspection week and the inspection team arrive on site at the AP at 1pm on the Wednesday of the inspection week.

Before arriving on site, the lead inspector reviews information from the performance hub relating to the AP. A context-setting meeting is arranged to take place before fieldwork begins. This meeting is chaired by the lead inspector and should be attended by the head of public protection (residential) and/or the area manager and the AP manager.

The AP’s casework is inspected before the inspection team arrives on site, using remote access to case records.

Phase II: Fieldwork

On-site fieldwork will take place from 1pm on the Wednesday until 5pm on Thursday. The inspection team arranges meetings with individuals and groups of staff, managers and residents. The team observes how AP staff and managers go about their work. There are opportunities for the AP to highlight any examples of good practice or additional pieces of work they want to bring to the attention of inspectors.

Phase III: Post-fieldwork

When the fieldwork is complete, the lead inspector prepares proposed ratings and summarises the evidence and key findings for the HM Inspectorate of Probation internal ratings panel meeting. Ratings proposals are quality-assured with the head of the AP inspection programme before the ratings panel, to ensure that they reflect the evidence from the inspection and are consistent across inspections.

The ratings panel normally takes place within a week of the fieldwork. The panel is chaired by a senior manager and includes the lead inspector and the head of the AP inspection programme. The Chief Inspector may also attend. The assistant inspectors (AIs) who took part in the fieldwork attend if they are available. The panel ensures that ratings reflect the balance of the evidence, and that they are sufficiently consistent across inspections. A summary of the ratings panel decision is sent to the AP a few days after the panel has been held.

Following the ratings panel, the lead inspector prepares an inspection report. This is submitted to the AP approximately two weeks after the inspection fieldwork, so that the AP can check factual accuracy before publication. We aim to publish the report six weeks after the end of the fieldwork, once the factual accuracy check 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 diversity and inclusion page.

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

3.1. Inspection team (Back to top)

The team for each AP inspection consists of:

  • lead inspector
  • two AIs
  • administrator operations (inspection)
  • head of AP inspection programme.

3.2. Pre-fieldwork activity (Back to top)

Before the inspection is announced, the lead inspector reviews information from the performance hub that is relevant to the AP being inspected. The inspection of AP casework starts immediately after the announcement and is completed before the on-site fieldwork begins. We use our review of casework to identify key lines of enquiry, and to give us an initial indication of the quality of service being delivered by the AP.

Inspection of AP casework

We do not have a separate standard relating to the quality of casework within the AP inspection programme. We use examples of AP casework as a source of evidence to contribute to judgements about the sufficiency of AP practice across our inspection standards. In particular, AP casework is relevant to our standards relating to leadership (for example, the quality of management oversight), safety, public protection and rehabilitation.

We review at least eight cases in each AP. These are selected using nDelius reports, to include cases from the list of current and previous residents and residents who arrived at the AP within the three calendar months before the start of the inspection fieldwork.

We select cases where individuals have resided at the AP for both short and longer periods. This could include cases where the resident has completed their AP placement successfully or where enforcement action has led to the withdrawal of their place. Our inspection of AP casework will examine the quality of:

  • pre-arrival activity and planning
  • induction procedures
  • activity to manage risk and protect the public
  • safeguarding practice
  • enforcement decisions and bed withdrawals
  • engagement with and support provided to residents
  • delivery of rehabilitative activities
  • collaboration and liaison with probation practitioners
  • drug and alcohol testing, including follow-up activity
  • move-on support
  • management oversight.

3.3. Context-setting meeting (Back to top)

A context-setting meeting is arranged to take place between the inspection announcement on the Monday and our arrival at the AP on the Wednesday afternoon. This is to ensure that the management team, staff and residents can be fully informed about what to expect when inspectors arrive on site. The meeting should be attended by the head of public protection (residential) and/or area manager (whichever is deemed most appropriate) and the AP manager. The meeting enables the lead inspector to brief the management team about what to expect during the inspection fieldwork, and provides an opportunity for the lead inspector to gather important background information relating to the AP, including:

  • current numbers of beds and occupancy level of the AP
  • current staffing numbers, including vacancy and sickness rates
  • any enhanced security or specialist delivery arrangements, such as psychologically informed planned environments
  • key performance information
  • any logistical or operational concerns that the inspection team need to be made aware of regarding the period of inspection fieldwork.

3.4. Evidence in advance (Back to top)

In addition to our inspection of AP casework, the team also need access to the following information:

  • records of all out-of-hours recall decisions that the AP has made within the past three months – this period can be extended if there are very limited numbers
  • any enforcement action the AP has taken in relation to residents within the three months before the fieldwork begins
  • drug and alcohol testing records completed with residents within the three months before the fieldwork begins, including any action taken as a result of test outcomes
  • a list of rehabilitative activities scheduled for the AP during on-site fieldwork.

Alongside our casework review, the above information will help us to begin formulating our key lines of enquiry and start to inform our judgements about the quality of delivery.

Deadline for submitting evidence in advance

The above evidence should be submitted to probationinspections@hmiprobation.gov.uk by 9am on the Wednesday morning. Deadlines and scheduling of evidence in advance may be adjusted during holiday periods. Full details of all requests for information are set out in the inspection announcement letter.

3.5. Preparing probation staff and residents for inspection (Back to top)

Information leaflets for both AP staff and residents are provided alongside the announcement letter. These leaflets explain who we are and the purpose of the inspection. They should be provided to staff and residents before the inspection team arrives on site. We will interview both staff and residents as part of our inspection fieldwork, so it is important that they have some understanding of the aims and objectives of the inspection process.

Phase II: Fieldwork (Back to top)

4.1. Initial on-site meetings (Back to top)

Inspection staff require a health and safety induction when arriving on site and access to the whole building for the period of fieldwork. Shortly after arriving on site, the lead inspector meets with the duty AP manager to go through the schedule for the fieldwork. Opportunities for additional meetings and observations can be discussed at this time if required. During the meeting, there is an opportunity for the duty AP manager to identify any staff members that are unavailable for the period of fieldwork.

4.2. Methodology (Back to top)

Our methodology for inspecting APs has been designed to enable our inspection team to make judgements that are fair and valid. Our judgements and eventual ratings will be based on a combination of qualitative data, including interviews with staff, residents and other relevant stakeholders, direct observation of practice, the inspection of casework, examination of policies and procedures and the analysis of data and information pertaining to each individual AP. Gathering a breadth of different types of evidence in these different ways enables us to triangulate our findings and be confident in our final ratings.

Meetings and observations to gather evidence

The following meetings and observations will be carried out during the inspection fieldwork:

  • meeting with AP manager
  • meeting with area manager
  • meeting with AP administrator
  • meeting with head of public protection (community)
  • focus group with probation service officers/keyworkers
  • focus group with residential support workers
  • observation of one-to-one meetings between residents and staff
  • observation of rehabilitative activity delivery
  • observation of room search
  • observation and discussion of medication administering process
  • observation of morning handover
  • observation of evening handover
  • discussions with individual residents
  • observation and dip-sampling of drug and alcohol testing, including follow-up activity.

4.3 Rules and guidance for AP (Back to top)

We have developed rules and guidance to support inspectors in reaching judgements and ratings of APs. The rules and guidance 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.

The guidance describes in detail what 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.

4.4. 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. To comply with the General Data Protection Regulation, inspectors access only cases identified on case sample lists, or additional cases by arrangement with the AP.

4.5. 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 the victim case management system and ViSOR.

4.6. Seeking the views of AP residents (Back to top)

HM Inspectorate of Probation has a strong commitment to engaging with people on probation and those with lived experience of probation supervision, and to incorporating their views and experiences into our inspection process.

Since the unification of probation services in June 2021, we have incorporated several different methods for obtaining the views and experiences of people on probation into our inspection methodology. We also consulted with a group of AP residents when devising our approach to gathering feedback from people on probation within this inspection programme.

We will use the views of residents within the AP as one source of evidence to help us make judgements about the quality of the service being delivered. We have developed a survey for residents for this purpose and a link to the survey is provided in the announcement letter. This survey can be completed independently by residents via the electronic link, on paper or face-to-face, facilitated by an inspector. We will allocate time within our inspection schedule for interviewing residents using this survey for those who may not be confident completing it on their own.

We use information from residents to help triangulate our findings and to inform our views about, and judgements of, the quality of services provided by the AP. The weight given to the views expressed depends on their context and how widely they are felt. The views of residents may be incorporated into all sections and aspects of the final report.

4.7. Alert processes (Back to top)

Individual alerts (Back to top)

During case inspections where we identify a significant actual or potential risk of harm to other people, or to the individual on probation concerned, or where there is organisational practice that requires immediate attention, we have a responsibility to act on our concerns. The following 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 will 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, that an incident has occurred 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

Our standard organisational alert procedure, which exists for our other inspection programmes can also be applied to APs. It 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.

Given the unique nature of the work of APs and the level of risk associated with providing housing to potentially dangerous individuals, we may on occasion need to escalate particularly serious systemic concerns or required actions to an executive director. In these circumstances the chief inspector will write to the responsible executive director setting out the concerns and recommended actions to mitigate the presenting risks.

4.8. Meeting format (Back to top)

Our meetings with groups of staff within the AP setting normally consist of three to six people. Staff should be of the same grade (or doing the same role) and should not normally be included in groups with their line managers or senior managers. An exception to this is the context-setting meeting, which is attended by the different levels of management. In all other meetings, 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 AP is responsible for identifying the best location for meetings to take place, and for ensuring that there is good representation from staff.

4.9. Closing the inspection fieldwork (Back to top)

The fieldwork for AP inspections normally begins on Wednesday afternoon and ends at 5pm on the Thursday.

On the final day of fieldwork, the lead inspector:

  • ensures that all fobs/security passes have been returned
  • meets the AP manager to give a brief summary of inspection findings
  • explains the process for confirming ratings for standards and the overall rating for the AP, and the process for writing and submitting the draft report
  • discusses the process if there are factual inaccuracies in the draft report
  • explains the process for challenging ratings
  • highlights key dates and next steps for publication of the provisional final report
  • explains that the head of the AP inspection programme will contact the AP manager to get their general feedback on the conduct of the inspection.

Staff induction

A robust induction for new inspectors at the Inspectorate is crucial, as this 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 will be provided with supplementary reading materials to enrich their knowledge base before beginning 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, and advances 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 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 HM inspectors 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 to ensure new inspectors gain the necessary knowledge, skills and understanding to undertake their duties competently. 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 quality assurance as part of a developmental process, aimed at maintaining the integrity of inspection data and fostering continuous learning. This supportive approach involves routine quality assessments across both domain one and domain two, and the victims’ standard, ensuring inspectors are consistently growing and enhancing their skills.

Benchmarking

Benchmarking is a crucial aspect of maintaining high 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 services to assist us with providing access to training cases, to support benchmarking.

Phase III: Post-fieldwork (Back to top)

5.1. Ratings explained (Back to top)

Our AP standards are set up in such a way that we make judgements at the level at which we see performance. 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 that right level of accountability. This is because we recognise that contextual, national, regional, local, and systemic issues can impact on delivery – for example, 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.

We make judgements against our standards through considering evidence such as interviews with residents, staff and other relevant stakeholders, examining data and information, policies and procedures, and records of information, undertaking staff focus groups, and directly observing activity at the AP during the inspection.

Once we have collected evidence both in advance of and during our visit to the AP, our inspectors form their judgements and recommend ratings against the standards. The ratings for each standard will be determined using our inspection judgements in relation to the key questions, underpinned by the prompts.

We provide an overall rating for each AP, derived from the individual ratings at the standard level. Straightforward scoring rules are used to generate the overall AP rating. Each of the five standards will be scored on a 0–3 scale in which ‘Inadequate’ = 0, ‘Requires improvement’ = 1, ‘Good’ = 2, and ‘Outstanding’ = 3. Adding these scores produces a total score from 0–15, which is banded to produce the overall rating as follows:

Overall ratingTotal score
Inadequate (I)0–2
Requires improvement (RI)3–7 (3 = 2 I + 3 RI)
Good (G)8–12 (8 = 2 RI + 3 G)
Outstanding (O)13–15 (13 = 2 G + 3 O)

5.2. Ratings panel meetings (Back to top)

The ratings panel for AP inspections usually sits on the Friday of the week after the fieldwork is complete (week +1). Before the ratings panel, the head of the AP inspection programme reviews the proposed ratings and evidence with the lead inspector. The panel normally consists of a senior manager (who chairs the panel and records its decision), the lead inspector and head of the AP inspection programme. The Chief Inspector and AIs may attend, if available; the head of standards and methodology attends some ratings panels.

The lead inspector presents the proposed ratings to the panel in a structured way and in line with the following principles and processes:

  • The panel checks that the ratings are evidence-based and balanced, and in line with the published AP rules and guidance.
  • The panel considers the validity, source and impact weighting of each piece of evidence and determines whether the rating proposed by the lead inspector is appropriate.
  • The panel makes sure that ratings are applied consistently across inspections.
  • The panel provides a level of protection and challenge for the lead inspector.
  • The panel focuses only on ratings at standard level and key findings, and does not quality-assure other aspects of the inspection.

Following the ratings panel, the chair of the panel completes the rating panel summary. By the end of the week following the ratings panel (week +2), the administrator sends the AP management team a copy of the summary of the ratings panel meeting, which includes the agreed ratings.

Also, during week +2, the lead inspector will contact the area manager to explain the decision of the ratings panel.

5.3. Report writing (Back to top)

As the public products from inspection, it is important that AP inspection reports are well presented, credible and accessible to the intelligent lay reader. Equally, to drive improvement in practice, the report needs to present the information required by the technical audience. We use a shorter report format in AP inspections, with the intention of making the content accessible to a broader audience. Reports may also identify areas of particularly effective or innovative practice that inspectors feel are worth sharing with other APs.

The lead inspector is allocated five days to complete the first draft of the AP inspection report, including presenting their judgements to the ratings panel.

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

  • initial edit (for example, checking grammar and house style)
  • structure, accuracy and quality check by the head of AP inspection programme (strategic editing)
  • review by the Chief Inspector
  • factual accuracy checking by the AP or region.

5.4. HM Inspectorate of Probation ratings challenge process and 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 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.

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

There is therefore an opportunity to raise such issues at the factual accuracy check. We discourage inspected bodies from raising such issues when they receive the initial ratings panel summary. This is because the summary does not include the full evidence that supports the inspection ratings, which will be covered in the full report. The chief operating officer is the final decision-maker on any matters of factual accuracy and/or challenge to inspection ratings.

We aim to address any concerns or dissatisfaction as early as possible, preferably before they are escalated to a formal complaint. If an organisation is not satisfied with the response from the chief operating officer concerning a challenge to ratings, it can then invoke the formal complaints procedure. This will need to be supported with new evidence. We will not reconsider solely on the basis that our judgements are disappointing to the organisation.

5.5. Report publication (Back to top)

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