Dynamic inspection of public protection. Case assessment rules and guidance (CARaG).

Dynamic inspection of public protection. Case assessment rules and guidance (CARaG).

V1.1 – Published 20 October 2025

Introduction (Back to top)

In the dynamic inspection of public protection, we specifically inspect the quality of service delivery to keep people safe. Some inspection questions are derived directly from the existing PDU inspection standards; others are designed to provide a deeper analysis of strengths and areas for improvement in delivery of public protection.

We apply a set of adjusted questions to cases where Probation Reset or Probation Impact are applied eight weeks or less from the point of order commencement or release on licence.

Inspection questions are supported by the case assessment rules and guidance (CARaG). This is a comprehensive set of published rules and guidance to be followed by inspectors and local assessors when they assess cases. The CARaG promotes transparency and consistency in our inspection of cases. It has been updated to reflect our approach to inspecting cases impacted by suspension of contact. For some questions, the CARaG sets out differing expectations depending on the impact of contact being suspended. In all other questions, the CARaG applies equally, irrespective of the timing or impact of suspension. Inspection staff and local assessors should use the CARaG as a reference document when assessing a case.

Not all questions apply to all cases, and this is explained throughout the CARaG.

Key (Back to top)

Example	Question format	Represents:
Does assessment analyse any specific concerns and risks related to actual and potential victims?	Plain text	A question directly linked to a prompt in the inspection questions, mirroring PDU inspection standards. The answers to these questions directly influence the summary judgement at key question level.
Was domestic abuse and child safeguarding information obtained and used as part of the assessment of suitability for curfew?	Italics	An information question, asked to provide additional background information about the case, or to gather evidence for the inspection of public protection, but not directly linked to summary judgement questions.
Does planning focus sufficiently on keeping other people safe?	Bold text	A summary judgement question, answering a key question from the inspection questions.

Inspection principles (Back to top)

Resettlement cases

For the assessment, planning, implementation and delivery, and reviewing questions, we inspect post-release work (where that has been the responsibility of the inspected region). There is a small number of separate questions to evaluate pre-release public protection work completed by the community offender manager, as part of preparation for release. In cases serving very short periods in custody, we take a proportionate approach to what work would have been reasonable in the time available, although we continue to expect that key issues regarding public protection should be prioritised.

Post-recall cases

We inspect cases that have been released post-recall as part of our sample. As for other resettlement cases, evidence from earlier in the sentence may be taken into account, but we expect to see a community offender manager assessing, planning, and ensuring delivery of appropriate work in respect of public protection during the recall period, to ensure preparation for re-release.

Cases transferred in or out of the region

We inspect cases transferred into or out of the region as part of our sample. In cases transferred out, we expect the probation practitioner in the region to take full responsibility for assessment, planning, delivery and reviewing of public protection until the point that a formal transfer is agreed by the receiving area; this will include any work delivered by another area under temporary caretaking arrangements. In cases transferred in, we inspect the work of the receiving area from the point that formal transfer is agreed. We may consider any assessment that has been completed by the transferring area, but the probation practitioner in the receiving area is responsible for ensuring that sufficient assessment and planning are in place to manage public protection aspects of the case from the point of the formal transfer.

Cases that have terminated

We do not inspect cases that were terminated within seven days of the order or licence commencing. For cases that were terminated between eight and 28 days after sentence/release, we inspect those where there was continuity of supervision, such as where a community order was revoked and immediately replaced by a similar order, or where a licence case was recalled and subsequently re-released.

Probation Reset

We include cases affected by Probation Reset, where they appear in our samples. In cases where contact has been suspended after eight weeks supervision or less, we apply an adjusted set of questions. In cases where contact has been suspended after more than eight weeks supervision, we apply our core questions, and take a proportionate approach in making inspection judgements.

Probation Impact

We include cases affected by Probation Impact, where they appear in our samples. In cases where contact has been suspended after eight weeks supervision or less, we apply an adjusted set of questions. In cases where contact has been suspended after more than eight weeks supervision, we apply our core questions, and take a proportionate approach in making inspection judgements.

Cases with multiple sentences

In cases where the individual has been subject to additional community sentences or periods of post-release supervision since the date when the order/post-release supervision began, inspectors will take account of the whole period of continuous supervision since that date. Where Probation Reset or Probation Impact have been used, we consider that to be a break in continuous supervision.

If a community order was revoked and replaced with another qualifying community order, the delivery and implementation under all orders will be inspected. If a community sentence was revoked and not immediately replaced with another community sentence, inspectors will only take account of work up to the point of revocation.

If a licence resulted in a recall, and the individual was subsequently re-released on a new licence or period of post-sentence supervision, the whole period of continuous supervision (including any time spent in custody on recall) will be taken into account.

Dynamic inspection of public protection One of the key features of this inspection, is to explore the reasons why work is sufficient or insufficient. Where the practitioner responsible for that work is interviewed, inspectors will discuss with them what those reasons might be. Where the practitioner directly responsible is not interviewed, inspectors will gather what information they can from case records and themes will potentially be followed up in meetings during the second fieldwork week.

Information about the case (Back to top)

	Inspection question	CARaG
2.0.19a  All cases	Is this a case where core inspection questions should be applied?	We apply the core inspection questions in all cases where contact continued for more than eight weeks after order commencement or release on licence, before any suspension under Probation Impact or Probation Reset. To judge this, we look for the relevant flag on nDelius or clear evidence in the case records, that contact has been suspended, and the date of that decision. If Probation Reset or Probation Impact could have been applied after eight weeks or less, but suspension of contact (indicated as above) did not take place until after eight weeks from the point of release, we apply the core inspection questions.
2.0.20a  All cases	Is this a case where adjusted inspection questions should be applied?	We apply the adjusted inspection questions: • in any licence or PSS cases where contact has been suspended under Probation Reset or Probation Impact, at a point up to and including eight weeks from the date of the release which has triggered inclusion in the case sample and • in any community sentence case where Probation Impact has been applied up to and including eight weeks from the date of commencement. Inspectors look for the relevant flag on nDelius or a clear statement in the case records, that contact has been suspended, and the date of that decision. If contact has been suspended (as indicated as above) but there has been some ongoing contact beyond the point where suspension has been indicated, including contact to investigate new information received or routine contact with people who are homeless, we still apply the adjusted questions. If contact of a more substantive nature has continued, beyond the point that the case record indicates contact has been suspended, we may apply core inspection questions.

Assessment information (Back to top)

X 1 Cases with court report only	If a court report was prepared by the probation region in the inspected event in the 12 months before inspection fieldwork; was an appropriate proposal made to court to support public protection in this case?	We expect the proposal to allow for management of any identified or potential risk of harm. Where the individual is likely to be eligible and suitable for any accredited programmes, an accredited programme should normally be proposed to court. If a programme is not proposed or it is unclear whether suitability was assessed, inspectors will assess the suitability of the proposed requirements/sentence to support public protection. Even where the court has asked for a specific assessment, such as for unpaid work, the Probation Service should inform the court about whether this is likely to be an effective sentence to support public protection, and should make a proposal for a more suitable sentence if that better supports public protection. Where there are factors related to harm, for example domestic abuse or child safeguarding, we expect the proposal to allow for these issues to be addressed and safely managed, even when the index offence is not related to these issues.
X 2 Cases with court report only	Was a sufficient assessment of the risk of serious harm (RoSH) completed as part of the court report process?	The current operating model of the Probation Service is that a full assessment of RoSH is completed as part of any court report process. We expect this assessment to: • be based on sufficient information gathering, including information about domestic abuse and (where applicable) child safeguarding • give appropriate consideration to victim safety, including but not exclusively the victim of the index offence • include the voice of the person on probation • take into account information about previous offending and other known or alleged behaviour, not just based on the index offence • update any existing assessment with relevant information from the newest offences • support safe allocation to a probation practitioner with the appropriate skills and experience • allow safe management of risk of harm from the point the sentence is made. Depending on their answer to this question, inspectors will record why this has or has not been completed to a sufficient standard. Possible reasons might include knowledge or confidence of the practitioner, quality of partnership arrangements, local operating practices or management oversight. We recognise that we normally do not interview the report author separately, so we look for evidence in gatekeeping documents, OASys countersigning and management oversight.
2.2.06 Resettlement cases only	Did the community offender manager identify and address key risk of harm issues before release?	We expect the community offender manager to identify and plan to address any factors related to risk of harm that might be present during the final months of the custodial sentence and after release. This includes obtaining sufficient information from the prison about behaviour that may indicate ongoing risks after release. It may also include checking and addressing the safety of victims, partners and children. Work planned to be delivered by staff working in custody could be counted as part of the evidence here, where the community offender manager has been taking a coordinating role. There should also be liaison and coordination with partner agencies regarding the management of risk of harm. This might include MAPPA, integrated offender management (IOM), the police, or children’s services. Depending on their answer to this question, inspectors will record why this has or has not been completed to a sufficient standard. Possible explanations for a positive answer might be a practitioner with a manageable workloads, who is experienced in working with resettlement cases and is confident in obtaining information from prisons and other agencies. Inspectors will take a proportionate approach, bearing in mind the length of time the person on probation actually spends in custody, and the level of risk and need in the case.
X 3 Resettlement cases only	Were appropriate licence conditions put in place to protect victims and the public?	We expect the community offender manager to identify appropriate licence conditions, to support constructive and restrictive interventions during the period of licence. These should include, where relevant: • no-contact conditions to protect existing and potential victims (whether those victims are entitled to statutory victim contact or not) • conditions requiring that behavioural factors relevant to risk of harm are addressed • exclusion zones • prohibited activities, including no-contact conditions with co-defendants • conditions of residence curfews and tagging, including HDC, GPS monitoring and alcohol tagging. Any licence conditions should be necessary and proportionate. We expect the safety of victims and potential victims to be considered, and that people named on the licence should normally be informed of the licence conditions. We recognise that additional licence conditions can only be applied during formal licence periods, not post-sentence supervision (PSS). We expect the person on probation to have been given clear information about the specific licence conditions, and how they will comply with them. Depending on their answer to this question, inspectors will record why this has or has not been completed to a sufficient standard. Possible reasons for a positive answer might be a practitioner with a manageable workloads, with a good professional understanding of how and why to obtain licence conditions, and sufficient knowledge of the case to identify the appropriate conditions for a safe release.
X 4 All cases	Which of these factors were relevant in this case?	Where the inspector believes that any of these specific factors are present in the case, they note it, and expect to see a clear record. We look for this information using nDelius flags and also any other information recorded in the case to inform our answer. The factors are: • Organised Crime • Child Sexual Exploitation – Perpetrator • Registered sex offender • Non- registered sex offender • Risk to Adults • Terrorism Act Offender • Modern Day Slavery – Perpetrator • Street Gangs • Joint Intelligence Programme • Child Criminal Exploitation (CCE) – Perpetrator • County Lines – Perpetrator • Hate Crime
2.3.01   Core cases only	Does assessment analyse the motivation and readiness of the person on probation to engage and comply with the sentence?	Inspectors are looking for more than a simple statement about the individual’s motivation and readiness to engage and comply with the sentence. We expect to find a clear assessment of the individual’s readiness to engage, recognising the different stages in the cycle of change. We expect practitioners to recognise the level of the individual’s motivation to comply, and any supporting or contradictory factors. We look for evidence in formal assessment documents, the case record and the interview with the practitioner. This question only refers to motivation and readiness to engage and comply with the sentence, specifically elements of the sentence related to public protection. If a written self-assessment has been completed (such as the OASys self-assessment questionnaire), this may contain useful information. We expect the practitioner to consider information from previous periods of probation supervision and to identify any potential barriers to engagement, which may be indicated by information from previous breaches or non-compliance.
2.3.02   Core cases only	Does assessment analyse the protected characteristics of the individual and consider the impact of these on their ability to comply and engage with service delivery?	Inspectors expect to see a meaningful exploration of any diversity factors relevant to the individual. We recognise the nine protected characteristics (sex, age, race, religion and belief, disability, pregnancy and maternity, sexual orientation, gender reassignment, and marriage or civil partnership). As a starting point, inspectors expect to see a fully completed and up-to-date diversity monitoring form. We also expect to see evidence that this has been discussed with the individual, to gain a clear understanding of the impact of each factor on their life and on their ability to engage with the sentence, and in particular elements of the sentence related to public protection. The potential impact of any factor and the degree to which it needs to be taken into account will vary according to the individual case. A number of factors can have an impact on the extent to which individuals are able to engage with services; experience of discrimination can contribute to this. Many users of adult probation services have had these experiences. We recognise that many individuals have multiple relevant protected characteristics, and inspectors will consider issues of intersectionality. Having analysed the diversity factors, we expect to see an account of the impact these have specifically on the individual’s ability to engage and comply specifically/exclusively with elements of the sentence that support public protection.
2.3.05  Adjusted cases only	Does assessment consider diversity factors and potential barriers to planning for contact ending and compliance during suspension?	Even where there is limited contact with the person on probation, we expect practitioners to fully consider diversity factors and any potential barriers to engagement, as the starting point for being able to put in place appropriate, personalised arrangements for any direct delivery regarding activity to support public protection before suspension, and for post-supervision support.
2.1.04a All cases	At the start of the sentence, were there any indicators of that the person on probation might be a perpetrator of domestic abuse?	We recognise the cross-government definition of domestic abuse as any incident of controlling, coercive or threatening behaviour, violence or abuse between those aged 16 or over who are, or have been, intimate partners or family members, regardless of their gender or sexuality. Domestic abuse covers, but is not limited to, the following types of abuse: • psychological • physical • sexual • financial • emotional. Inspectors look at the evidence that would have been available to the probation practitioner. The index offence might constitute domestic abuse directly, due to the nature of the offence, such as an assault. Victim and witness statements and other prosecution documents may also indicate elements of domestic abuse in relation to other offences, such as theft and drugs offences. Lists of previous convictions do not indicate which individual offences constituted domestic abuse. We expect report authors to show an appropriate level of professional curiosity in circumstances where previous convictions include offences such as assault, criminal damage, threatening behaviour, harassment or breach of restraining orders. Probation Service records may indicate that the individual has been a perpetrator or victim of domestic abuse. Offender assessment system (OASys) assessments, nDelius case records and other available documents, including external reports, child protection conference notes and communication with other agencies, may provide useful sources of information. The individual might disclose in interview that they have been a perpetrator of domestic abuse, or might disclose other information about their relationships that could indicate the potential for domestic abuse to be present. We expect practitioners to use suitable professional curiosity to explore these issues. This question is specifically about the individual being a perpetrator or potential perpetrator of domestic abuse, to allow a link to be made to assessment of the risk of serious harm they may pose. Where the person has been a victim of domestic abuse, we expect that to be covered as part of the personal circumstances of that individual.
2.3.20  All cases	Was sufficient information about domestic abuse obtained?	We recognise that there are several different ways the Probation Service can obtain information about domestic abuse, including direct enquiries to the police, enquiries through a Multi-Agency Safeguarding Hub (MASH) and routine information-sharing by the police. Whatever the local arrangements, we expect the Probation Service to obtain sufficient information on domestic abuse from the police in all cases at the point when a PSR is ordered by the court. To be sufficient, information must cover a reasonable period of time, and must provide enough detail to allow the Probation Service to understand the behaviour of the individual that has come to police attention. A simple list of dates of police call-outs is unlikely to be sufficient. Any enquiries, and responses from the police, should be recorded clearly on nDelius. The only situation where fresh enquiries are not required is where sufficient up-to-date information is available from other sources, such as records of a current case or Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) information. We expect the Probation Service to be working with police forces to facilitate a clear, detailed and speedy response to all enquiries or to have in place other information-sharing arrangements. If information has not been obtained at the point of the PSR, we still expect the Probation Service to obtain sufficient information once the individual has been sentenced.
2.3.21a  All cases	Was there sufficient assessing and analysis of risk of domestic abuse?	We expect any relevant information about domestic abuse to be used in assessing the case. It should therefore be discussed with the individual as part of the assessment process. If the information obtained confirms there are no factors related to domestic abuse, this needs to be made clear in any written assessment. If there are factors related to domestic abuse, these should be analysed as part of assessment. Where domestic abuse is a factor in the case, assessment should demonstrate that the practitioner has used professional curiosity to seek out and critically analyse attitudes, thinking and behaviour shown by the person on probation related to domestic abuse. That should include violence or threats of violence, sexual harm or threats of sexual harm, and coercive or other controlling behaviour. It should include behaviour that has resulted in convictions, and other reported behaviour that has not resulted in convictions, and should distinguish between the two. Analysis should clearly explain any patterns of abusive behaviour that the individual has demonstrated in current and previous intimate relationships and familial contexts. Depending on their answer to this question, inspectors will record why this has or has not been completed to a sufficient standard. Potential explanations for a positive answer might be the knowledge, confidence and experience of the practitioner, a good level of support and oversight, or good quality information sharing with police and/or multi-agency working relationships.
2.1.07a  All cases	At the start of the sentence, were there any indicators that there might be child protection or child safeguarding concerns in this case?	Inspectors look at the information that would have been available to the practitioner. The index offence might have had a child co-defendant, a child victim or child witnesses. For most offences, the list of previous convictions does not identify which individual offences indicate risks to, or concerns for, children. We expect probation practitioners to show an appropriate level of professional curiosity to explore the ages of any co-defendants, and of victims of sexual or violent offences. Existing Probation Service records may reveal current or previous child safeguarding or child protection concerns, in connection with the individual’s offending or their family circumstances. OASys assessments, nDelius case records and other available documents, including external reports, child protection conference notes and communication with other agencies, may provide useful sources of information. The individual might disclose issues in interview linked to their personal circumstances, lifestyle and associates that indicate child protection or child safeguarding concerns. We expect practitioners to use suitable professional curiosity to explore these issues.
2.1.08a  All cases	Was sufficient information about child protection and child safeguarding obtained?	We expect to see clear evidence recorded that shows whether the individual has been asked if they have children or are in contact with children (so we know if information about child protection or child safeguarding is required). Our definition of ‘child’ is anyone who has not yet reached the age of 18. We expect the Probation Service to obtain information about child protection and child safeguarding in all cases where the individual: • has children, or • is in contact with children, or • presents a potential risk of harm to children. If the person on probation has children of their own, we expect to see details of their names, ages or dates of birth, and living arrangements (if they are not resident with the person on probation). ‘Contact with children’ includes circumstances where they are living with children of a partner, where they have significant or unsupervised contact with children in the extended family, or where their employment may place them in significant or unsupervised contact with children. We recognise that there are several different ways the Probation Service can obtain information about child protection and child safeguarding, including direct enquiries to children’s social care, and enquiries through a MASH. Whatever the local arrangements, we expect the Probation Service to obtain sufficient information about child protection and child safeguarding in all relevant cases at the start of a sentence, if that has not been obtained at the point when a PSR is ordered by the court. In resettlement cases, information should be obtained prior to release. To be sufficient, information must cover a reasonable period of time, and must provide enough detail to allow the Probation Service to understand the individual’s behaviour and/or concerns about children they are in contact with that have come to the attention of children’s services. Enquiries should be made in the individual’s home local authority area, and in the local authority area where any relevant children live, if different. A simple list of dates of contact with children’s social care is unlikely to be sufficient. Information should be sought at the point a PSR is ordered by the court. Any enquiries, and responses from children’s services, should be clearly recorded on nDelius. The only situation where fresh enquiries are not required in these cases is where sufficient, up-to-date information is available from other sources, such as records of a current case, or recent enquiries as part of a court report. We expect the Probation Service to be working with local authorities to facilitate a clear, detailed and speedy response to all enquiries.
X 5  All cases	Was there sufficient assessing and analysis of risk to children?	Where there are risks or potential risks to children, we expect any relevant information about child protection and child safeguarding to be used in assessing the case. Assessment should describe any behaviour shown by the person on probation related to any risks to children. That should include direct violence or threats of violence, sexual harm or threats of sexual harm, and any grooming behaviour. It should also include any other behaviour, such as domestic abuse, which is likely to have an impact on children even though they are not direct victims. This should include behaviour that has resulted in convictions, and other reported behaviour that has not resulted in convictions, and should distinguish between the two. Analysis should clearly explain any patterns of behaviour that the individual has demonstrated. Any risks should be discussed with the individual as part of the assessment process. Depending on their answer to this question, inspectors will record why this has or has not been completed to a sufficient standard. Possible reasons for a positive answer might be a practitioner with a good level of professional curiosity, fully exploring the level of contact the person on probation has with children, and being persistent in obtaining information from children social care about any history of children they are in contact with.
X 6 All cases	Was there sufficient assessing and analysis of risk of harm through sexual offending?	Where there are any factors related to risk of sexual harm in the case, assessment should describe any behaviour shown by the person on probation related to actual or potential sexual offending. There should be a clear distinction between contact and non-contact behaviour; and between behaviour that has or has not resulted in convictions. Any relevant factors about victims and potential victims should be set out, including age and sex. Analysis should clearly explain any patterns of behaviour, and the underpinning thinking, to support identification of future risks. Depending on their answer to this question, inspectors will record why this has or has not been completed to a sufficient standard. Possible reasons for a positive answer would be a good level of knowledge and confidence in working with people who have committed sexual offences, and a good working relationship with police offender managers to share information.
X 7 All cases	Was there sufficient assessing and analysis of risk of harm through hate crime?	Where there are any factors related to hate-based behaviour in the case, assessment should describe that behaviour, irrespective of whether it has resulted in a conviction with a hate-based element or not. Assessment should analyse the behaviour and underpinning thoughts and beliefs, to support identification of future risks. Depending on their answer to this question, inspectors will record why this has or has not been completed to a sufficient standard. Possible reasons for a positive answer would include the practitioner recognising the nature and impact of hate-based behaviour, and being confident in exploring these issues with the person on probation.
X 8 All cases	Was there sufficient assessment of violence, threats and harmful attitudes and behaviours (other than those related to domestic abuse, child safeguarding, hate-based behaviour and sexually harmful behaviour)?	This question covers a range of potentially-harmful behaviour, other than behaviour directly related to domestic abuse, child safeguarding or sexually harmful behaviour. This may include driving offences, stalking (other than related to domestic abuse), instrumental violence, reactive violence, group-based violence or politically-motivated behaviour. Assessment should identify any relevant factors and behaviour, whether they have resulted in a conviction or not. Analysis should explore any underpinning thoughts and beliefs, to support identification of future risks. Depending on their answer to this question, inspectors will record why this has or has not been completed to a sufficient standard. Possible reasons for a positive answer would include a good level of professional curiosity, and the ability to analyse a range of complex information to focus on the nature of any potential future harm.
2.3.29 All cases	What is the risk of serious harm classification of the person on probation (at the start of the order or licence) according to the probation practitioner?	We recognise the OASys definitions of the levels of serious harm. ‘Serious harm is defined as an event which is life-threatening and/or traumatic, and from which recovery, whether physical or psychological, can be expected to be difficult or impossible.’ While we do expect all factors relevant to risk of harm to be identified and analysed, when assessing the level of risk of harm, we are looking at the level of risk of serious harm. Assessment should be specific about exactly what harm might be caused and the circumstances in which future harm is most likely to occur. The best predictor of future behaviour is past behaviour. The level of serious harm is defined in terms of the likelihood of serious harmful behaviour happening. Definitions of levels of RoSH are: Very high: There is an imminent RoSH. The potential event is more likely than not to happen imminently, and the impact would be serious. High: There are identifiable indicators of RoSH. The potential event could happen at any time and the impact would be serious. Medium: There are identifiable indicators of RoSH. The offender has the potential to cause serious harm but is unlikely to do so unless there is a change in the circumstances Low: Current evidence does not indicate the likelihood of causing serious harm. Assessment should be clear about the level and nature of the risk presented to any/all categories of actual or potential victim. In assessing the likelihood of seriously harmful behaviour, we expect probation practitioners to consider the following guidance. An assessment of low RoSH may be appropriate if: • there are no factors at all that indicate the potential for seriously harmful behaviour • there are factors indicating the potential for seriously harmful behaviour, but there is good evidence that those factors are mitigated by a combination of internal and external factors, and the circumstances of the person on probation are stable and likely to remain so. An assessment of medium RoSH should be made if there are factors that indicate the potential for serious harm to be caused but this is unlikely to happen unless circumstances change. Where there are current factors indicating the potential for seriously harmful behaviour, we expect probation practitioners to consider the following, when judging the level of RoSH: • What do the static factors in the case and statistical predictors indicate? Older people are less likely to reoffend. Higher scores on the Risk of Serious Recidivism tool and OASys Violence Predictor may indicate a higher likelihood of future seriously harmful behaviour. • What is known about the stable dynamic risk factors? This may include issues such as problem-solving ability or emotional regulation. The presence of a range of stable, or improving, dynamic risk factors may reduce the assessed level of RoSH. • What is known about the acute dynamic risk factors? This may include issues such as substance misuse or likely response to stressors. The presence of a number of acute dynamic risk factors may increase the assessed level of RoSH. • What is known about the strengths of the person on probation, including internal protective factors (such as feeling part of the community or being hopeful about the future)? The presence of known strengths may reduce the assessed level of RoSH. • What resources or services are available to the person on probation, including supportive family relationships or access to rehabilitative services? • What is known about the person on probation’s capacity and motivation to change? To what extent has the person on probation demonstrated that they are able and willing to engage with risk management? Evidence of commitment to change and cooperation with risk management arrangements may reduce the assessed level of RoSH. • What are the circumstances in which seriously harmful behaviour might arise, and how similar are the current circumstances? • Is there evidence that the person on probation is actively seeking opportunities to offend? • Is there evidence that the person on probation is engaging in other behaviour that directly or indirectly increases the likelihood of serious harm? Absence of immediate access to victims, whether by imprisonment, child protection arrangements or the ending of a relationship, or other external constraints, is not in itself a reason to lower the assessed level of RoSH. Evidence that the person on probation is genuinely complying with arrangements to protect victims or reduce access to victims may contribute towards lowering the assessed level of RoSH.
2.3.31 All cases	Is the probation practitioner’s classification of risk of serious harm reasonable?	In this question we are looking both at the overall classification of risk of serious harm, and the individual levels assessed for each specific group of potential victims. In cases close to a boundary between classification levels, inspectors will consider whether the probation practitioner’s classification was reasonable in the context of all the information available to them at the time. We recognise that the precise level of RoSH is a point on a continuum, and that for cases close to the boundary between two levels, it is a fine judgement about the actual level to be assigned. We expect to see a clear explanation of the reasons that each particular level of RoSH has been set, based on OASys definitions. If inspectors do not think the practitioner’s classification is reasonable, they will record the reasons for that.
2.3.35 All cases	Was domestic abuse and child safeguarding information obtained and used as part of the assessment of suitability for curfew?	In cases where an electronically monitored curfew is proposed, including home detention curfew and a curfew as a requirement of a community sentence, we expect the Probation Service to obtain and use information about domestic abuse and child safeguarding. Domestic abuse information should be requested in all cases. Information obtained should be sufficient to identify any known behaviour or risk of harm in connection with the proposed curfew address and any residents there, and also any behaviour related to other individuals or circumstances that might suggest an ongoing risk of domestic abuse. We believe a curfew should not be proposed if there is any evidence of ongoing risk of domestic abuse. We expect to see clear evidence recorded that shows whether the individual has been asked if they have children or are in contact with children (so we know if information about child protection or child safeguarding is required). We expect the Probation Service to obtain information about child protection and child safeguarding in all cases where a curfew is being considered, where the individual: • has children, or • is in contact with children, • or presents a potential risk of harm to children. Information obtained should be sufficient to identify whether the individual poses any ongoing risk of harm to children who might be resident at, or visiting, the proposed curfew address. We believe a curfew should not be proposed if there is any evidence of ongoing risk to children at the proposed curfew address.

Assessment (Back to top)

Assessment refers to the process of assessment, not just to the preparation of a single assessment document. This section refers to the overall assessment at the start of the community sentence or licence.

Sources of evidence:
Evidence for the assessment standard may come from the interview with the probation practitioner and ongoing case records, including court reports, as well as any written OASys assessment. This section refers to the overall assessment at the start of the order or licence being inspected.

Timescales:
We do not specify the timescale within which assessment should be completed, but if there is a delay in completing significant elements of assessment, that can result in a negative judgement, even when any finalised assessment is good enough. If the person on probation has been subject to other sentences at the point this sentence commenced, previous assessments can be taken into account, but we would expect them to be updated for the sentence. In some cases, the person on probation will have received additional community sentences/post-release supervision starting after the date of the sentence which is subject to inspection. We would expect to see a re-assessment in those circumstances, but that work will be inspected under the ‘Reviewing’ standard.

Risk of harm:
HM Inspectorate of Probation expects assessment to cover all factors relevant to risk of harm (not just factors related to risk of serious harm).

Post-release cases:
In post-release cases, we look at assessment from the point of release. Where there has been assessment in the period immediately preceding the release, that can be included as part of the evidence for these questions.

Cases where Probation Reset or Probation Impact have been applied:
Where questions apply in core and adjusted cases, we expect our questions for assessment to be met to the same level in all cases where Probation Reset or Probation Impact have been applied, irrespective of the length of active contact. This is because sufficient assessment is the necessary foundation for delivery of services either by the Probation Service, or as part of exit planning and handover to other services at the point contact is suspended.

	Does assessment focus sufficiently on keeping other people safe?
	Inspection question	CARaG Case assessment rules and guidance
2.3.24   All cases	Does assessment identify and analyse clearly any risk of harm to others?	Principles for inspection Our key principle is that we inspect the quality of assessment overall rather than the use of any specific document, tool or process. We do not require the use of any specific assessment tool, but instead judge the quality of assessment in the round. Our judgements are based on the overall assessment process, including evidence from: OASys (RoSH screening, full analysis, and other sections) • any other specific assessments completed • ongoing case records • any interview with the responsible officer • information from external sources, including YOT records, where relevant. We inspect against our published questions, not against the adherence of the Probation Service to any specific policy on assessment. In any assessment of risk of harm to others, we expect any and all factors related to the risk of harm to be described and analysed, not just factors related to risk of serious harm. The actual behaviour linked to the potential for future harm should be described; it is not sufficient simply to name the offence a person has been convicted of. Analysis should explain the motivation and thinking behind the behaviour, and the individual’s attitude to it, as part of the basis for being able to assess future risks. We expect to see a clear analysis of any risks to children (known to the individual or children in general), and of any risks of domestic abuse (to intimate partners and/or other family members). Harm includes physical harm, sexual harm and psychological harm. We expect responsible officers to identify the potential for long-term psychological harm arising from non-violent offences, such as child neglect or domestic abuse. A risk of harm assessment should consider: actuarial risk assessments (including Risk of Serious Recidivism (RSR) and OASys predictors for sexual and violent offending (OVP, OSP/DC, OSP/IIC) static risk factors, including age and gender, and the nature, number and circumstances of previous convictions dynamic risk factors (which may be acute or stable) • acute dynamic risk factors are those that have the potential to change quickly, such as substance misuse • stable dynamic risk factors are those that may change over a longer period, such as problem-solving capability or response to trauma strengths of the service user, including internal protective factors (such as feeling part of the community or being hopeful about the future) resources available to the service user, or external protective factors (including positive personal relationships and access to rehabilitative interventions) capacity and motivation to change (including the extent to which the service user is able and willing to engage with risk management). We expect to see information verified where possible, and the credibility and relevance of information considered. We also consider the content of any specialist assessments completed in the case.
2.3.27   All cases	Does assessment draw sufficiently on available sources of information, including past behaviour and convictions, and involve other agencies where appropriate?	We expect assessment to be based on all available sources of information. This could include current and previous records of supervision, assessments by other agencies (including youth justice services, healthcare providers and adult social care services), specialist assessments, and information about the custodial part of sentences. Information from the person on probation (and their family members, if available) should also be taken into account. Assessment should consider previous convictions and other previous known or suspected behaviour, including information about offending abroad. We expect the probation practitioner to seek as much relevant information as possible, to inform the assessment. However, the assessment should not be delayed unnecessarily if some information is not available. The level of information available will vary, depending on the nature of the case. Our judgements are based on the sources of information that the probation practitioner would reasonably have been able to access at the time of the assessment. Probation practitioners should actively seek all relevant information; if needed, they should use escalation processes to obtain key sources of information that are held by other agencies. Information about current and previous convictions will come from prosecution documents, probation records and the person on probation. In some cases, there will be additional information from external sources, such as the youth offending team, prison records, the police, the Violent and Sex Offender Register (ViSOR) and MAPPA. Information about past (unconvicted) behaviour could come from a range of sources, including the person on probation, their family members and other professionals working with them. This may include responses to previous orders, juvenile behaviour and the views of previous practitioners. We expect practitioners to consider the impact of any trauma experienced by the individual on the risk to others. In some cases, there will be no previous convictions or information about past behaviour. Probation practitioners should be persistent in trying to obtain information from other organisations. They should analyse whether past behaviours remain relevant, and the circumstances in which the behaviour may manifest. An example would be a return to drinking following a period of abstinence. Where the person on probation is a foreign national, Probation Service internal guidance sets out how relevant information may be obtained, including from the Home Office and the Foreign National Offender (FNO) Hub.
2.3.28   All cases	Does assessment analyse any specific concerns and risks related to actual and potential victims?	Assessment should identify, where possible, any and all actual or potential victims, using the following categories: general public, known adults, children, staff, and prisoners. Within these broad headings, the assessment should clearly identify any sub-groups that are more likely to be at risk, such as ‘general public – peers in pubs/clubs’, ‘known adults – grandparents’, ‘children – within family and friendship circles’ or ‘staff – police and security guards’. When assessing who might be potential future victims, we expect probation practitioners to look for patterns of behaviour that are repeated and therefore likely to reoccur. Attention should be paid to any specific diversity characteristics of the victim that may either make them more likely to be targeted, or make it harder for them to report offences. We expect assessment to be clear about whether or not there is ongoing risk to any victims of current or previous offences. Assessment should specify the nature and level of any ongoing risks to current or previous victims, and to any identifiable potential victims.
P 2.1.3	Summary judgement: Does assessment focus sufficiently on keeping other people safe?	Inspectors will judge whether the overall quality of assessment of risk of harm meets the needs of the case, taking into account the nature and level of risk of harm in the case, and will look for a proportionate approach to assessment. • Consider evidence from the questions in this section only, focusing on activity and impact, not just adherence to Probation Service processes • What has been done and what has the impact of that been with respect to assessment? • What has been omitted, and how much difference has that made to the case in terms of actual or potential impact? • Explain what weighting is given to which factors, bearing in mind overall assessment to keep people safe. • We are not looking for perfection, but for a sufficient assessment of the most important factors related to risk of harm. Where there were no factors related to risk of harm, inspectors answer ‘yes’.

Planning (Back to top)

Planning includes all planning activity, not just the preparation of a written plan. Evidence for this standard may come from the interview with the probation practitioner and ongoing case records, as well as from OASys. Planning should be proportionate to the risk and needs of the individual, and to the nature of the sentence and its requirements. The plan must be understandable to the person on probation and other agencies. The person on probation should understand their role in planning, and the actions that are expected of them. Where people on probation are subject to a range of plans (sentence, MAPPA, child protection etc.) these should be coordinated, including agreement around the sequencing of actions.

Post-release cases:
In post-release cases, we look at planning post-release under this standard. Where there has been planning in the period immediately preceding the release, that can be included as part of the evidence for this standard.

Cases where Probation Reset or Probation Impact have been applied:
We expect planning in cases where Probation Reset  or Probation Impact have been applied to cover both activity that will be delivered during active contact, and services that can be offered after contact has been suspended, as part of exit planning. In cases where we apply adjusted standards, where there is a very short, or no, period of contact, planning should be proportionate to address what, if anything, can be delivered during the period of active contact, and what will be offered as part of exit planning. We will look for evidence in formal planning documents and contacts with the person on probation.

Risk of harm:
HM Inspectorate of Probation expects work to be planned to address all factors relevant to risk of harm (not just factors related to risk of serious harm).

	Does planning focus sufficiently on keeping other people safe?
	Inspection question	CARaG Case assessment rules and guidance
	HM Inspectorate of Probation expects all factors relevant to risk of harm to be planned for, not just factors related to risk of serious harm. Some cases assessed as low risk of serious harm will therefore require planning to address factors related to harm.
2.4.20   All cases	Does planning address sufficiently risk of harm factors and prioritise those which are most critical?	Planning should identify activities and interventions that minimise any identifiable risk of harm to others (not just RoSH), and address all factors relevant to keeping other people safe. Planning should include both work to be done directly with the person on probation, and work to be done by the Probation Service, potentially on a multi-agency basis. The person on probation should be involved in the planning to address the safety of others. Planning should specify who is to complete the activities, and how the person on probation knows when the outcome has been achieved. It should address all factors relevant to keeping other people safe, irrespective of whether they were identified at the assessment stage. Planning should prioritise the most critical factors, which are those with the strongest link to the likelihood of harm being caused. Planning should be proportionate to the nature of the sentence, and the level and nature of risk of harm. In post-release cases, initial planning should involve staff from the prison, and should consider risks within the prison environment and in the community. In cases where suspension of contact under Probation Reset is anticipated, we expect to see clear planning for the active period of supervision and also clear arrangements for how risk of harm factors will be followed up by other agencies after supervision is suspended.
2.4.21   All cases	Does planning set out the necessary constructive and/or restrictive interventions to manage the risk of harm?	Depending on the level and nature of the risk in the individual case, not all of these elements are necessary in every case. Planning for constructive interventions may include: • supervision as part of the order or licence, and supervision that may be offered by other organisations working with the person on probation • specific, focused interventions, including accredited programmes, RAR activities or one-to-one interventions designed to address factors linked to risk of harm • trauma-informed planning, where necessary. Planning for restrictive interventions may include: • control measures such as curfews or accommodation at approved premises, which aim to restrict the ability of the person on probation to cause harm • identifying an appropriate unpaid work placement to avoid contact with potential victims • monitoring of activities by the probation practitioner, police or others, to ensure compliance and identify changes in risk factors • planning to keep actual and potential victims safe, including specific licence conditions and information-sharing. Inspectors will judge whether all reasonable constructive and restrictive interventions have been used, depending on the needs of the case. In some cases, very few or no restrictive interventions may be required. All cases where there are factors related to risk of harm should have at least some constructive interventions. In cases where suspension of contact under Probation Reset is anticipated, we expect planning for the active period of supervision and planning for clear information sharing at the point supervision is suspended, where the Probation Service will no longer be delivering interventions.
2.4.22   All cases	Does planning make appropriate links to the work of other agencies involved with the person on probation and any multi-agency plans?	The content and rationale of other agencies’ plans should be known to the probation practitioner. Copies of the plans should be available on the case record. There should be integration between different plans, and they should support each other. Where a case is assessed as high/very high risk of harm, and significant multi-agency risk management is needed, it is essential that plans contained in MAPPA notes, child safeguarding records, active risk management system (ARMS) and OASys are aligned, and make clear reference to each other, to facilitate joint working and ensure that emergency action can be taken safely if required. In cases where suspension of contact under Probation Reset is anticipated, we expect planning for the active period of supervision and planning for clear information sharing at the point supervision is suspended, where the Probation Service will no longer be delivering interventions.
2.4.23   All cases	Does planning set out necessary and effective contingency arrangements to manage those risks that have been identified?	Contingency planning should be in place where an increase in the level of risk of harm could be anticipated. In medium RoSH cases, contingency plans may be brief. More detailed contingency planning is needed for those presenting a high or very high RoSH. Contingency planning should be specific and address known potential threats. This could include steps needed to protect known victims, or changes in supervision arrangements, including curfew variation or recall, to address other behaviour linked to risk of harm. Generalised phrases such as ‘consult manager’ or ‘consider enforcement’ are unlikely to be sufficient. Examples of contingency action could include referring the case to children’s social care services if a domestic abuse perpetrator forms a relationship with a person with children; moving a person on probation to approved premises; sharing information about risk of harm with organisations in contact with the person on probation; or increasing the level of MAPPA management. In cases where suspension of contact under Probation Reset or Probation Impact is anticipated, we expect to see clear contingency planning for the active period of supervision and handover to other agencies at the point supervision is suspended. Contingency planning should also set out required responses to any information that might be received by the Probation Service after contact has been suspended, and the action that should be taken. For example, if information is received about a change of address, we expect clear planning for how that information should be shared with other agencies to ensure the safety of children or partners.
P 2.2.3	Summary judgement: Does planning focus sufficiently on keeping other people safe?	Inspectors will judge whether the overall quality of planning to keep other people safe meets the needs of the case. Planning in post-release cases should start around seven months before release, or from the point of sentence for shorter sentences (with inspectors taking a proportionate approach to what is reasonable, bearing in mind the actual time spent in custody), and should involve prison-based staff. Inspectors consider evidence from the questions in this section only, focusing on activity and impact, not just adherence to Probation Service processes • What has been done and what has the impact of that been with respect to planning? • What has been omitted, and how much difference has that made to the case in terms of actual or potential impact? • Explain what weighting is given to which factors, bearing in mind overall planning to keep people safe. • We are not looking for perfection, but for a sufficient assessment of the most important factors related to risk of harm. In cases where there have been no factors related to risk of harm, inspectors will answer ‘yes’. In cases where suspension of contact under Probation Reset or Probation Impact is anticipated, we expect to see sufficient planning for the active period of supervision and planning for a clear handover to other agencies at the point that supervision is suspended.

Implementation and delivery information (Back to top)

	Inspection question	CARaG Case assessment rules and guidance
2.5.01a   Core cases only	Do the requirements of the sentence start promptly, or at an appropriate time, in order to support public protection?	We expect the requirements of an order or licence to begin promptly, unless there is a specific and defensible reason not to. In orders or licences with multiple requirements, we expect the different requirements to be sequenced in a sensible fashion. This sequencing needs to be known by the person on probation and by any partner agencies that are delivering requirements. Individuals should be able to access any specific requirements in good time, so that the completion timescale allows for consolidation work if needed. Inspectors will look at the case record and speak to the probation practitioner about the rationale for sequencing. They will make their judgements based on the work and interventions actually delivered, rather than those that are planned. In post-release cases, this question refers specifically to post-release requirements, not to pre-release resettlement work. In cases where suspension of contact under Probation Reset or Probation Impact is anticipated, we expect delivery of requirements to be front-loaded during the active period of supervision, while certain requirements (unpaid work and accredited programmes) may continue beyond the point where supervision is suspended.
2.5.05a  Core cases only	Was enforcement action taken when required, to support public protection?	This question refers to early enforcement action, including the issue of warning letters or applications to vary licence conditions, as well as formal action such as breach or recall. Prompt formal enforcement action should be taken when needed to support public protection. For all decisions about formal enforcement, we expect probation practitioners to bear in mind the overall level of compliance, any factors related to risk of harm or likelihood of reoffending, and the ‘public interest’ in enforcement. We expect to see clear decisions about how enforcement issues will be followed up after supervision has been suspended.
2.5.25a All cases	Were Commissioned Rehabilitative Services required or used in this case to support public protection?	We expect to see Commissioned Rehabilitative Services used in a way that supports public protection. Information about risk of harm should be shared with providers at the referral stage, and there should be an expectation of feedback of any relevant information about risk of harm. Depending on their answer to this question, inspectors will record how well use of the services has contributed to supporting public protection.
2.5.26a All cases with an accredited programme	Which accredited programme condition/requirement was used in this case?	We note which accredited programme was used in the case, if there was such a requirement. Inspectors will record how well the programme has been delivered. We expect programme requirements, including pre-programme work, to commence promptly and for the programme to be delivered in a way that takes any protected characteristics of diversity issues into account. We expect to see two-way communication between the probation practitioner and interventions team. The probation practitioner should keep the interventions team informed of any changes in the individual’s circumstances or level of motivation. The interventions team should be proactive in keeping the probation practitioner informed about likely start dates for group work, and updates on engagement and progress during the group work sessions, particularly where that is relevant to public protection. In relevant cases, inspectors will record the extent to which accredited programme delivery has supported overall public protection.
2.5.47   All MAPPA cases	In MAPPA cases, is there evidence of coordinated multi-agency oversight, including joint working with the police?	In all MAPPA cases, irrespective of the category and level, we expect to see a coordinated multi-agency approach. We expect to see joint working with the police, particularly in cases where the person on probation has committed sexual offences. In all MAPPA cases, we expect to see clear management oversight of the work of the probation practitioner, and of working relationships with the other agencies involved. In cases managed at MAPPA level 2 or 3, we expect to see the multiagency arrangements coordinating appropriate planning to manage public protection, including holding other agencies to account. In cases managed at MAPPA level 1, we expect to see clear, regular and detailed reviewing of the progress of the case by the Probation Service, including any necessary liaison with other agencies and, if required, active consideration of whether the case should be considered for raising to manage at level 2 or 3. Inspectors will record their findings about the quality and impact of MAPPA management on overall public protection in the case.
2.5.43  Core cases only	Was there effective multi-agency working, including information-sharing, in respect of safeguarding children?	In cases where there are current, active concerns about safeguarding children, we expect to see probation practitioners working in partnership with other agencies involved in the case. This applies in cases where concerns for the children arise from the individual on probation, and when children in contact with the person on probation are at risk from others. We expect to see information-sharing, both in terms of formal reports for multi-agency meetings, and informal updates to other agencies, such as children’s social care, about changes in the case. We also expect to see direct work by the probation practitioner with the person on probation, to monitor the situation and to deliver constructive as well as restrictive interventions. Where an individual is assessed as medium risk of harm to children or higher, but there are no active concerns (they have no children of their own and are not known to be in contact with any children) then it may be that no further multi-agency liaison is required, beyond initial enquiries to verify this, or additional enquiries to confirm there are no changes. In this situation, inspectors will answer this question positively. In cases where supervision has been suspended under Probation Reset is anticipated, we expect direct work during the active period of supervision. Prior to suspension of contact, we expect to see clear handover or exit planning to ensure other agencies have been made aware of impact of suspension and cessation of active monitoring. The Probation Service should actively monitor any information received in respect of safeguarding children after supervision has been suspended; new information received should be investigated and shared with other relevant agencies as necessary, to ensure continued safeguarding of children during the suspension period. Depending on their answer to this question, inspectors will record why this has or has not been completed to a sufficient standard. Possible reasons for a positive answer would include a full understanding of multi-agency arrangements to safeguard children, professional curiosity and the willingness and ability to hold other agencies to account if required.
2.5.44    Core cases only	Was there effective multi-agency working, including information-sharing, in respect of domestic abuse?	In cases where there are current concerns about domestic abuse, whether the person on probation is the perpetrator, victim, or both, we expect to see probation practitioners working in partnership with other agencies involved in the case. This includes information-sharing in terms of formal reports for multi-agency meetings, such as MARAC, and informal updates to other agencies, such as police and domestic abuse workers, about changes in the case. We also expect to see direct work by the probation practitioner with the person on probation, to monitor the situation and to deliver constructive as well as restrictive interventions. In cases where supervision has been suspended under Probation Reset, we expect direct work during the active period of supervision. Prior to suspension of contact, we expect to see clear handover or exit planning to ensure other agencies have been made aware of impact of suspension and cessation of active monitoring. The Probation Service should actively monitor any information received in respect of domestic abuse, including information about new addresses or new partners, after supervision has been suspended; new information received should be investigated and shared with other relevant agencies as necessary, to ensure a continued response to potential domestic abuse during the suspension period. Depending on their answer to this question, inspectors will record why this has or has not been completed to a sufficient standard. Possible reasons for a positive answer would include a full understanding of multi-agency arrangements to address domestic abuse, professional curiosity and the willingness and ability to hold other agencies to account if required.
X 9 All cases where this is a factor	Was sufficient work delivered in respect of sexually harmful behaviour?	Where there are factors related to the risk of sexually harmful behaviour, we expect to see direct work completed with the person on probation, directly to address the future risk. That might include one to one work, accredited programme, and/or joint work with other agencies. We also expect to see appropriate restrictive interventions put in place, to manage those risks. Where appropriate, work should be undertaken with family members to support overall risk management. Where the case is a registered sex offender, we expect to see active liaison with police offender managers to ensure a coordinated approach. Depending on their answer to this question, inspectors will record why this has or has not been completed to a sufficient standard. Possible reasons for a positive answer might include the level of skill and confidence of the practitioner, good management oversight, and strong working relationships with police offender managers.
2.5.60a All cases where this is a factor	Was sufficient work delivered in respect of hate-based behaviour?	Where there are factors related to hate-based behaviour, we expect to see constructive and restrictive interventions to address that behaviour. That may include work to address underpinning attitudes and beliefs, membership of specific groups or informal associations. Depending on their answer to this question, inspectors will record why this has or has not been completed to a sufficient standard. Possible reasons for a positive answer might be a practitioner who held the victim experience in mind while working with the person on probation, or confidence and persistence in dealing with resistance.
X 10 All cases where this is a factor	Was sufficient work delivered in respect of violence, threats and harmful attitudes and behaviours (other than those related to domestic abuse, child safeguarding, hate-based behaviour and sexually harmful behaviour)?	Where there are factors related to other violence, threats, harmful attitudes and behaviours, we expect to see constructive and restrictive interventions to address that behaviour. Depending on their answer to this question, inspectors will record why this has or has not been completed to a sufficient standard. Possible reasons for a positive answer might be a practitioner who built good working relationships with partner agencies in delivering services to address specific needs, and was able to deliver specific and relevant focused work to the person on probation.

Implementation and delivery (Back to top)

Dealing with multiple sentences:
In cases where the individual has been subject to additional community sentences or periods of post-release supervision since the commencement date of the order/post-release supervision subject to inspection, inspectors will take account of the whole period of continuous supervision since that commencement date.

If a community order was revoked and replaced with another qualifying community order, the delivery and implementation under all orders will be inspected. If a community sentence was revoked and not immediately replaced with another community sentence, inspectors will only take account of work up to the point of revocation.

If a licence resulted in a recall, and the individual was subsequently re-released on a new licence or period of post-sentence supervision, the whole period of continuous supervision (including any time spent in custody on recall) will be taken into account.

Post-release cases:
In post-release cases, we look at work delivered post-release under this standard.

Cases where Probation Reset or Probation Impact have been applied:
We recognise that under Probation Reset or Probation Impact arrangements, the Probation Service is currently working to national guidance allowing contact with people on probation to be suspended before the end of orders or licences. In cases where contact is suspended up to eight weeks after order commencement or release on licence, we apply adjusted questions. In adjusted cases where suspension is not immediate, we expect to see some delivery by the Probation Service during the active period of contact; in all cases we expect evidence of delivery through onward referral and building exit plans for people on probation. We do not inspect delivery by other agencies beyond the point where supervision is suspended.

In all cases where contact continues for more than eight weeks, we expect to see front-loaded delivery to meet the needs of the person on probation during the period of contact before suspension.

In cases where there has been very little contact with the person on probation, such as where there has been non-compliance or recall, inspectors will answer questions about implementation and delivery on the basis of what it would be reasonable to expect the probation practitioner to do within such constraints. Inspectors will note whether services have, or have not been delivered, but will not judge a case negatively where factors beyond the control of the Probation Service have been responsible for a low level of delivery.

HM Inspectorate of Probation expects work to be delivered to address all factors relevant to risk of harm, not just factors related to risk of serious harm. Some cases assessed as low risk of serious harm will therefore require work to be done to address factors related to harm.

	Does the implementation and delivery of services support the safety of other people?
	Inspection question	CARaG Case assessment rules and guidance
2.5.41   Core cases only	Are the level and nature of contact offered sufficient to manage and minimise the risk of harm?	Contact with people on probation should be sufficient to deliver constructive interventions, monitor RoSH and provide the probation practitioner with opportunities to make an ongoing assessment. For cases assessed as presenting a high or very high RoSH, weekly contact should be maintained, other than in exceptional circumstances. The nature of contact should reflect the level and nature of the risk of harm. Where appropriate, it should include planned and unplanned home visits, face-to-face meetings, and meetings at different times of the day. In cases where supervision has been suspended under Probation Reset or Probation Impact, we expect to see direct delivery of this work during any active period of supervision. Exit planning should put in place any possible arrangements to continue to manage and minimise risk of harm after supervision is suspended, including information sharing.
2.5.42   All cases	Is sufficient attention given to protecting actual and potential victims?	In all cases, regardless of whether the statutory victim contact scheme applies, we expect probation practitioners to identify whether there is a previous victim or other identifiable potential victims who could be at risk of harm. This is often the situation in domestic abuse or child protection cases. Inspectors will look for active management of the case that gives priority to victim safety. Evidence could include ensuring that the individual’s place of residence or employment does not increase the risk to any victims or potential victims; active liaison with police, children’s services or other agencies; discussion with employers or employment agencies about restrictions on employment; use of MAPPA and ViSOR to access and share information; and minimising contact through appropriate consideration of unpaid work placements, reporting times, programme allocation, etc. Most of the restrictive requirements and conditions available in orders and licences are intended to protect known or potential victims. These conditions can be varied, if necessary, after the start of the order or licence. Effective delivery would include active monitoring of any licence conditions or other orders (such as restraining orders, sexual harm prevention orders and domestic violence prevention orders). In cases where there is a victim who is eligible for statutory victim contact, inspectors will look in more detail at the work done to maintain contact with eligible victims under our specific questions for this work. In cases where supervision has been suspended under Probation Reset or Probation Impact, we expect direct work during the active period of supervision. Prior to suspension of contact, we expect to see clear handover or exit planning to ensure other agencies have been made aware of impact of suspension and cessation of active monitoring by the Probation Service. During any period where contact is suspended, we expect to see regular check-in contact with people on probation who have no fixed address. That contact should be used to check and follow up any factors relevant to protecting actual and potential victims.
2.5.48   All cases	Is the involvement of other agencies in managing and minimising the risk of harm sufficiently well-coordinated?	We expect to see evidence of regular and effective communication between all agencies involved in the case, to manage and reduce risk of harm. Multi-agency forums, such as MAPPA and multi-agency risk assessment conferences (MARAC), must be effective and include the right people to allow effective actions to be taken. We expect to see evidence of effective challenge and escalation, including by senior managers, if difficulties cannot be resolved. In some cases, there will be no need to undertake multi-agency work. In cases where supervision has been suspended under Probation Reset, we expect to see clear co-ordination of activity during the active period of supervision. Prior to suspension of contact, we expect to see clear handover or exit planning to ensure other agencies have been made aware of impact of suspension and cessation of active monitoring. The Probation Service should actively monitor any information received in respect of risk of harm to others, after supervision has been suspended; new information received should be investigated and shared with other relevant agencies as necessary, to ensure a continued response to managing and minimising risk of harm during the suspension period.
2.5.49   Core cases only	Are key individuals in the life of the person on probation engaged where appropriate to support the effective management of risk of harm?	We expect probation practitioners to engage with key individuals in the life of the person on probation, to support effective management of risk of harm. In custodial cases, it is good practice to start this before the person is released. Given the evidence that parents and partners play a central role in supporting management of risk of harm, probation staff should consider all ways possible to support and maintain these crucial relationships. The probation practitioner should be able to identify who key individuals are, and describe how they have engaged them to support risk management. Examples might include support to the partner and family of the person on probation, to reinforce child safeguarding arrangements. In some circumstances, there may be other professional workers with a key role in the life of the person on probation and, with appropriate information-sharing, they may also be engaged to support risk management. In cases where supervision has been suspended under Probation Reset, we expect to see clear communication with those individuals to ensure they have been made aware of the impact of suspension.
2.5.50   Core cases only	Are home visits undertaken where necessary to support the effective management of risk of harm?	We expect to see home visits used in all cases where there are child safeguarding or domestic abuse issues, unless there is a specific reason for not doing this (for example, the person on probation is resident in approved premises). In other cases, it is good practice to conduct home visits, to understand the circumstances in which the person on probation lives, and to meet partners and other family members.
X 11 Adjusted cases only	Was there effective delivery, including multi-agency working and information-sharing, in respect of safeguarding children?	In cases where there are current, active concerns about safeguarding children, we expect to see probation practitioners working in partnership with other agencies involved in the case. This applies in cases where concerns for the children arise from the individual on probation, and when children in contact with the person on probation are at risk from others. We expect to see information-sharing, both in terms of formal reports for multi-agency meetings, and informal updates to other agencies, such as children’s social care, about changes in the case. We also expect to see direct work by the probation practitioner with the person on probation, to monitor the situation and to deliver constructive as well as restrictive interventions. Where an individual is assessed as medium risk of harm to children or higher, but there are no active concerns (they have no children of their own and are not known to be in contact with any children) then it may be that no further multi-agency liaison is required, beyond initial enquiries to verify this, or additional enquiries to confirm there are no changes. In this situation, inspectors will answer this question positively. In cases where contact been suspended under Probation Reset or Probation Impact, we expect to see direct work during the active period of supervision. Prior to suspension of contact, we expect to see clear handover or exit planning to ensure other agencies have been made aware of impact of suspension and cessation of active monitoring. The Probation Service should actively monitor any information received in respect of safeguarding children after supervision has been suspended; new information received should be investigated and shared with other relevant agencies as necessary, to ensure continued safeguarding of children during the suspension period. Depending on their answer to this question, inspectors will record why this has or has not been completed to a sufficient standard. Possible reasons for a positive answer would include a full understanding of multi-agency arrangements to safeguard children, professional curiosity and the willingness and ability to hold other agencies to account if required.
X 12 Adjusted cases only	Was there effective delivery, including multi-agency working and information-sharing, in respect of domestic abuse?	In cases where there are current concerns about domestic abuse, whether the person on probation is the perpetrator, victim, or both, we expect to see probation practitioners working in partnership with other agencies involved in the case. This includes information-sharing in terms of formal reports for multi-agency meetings, such as MARAC, and informal updates to other agencies, such as police and domestic abuse workers, about changes in the case. We also expect to see direct work by the probation practitioner with the person on probation, to monitor the situation and to deliver constructive as well as restrictive interventions. In cases where contact has been suspended under Probation Reset or Probation Impact, we expect direct work during the active period of supervision. Prior to suspension of contact, we expect to see clear handover or exit planning to ensure other agencies have been made aware of impact of suspension and cessation of active monitoring. The Probation Service should actively monitor any information received in respect of domestic abuse, including information about new addresses or new partners, after supervision has been suspended; new information received should be investigated and shared with other relevant agencies as necessary, to ensure a continued response to potential domestic abuse during the suspension period. Depending on their answer to this question, inspectors will record why this has or has not been completed to a sufficient standard. Possible reasons for a positive answer would include a full understanding of multi-agency arrangements to address domestic abuse, professional curiosity and the willingness and ability to hold other agencies to account if required.
P 2.3.3   All cases	Summary judgement: Does the implementation and delivery of services support the safety of other people effectively?	We expect probation practitioners to take reasonable steps to keep other people safe, including ensuring that constructive and restrictive interventions are delivered. Inspectors will judge whether the overall implementation of work to address risk of harm meets the needs of the case. In post-release cases, this question refers to work completed after release. Inspectors consider evidence from the questions in this section only, focusing on activity and impact, not just adherence to Probation Service processes. • What has been done and what has the impact of that been with respect to implementation and delivery? • What has been omitted, and how much difference has that made to the case in terms of actual or potential impact? • Explain what weighting is given to which factors, bearing in mind overall delivery to keep people safe. • We are not looking for perfection, but for a sufficient assessment of the most important factors related to risk of harm. In cases where there have been no factors related to risk of harm, inspectors will answer ‘yes’. In cases where supervision has been suspended under Probation Reset or Probation impact, we expect sufficient delivery during the active period of supervision; sufficient handover to other relevant agencies at the point supervision is suspended; and ongoing active monitoring of and response to new information received, to support the safety of other people. That might include making a child safeguarding referral or initiating police domestic abuse checks.

Reviewing (Back to top)

Evidence for the reviewing standard will come from the ongoing case records, the interview with the probation practitioner and any formal written reviews completed in the case.

Reviewing should be undertaken throughout the duration of the order or licence. It should be active, and responsive to any changes. Reviewing may confirm that existing arrangements are satisfactory, or may highlight the need to take action or make changes. In some cases, formal written reviews will be required; in other cases, ongoing reviewing is sufficient.

In cases where there have been multiple community sentences and/or releases from custody, any re-assessment undertaken as part of these new periods of custody or supervision, will be inspected under the ‘Reviewing’ standard.

Risk of harm:
HM Inspectorate of Probation expects all factors relevant to risk of harm to be reviewed (not just factors related to risk of serious harm).

Reviewing is an ongoing process; it should recognise and respond to any changes in individual circumstances. Written reviews may form part of the reviewing process; the timing of written reviews should depend on the needs of the case, and, except for reviewing immediately after release, we do not set any specific timescale for this.

In cases where there have been multiple community sentences and/or release from custody, any reassessment undertaken as part of these new periods of supervision will be inspected under the ‘reviewing’ section.

For post-recall cases, we expect to see a full written review at the point when the individual is re-released from custody.

	Does reviewing focus sufficiently on keeping other people safe?
	Inspection question	CARaG Case assessment rules and guidance
	HM Inspectorate of Probation expects all factors relevant to risk of harm to be reviewed, not just factors related to risk of serious harm.
2.6.20   All cases	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?	We expect to see ongoing reviewing of risk of harm, even in cases where the assessed level of risk of harm is low. Informal reviewing would be evidenced by continuing enquiries about relationships, contact with children, level of substance misuse, behaviour and any reoffending. It may also consist of information from relatives or other professionals, including police intelligence. We expect probation practitioners to have an enquiring mind. Any new behaviour that might be linked to risk of harm should be identified, analysed and taken into account in any reviewing of planned activity. In some cases, there may be no new information that necessitates formal reviewing of risk of harm, but probation practitioners should take sufficient steps to ensure that existing information remains correct. In cases assessed as high or very high risk of harm, reviewing activity should be ongoing, to ensure that the risk management plan is working. Evidence of reviewing could include multi-agency meetings or discussions, or consultation with a manager, and does not always need to be completed in OASys. In cases where the person on probation has been convicted of a sexually motivated offence, we would expect relevant specialist assessments to be reviewed in any circumstances where there are changes in any of the factors. Changes should be made to the ongoing plan of work in response to changes in the nature of any risk of harm, not just to the assessed level, in order to manage and reduce risks. Based on their knowledge of the case, inspectors will decide if the correct changes have been identified. This might include making checks about new partners or considering the impact of a pregnancy or the ending of a relationship (both of which can increase the level of risk of harm); increasing the level of contact or home visits; or referrals to other agencies. For significant changes in risk of harm factors, it may be necessary to reassess the level of risk of harm. Where the assessed level of risk is increased or decreased, we expect there to be a clear rationale for that as part of a written review. Reduction of the assessed level of risk of harm should be based on verified evidence of behaviour change, not just on circumstantial change, such as the ending of a relationship, or on superficial compliance with restrictions. In some circumstances, it would be reasonable for probation practitioners to seek advice from their manager before completing a full review of risk of harm. Where the original assessment of risk of harm was insufficient, but there have been no subsequent changes in factors related to risk of harm, inspectors will not necessarily score negatively for the absence of reviewing; that judgement will be made on the basis of the level of ongoing alertness to change. In cases where contact has been suspended immediately or very early under Probation Reset or Probation Impact, inspectors may record that there is no available information to review. In cases where there is an active period of supervision before suspension, we expect reviewing before suspension to analyse any changes in factors related to risk of harm, and identify outstanding areas of work. During any period of suspension, we expect practitioners to monitor any information received about changes of circumstances related to risk of harm, and consider whether any action is required. Appropriate action might include information being shared with other agencies, or making child safeguarding or MARAC referrals.
2.6.21   All cases	Is reviewing informed by the necessary input from other agencies involved in managing risk of harm?	Information from other agencies is critical in reviewing risk of harm. In domestic abuse cases, we expect to see regular information-sharing with police domestic abuse staff about any new reported behaviour. In cases where children’s services are working with a child in contact with the person on probation, we expect to see regular communication with social workers. Probation practitioners should always attend multi-agency meetings, including MARAC, MAPPA and child protection meetings. If additional information comes to light, this must be shared with relevant agencies, so that they are appraised of key information in the case. This question will be answered negatively if inspectors find a lack of professional curiosity; if the risk is seen in isolation from other agencies; or if reviewing does not lead to necessary action. When reviewing cases with known domestic abuse issues, practitioners should be alert for points when risk is likely to be increased, including entering a new relationship, failure to cooperate with children’s services, an increase in substance misuse, or deteriorating mental health. Reviewing must include any other agencies involved in the case. Probation practitioners must be alert to the potential for safeguarding and child protection issues, throughout the span of the order/licence. Where there are known concerns, these should be managed proactively, monitored and reviewed. Where new concerns are identified, action to protect children and vulnerable adults should be the priority. In all cases, information-sharing will be critical; probation practitioners should not assume that other agencies know about situations and circumstances. Reviewing could involve a fresh referral of the child to children’s services, or participation in multi-agency reviewing. Planning by the probation practitioner should be adapted in light of the outcome of any external reviews. Probation staff can make a significant contribution to child safeguarding, but to do this they need to understand their role and responsibilities and know how to represent the views of their organisation. Records should evidence an effective contribution to multi-agency reviews. In cases where contact has been suspended immediately or very early under Probation Reset or Probation Impact, inspectors may record that there is no available information to review. In cases where there is an active period of supervision before suspension, we expect practitioners to obtain updated information from other agencies working with the person on probation, to underpin reviewing of factors related to risk of harm before suspension. During any period of suspension, we expect practitioners to monitor any information received from other agencies, related to risk of harm, and consider whether any action is required.
2.6.22   Core cases only	Is the person on probation (and, where appropriate, are key individuals in their life) involved meaningfully in reviewing their risk of harm?	The nature and level of involvement of the person on probation should depend on the nature and extent of the risk of harm. The probation practitioner should be able to relate how they have considered the views of the person on probation and, where appropriate, any key individuals in their life. People on probation should know what is expected of them to reduce risk of harm, and reviewing should involve them and consider progress towards this. In cases where supervision has been suspended under Probation Reset or Probation Impact, we expect reviewing before suspension to involve the person on probation, and key individuals in their life (where appropriate), in reviewing risk of harm.
2.6.23   Core cases only	Are written reviews completed as appropriate, as a formal record of the management of risk of harm?	As the cases being inspected will be approximately six to seven months old, we do not always expect to see a formal written review of risk of harm at the time of the inspection, unless there has been a significant change. We do not set any specific period where we expect to see written reviews. We expect to see a written review where there has been a significant change in the case. That could be a positive or negative change to the key factors related to risk of harm, including completion of an accredited programme or other requirement of the order or licence; the start or end of a relationship in cases where domestic abuse is a feature; termination of the order or licence; repeat or escalation of previous risk-related behaviour; emergence of new risk-related behaviour; or allegations of a new (harmful) offence. In cases where supervision has been suspended under Probation Reset or Probation Impact, we expect a written review of risk of harm before suspension to confirm the level and nature of risk of harm at the point of suspension, including any necessary contingency arrangements, to support any decisions that may be needed about information received following suspension.
2.6.25   Adjusted cases only	Has appropriate recall action been taken where the risks can no longer be managed in the community?	Where there is a change in circumstances that indicates that risk can no longer be safely managed in the community, and where a licence is still active, we expect to see full and prompt investigation to ascertain whether recall is necessary to protect the public. If that threshold is passed, we expect to see prompt recall action. We recognise that many of the cases inspected under adjusted questions will be subject to PSS only or community sentences, where recall is not possible.
2.6.26   Probation Reset cases where contact should be re-instigated only	Has a sufficient review of assessment and planning taken place?	The circumstances that would give rise to re-instigation of contact would almost certainly be linked to changes in factors related to risk of harm. We therefore expect to see a full review of assessment and planning at the point supervision is re-instigated, to inform future work. This should be informed by updates from those working with the person on probation, if applicable and appropriate safeguarding and domestic abuse information exchange. If, during contact suspension, there is a change of address, we would expect reviewing to include some level of enquiry regarding whether children or vulnerable adults are at the address and appropriate checks to be undertaken. In some cases, a home visit may be required by the practitioner or other agencies who continue to work with the individual to inform a reviewed assessment and plan. Inspectors will look for evidence of that reviewing in the form of a formal written review, contact entries or from discussion with the probation practitioner.
2.6.27 Probation Reset cases where contact should be re-instigated only	Has sufficient management oversight been provided?	Where circumstances have arisen that trigger re-instigation of contact, we expect to see management oversight to review steps that need to be taken to protect the public.
P 2.4.3  All core cases, and any adjusted cases where supervision should have been re-instigated	Summary judgement: Does reviewing focus sufficiently on keeping other people safe?	We expect probation practitioners to be alert to any changes in the factors related to risk of harm, including improvements and deterioration. We expect to see positive feedback about any progress, as well as challenge where there have not been improvements. We expect probation practitioners to be proactive in seeking and verifying information that may have an impact on keeping other people safe, throughout the whole period of supervision. In post-release cases, inspectors only judge reviewing from the point of release. Inspectors consider evidence from the questions in this section only, focusing on activity and impact, not just adherence to Probation Service processes. • What has been done and what has the impact of that been with respect to reviewing? • What has been omitted, and how much difference has that made to the case in terms of actual or potential impact? • Explain what weighting is given to which factors, bearing in mind overall reviewing to keep people safe. • We are not looking for perfection, but for a sufficient assessment of the most important factors related to risk of harm. In cases where there have been no factors related to risk of harm, inspectors will answer ‘yes’. In cases where supervision has been suspended immediately or very early under Probation Reset, inspectors may record that there is no available information to review. In cases where there is an active period of supervision before suspension, we expect reviewing before suspension to fully update the current situation with respect to risk of harm.

Case summary (Back to top)

	Management oversight
	Inspection question	CARaG Case assessment rules and guidance
2.9.06  All cases	How would you describe management oversight in the case?	HM Inspectorate of Probation position statement on management oversight is published on our website[1]. Effective management oversight is much more than countersigning. It includes elements of quality assurance, staff supervision, dealing with developing areas of concern in individual cases and facilitating improvements in practice. It should be particular focus on ensuring that actual or potential victims and people on probation themselves are sufficiently protected from harm. Management oversight should focus mainly on cases that have been assessed as high or very high risk of harm to others, or those with active domestic abuse or child safeguarding issues. Oversight is particularly important at the point where any such cases may have contact suspended under Probation Reset, to ensure effective information sharing and contingency planning for changes that may take place after suspension. We also expect managers to be aware of, and actively monitoring, cases that are not currently assessed at these levels of risk of harm, but have the potential to increase.

[1] Inspection documentation – HM Inspectorate of Probation