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

Dynamic inspection of public protection – case and non-case inspection questions

Published:

Case inspection questions (Back to top)

Notes

Most cases where contact has not been suspended are inspected against our core case inspection questions. These are marked throughout the standards framework with the prefix ‘C’ (core). Most cases where contact has been suspended are inspected against our adjusted case inspection questions. These are marked by the prefix ‘A’ (adjusted). Cases that will be inspected against our adjusted case inspection questions are where:

• there was post-sentence supervision (PSS) only from the date of release, or

• there was a formal licence period of eight weeks or less from the date of release.

Core case inspection questions (Back to top)

C1 Does assessment focus sufficiently on keeping other people safe?

a) Does assessment identify and analyse clearly any risk of harm to others?

b) Does assessment draw sufficiently on available sources of information, including past behaviour and convictions, and involve other agencies where appropriate?

c) Does assessment analyse any specific concerns and risks related to actual and potential victims?

C2 Does planning focus sufficiently on keeping other people safe?

a) Does planning address sufficiently risk of harm factors and prioritise those which are most critical?

b) Does planning set out the necessary constructive and/or restrictive interventions to manage the risk of harm?

c) Does planning make appropriate links to the work of other agencies involved with the person on probation and any multi-agency plans?

d) Does planning set out necessary and effective contingency arrangements to manage those risks that have been identified?

C3 Does the implementation and delivery of services support the safety of other people effectively?

a) Are the level and nature of contact offered sufficient to manage and minimise the risk of harm?

b) Is sufficient attention given to protecting actual and potential victims?

c) Is the involvement of other agencies in managing and minimising the risk of harm sufficiently well-coordinated?

d) Are key individuals in the life of the person on probation engaged where appropriate to support the effective management of risk of harm?

e) Are home visits undertaken where necessary to support the effective management of risk of harm?

C4 Does reviewing focus sufficiently on keeping other people safe?

a) Does reviewing identify and address changes in factors related to risk of harm, with the necessary adjustments being made to the ongoing plan of work?

b) Is reviewing informed by the necessary input from other agencies involved in managing the risk of harm?

c) Is the person on probation (and, where appropriate, key individuals in their life) involved meaningfully in reviewing the risk of harm?

d) Are written reviews completed when appropriate as a formal record of the management of the risk of harm?

Adjusted case inspection questions (Back to top)

A1 Does assessment focus sufficiently on keeping other people safe?

a) Does assessment identify and analyse clearly any risk of harm to others?

b) Does assessment draw sufficiently on available sources of information, including past behaviour and convictions, and involve other agencies where appropriate?

c) Does assessment analyse any specific concerns and risks related to actual and potential victims?

A2 Does planning focus sufficiently on keeping other people safe?

a) Does planning address sufficiently risk of harm factors and prioritise those which are most critical?

b) Does planning set out the necessary constructive and/or restrictive interventions to manage the risk of harm?

c) Does planning make appropriate links to the work of other agencies involved with the person on probation and any multi-agency plans?

d) Does planning set out necessary and effective contingency arrangements to manage those risks that have been identified?

A3 Does the implementation and delivery of services support the safety of other people effectively?

a) Is sufficient attention given to protecting actual and potential victims?

b) Is the involvement of other agencies in managing and minimising the risk of harm sufficiently well-coordinated?

c) Was there effective multi-agency coordination in relation to child safeguarding?

d) Was there effective multi-agency coordination in relation to domestic abuse?

A4 Does reviewing focus sufficiently on keeping other people safe?

a) Does reviewing identify and address changes in factors related to risk of harm, with the necessary adjustments being made to the ongoing plan of work?

b) Is reviewing informed by the necessary input from other agencies involved in managing the risk of harm?

We will ask the following additional prompts ONLY in cases where there has been an increase to a very high Risk of Serious Harm (ROSH), Multi Agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA) registration, new child protection registration or National Security Division (NSD) allocation:

c) Has appropriate recall action been taken where the risks can no longer be managed in the community? 

d) Has a sufficient review of assessment and planning taken place?

e) Has sufficient management oversight been provided?

Non-case inspection questions (Back to top)

1. Leadership

Strategic

1.1 How do the region’s public protection delivery plans and strategies drive effective public protection work?

1.2 How do the region’s governance arrangements drive effective public protection work?

1.3 How do strategic MAPPA arrangements drive effective public protection work?

1.4 How do regional leaders understand and drive improvement to the quality of work to protect the public? 

1.5 How do regional leaders ensure adherence to key public protection duties?

1.6 How do regional leaders ensure effective public protection is maintained when adopting new delivery arrangements such as reset and impact?

1.7 How is the region sighted on risks to public protection arrangements and are there appropriate mitigations in place?

Operational

1.8 How does internal and external assurance activity support effective public protection?

1.9 How effective are operational relationships with police?

1.10 How effective are operational relationships with children’s social care?

1.11 How effective are operational relationships with adult social care?

1.12 How effective are operational relationships with other public protection partners?  

1.13 How effective are the operational arrangements for MAPPA level 1?

1.14 How effective are the operational arrangements for MAPPA levels 2 and 3?

1.15 How effective are the operational arrangements for the use of ViSOR?

1.16 How are those cases which are not automatically MAPPA-eligible managed with a sufficient lens on public protection?

1.17 How do regional leaders ensure the safety of victims?

Learning

1.18 How do regional leaders understand and use diversity information to deliver effective public protection work?

1.19 How are public protection policies effectively embedded in practice across the region?

1.20 How is the delivery of work to protect the public and victims improved through evaluation and development of the underlying evidence base?

1.21 How effectively does the region learn systematically from things that go wrong, including serious further offences?

2. Staffing

2.1 Is the span of control for the head of public protection manageable?

2.2 Do the spans of control for heads of PDUs enable the effective implementation of public protection policies to the front line?

2.3 How does the region ensure that heads of PDUs are sufficiently supported to deliver high-quality public protection work?

2.4 How does the region ensure that heads of PDUs are held to account to deliver high-quality public protection work?

2.5 How does the region ensure that practitioners are given effective oversight and supported to manage cases where there are public protection concerns?

2.6 How does the region ensure that cases are allocated to staff who are appropriately qualified and/or experienced?

2.7 How are the ongoing learning needs of staff identified and met to ensure effective public protection work?

2.8 How is a culture of learning and continuous improvement in public protection work actively promoted?

2.9 What is done to check that learning is understood and applied in practice?

2.10 Where there are capability concerns linked to public protection practice how are they dealt with?

3. Services

3.1 How does the region ensure the availability of high-quality services to protect the public?

3.2 How do commissioning arrangements drive effective public protection work?

3.3 How do contract management arrangements drive effective public protection work?

3.4 How do regional leaders drive effective collaborative working between service providers and probation practitioners?

3.5 How are courts kept up to date with the services available, to support sentencing options?

3.6 How confident are sentencers in the delivery of public protection activity?

3.7 How do regional leaders ensure that public protection interventions are responsive and individualised?  

3.8 How do enforcement arrangements support effective public protection?

3.9 How is technology used to protect the public?