Dynamic Inspection of Public Protection in East Midlands region

Chief Inspector’s judgement (Back to top)

The East Midlands region had undertaken strategic changes and was driving improvements in key areas following our recent core inspection. Improvements in sentence management, specifically relating to planning, were supported by enhanced quality assurance and training. Access to information had improved in areas where staff were co‑located with partners, and practitioners spoke positively about these relationships.

However, despite clear commitment from leaders and staff, obtaining timely and proportionate information from partner agencies remained a significant barrier across the region and continued to undermine effective risk management.

Court practice reflected national pressures. Around half the cases we inspected had been sentenced without a pre‑sentence report, and in some cases, missed opportunities for identifying alcohol or drug treatment requirements. The region had made commendable efforts to strengthen sentencer liaison across grades, but these actions had not yet achieved sufficient, consistent impact.

We were encouraged by the region’s clear and sustained focus on improving resettlement. Preparation for release, continuity of care for those on prescribed medication, and information‑sharing between police, prisons and probation were common features in cases we looked at for people being released from custody. The leadership control in this area was evident, supported by focused auditing and clearer operational arrangements. This work was making a difference to stability and the safeguarding of victims at the point of release.

Alongside this, the region’s work with individuals serving IPP sentences showed thoughtful analysis and coordination. Data were interrogated systematically, key blockers to progression were identified, with panels and semi‑specialist practitioner pilots demonstrating a committed and structured approach to supporting this complex cohort.

Strategic arrangements for managing serious organised crime were clear and appropriately focused on the most harmful nominals. Enhanced information‑sharing with partners was evident, and emerging partnership work with young adults in Lincolnshire demonstrated an encouraging commitment to early intervention.

Overall, while improvements were evident and momentum was building, the region had further to go before public protection work was delivered to a consistently good standard. Continued leadership focus supported by national action on information‑sharing and workforce capacity will be essential to translating intent into impact at pace.

---

Context (Back to top)

This inspection focused specifically on public protection work across the East Midlands Probation region. A sample of 54 cases were inspected, and we concentrated on assessment, planning, implementation and delivery, and review through the lens of public protection. We inspected the effectiveness of multi-agency and risk management work, both restrictive and rehabilitative.

The East Midlands probation region spans five counties, is aligned with four police forces and governed by 37 local authorities, comprising four county councils, 29 district/borough councils and four unitary authorities (Derby, Leicester, Nottingham and Rutland). The large number of local authorities increased the burden on regional leaders to co-ordinate partnerships, information-sharing and priorities across varied local systems.

The region includes six probation delivery units (PDUs), 13 prisons and 12 courts. The region faced complexities caused by entrenched urban deprivation and dispersed rural communities, and uneven labour markets and access to public services created challenges for service delivery. At the time the inspection was announced, the region was operating with a deficit of qualified probation officers and case administrators. Under the Probation Prioritisation Framework, which sets out the work that must take precedence when capacity is stretched, two sites (Nottingham city and East and West Lincolnshire) were awaiting confirmation of ‘red’ classification, when only critical public protection and safety activity would be prioritised.

At the time of inspection, the region was implementing at pace several national policies aimed at managing workloads across the prison and probation estates, including prison early release schemes, Probation Reset, Impact, and changes to recall policy.

---

Inspection commentary (Back to top)

This inspection took place six months after the region’s 2025 core inspection report was published, and leaders had acted quickly to start addressing previously identified areas for development. We found early signs of progress across sentence management, although more evident in sentence planning and access to information. However, many changes were still bedding in, and several long-standing issues continued to affect the consistency and quality of public protection work. There had been some improvements in workforce stability and promising quality‑assurance initiatives, but service delivery remained inconsistent. Staff were overwhelmed by rapid national policy changes and vacancies across key functions limited the region’s ability to protect the public or support rehabilitation.

Case inspections showed that planning was a strength, with practitioners producing focused risk management plans. Assessment remained the weakest area, with frequent gaps in analysing risk information or drawing together information from different sources. Implementation and delivery were also inconsistent, with missed opportunities to act on new information or coordinate work with other agencies. Where practice was strongest, we saw thoughtful planning, timely checks, and well‑coordinated work, particularly with prisons and Police management of sexual and violent offenders (MOSOVO), that contributed to safer and more stable risk management.

There had been a strategic focus in the region on addressing some of the longer-standing barriers to public protection, for example relationships with partners and the skills of some practitioners. Progress had been slow and training implemented over a year ago had only just started to impact casework. Case interviews and staff surveys highlighted cognitive overwhelm, meaning messages took longer to land.

Building on feedback from the previous inspection, recent changes to strategy were underpinned by a fresh culture of reflection and feedback. The region had increased the frequency of internal auditing of practitioner work. A cyclical approach to quality assurance had been implemented, incorporating auditing, observation, reflective discussion and development planning. This enhanced knowledge of where good practice was taking place and what staff required to undertake quality work. Risk management training, individual input from quality development officers (QDOs), compulsory staff briefings, QDO audits and the feedback loop went some way to explaining the boost in quality seen in planning for instance.

Following the previous inspection findings (alongside evidence from internal audits), the region had implemented tools to upskill practitioners in their use of information received from other agencies or sources. The 2025 report had highlighted that assessments were too often completed without reference to critical risk information, even when practitioners had direct access to police and local authority systems. In response, the region had launched the ‘WHAT’ model—a four‑step framework that prompted practitioners to interpret, evaluate, record, and act on external information. It aimed to support practitioners in making sense of complex information by slowing down and sharpening their thinking, allowing them to pinpoint the most critical risk-focused tasks. Although practitioner awareness of the model was high, take‑up had been limited, reflected in current casework where over half the relevant cases did not sufficiently assess or analyse information relating to domestic abuse. Leaders recognised that embedding new practices took time amid widespread change.

Since the previous inspection, leaders had increased direct access to police and local authority systems, expanded co‑location arrangements, and strengthened strategic partnerships, helping to build a clearer shared understanding of what information was needed and why. In contrast to the 2025 inspection where access to timely information was a concern, one of the most prevalent positive themes related to staff confidence in their local relationships and being able to get the information they needed. Crucially, this was particularly underpinned by co-location which demonstrated the impact of the work undertaken by the region so far. Conversely, staff also told us that obtaining quality information in the form of a ‘one time enquiry’ was the most significant barrier to public protection work. Despite the progress made, the quality and sufficiency of information available for public protection work remained too variable, and this continued to undermine the region’s ability to keep people safe. Leaders were aware of the national information‑sharing agreements which they felt were promising, but adherence varied locally, with some areas providing limited information (for example, restricted to the previous 12 months).

Staff mostly expressed a preference for face-to-face scenario-based training but overall they did not specify training as a key barrier to public protection work. Staff surveys and interviews highlighted a theme of training to qualify as a probation officer not preparing POs to manage complex caseloads, including people convicted of sexual offending. Overall, cognitive overwhelm, workload, and feeling under pressure were more prominent themes. Case inspections highlighted training needs in the management of domestic abuse cases, handling complex information, and working with people convicted of sexual offending. Since the previous inspection, the region had undertaken domestic abuse and safeguarding audits which had led to additional in-person training to complement mandatory training, with oversight provided by a dashboard. The most prominent theme from case inspections centred on practitioners not analysing and acting on information received from other sources. Training and briefings on the WHAT model had been woven into regional protected learning time to develop these skills. This approach was still in its infancy, and the region was committed to the sustained reinforcement that this messaging required.

Analysis of recent serious further offences (SFOs) had highlighted the analytical nature of reviews, with high-quality action planning. This aligned with our experience of staff in the region who were driving a focus on systemic recommendations (rather than individual) to shift the blame culture so often seen. Patterns of offence type or behaviour in SFOs were identified by the region, including driving offences and substance misuse. Identifiable work in both areas had been developed to support practitioners in assessing and managing these cases, demonstrating a commitment to learning from SFOs. The region had resolved the issue seen during our last inspection, where victims were waiting too long for initial contact from probation, and were focusing on more visibility and co-location of practitioners and victim liaison officers.

The prevalence of substance misuse in SFO reviews was mirrored in casework inspections, where it was one of the most common needs of people on probation. Practitioners were less likely to assess and manage this as a public protection issue, however. It was commonly omitted from contingency risk management plans and there was limited liaison with local substance misuse providers in the event of significant change.

Regional leaders had identified substances as a key focus in the Reducing Reoffending and business plans, aiming to drive up the use of Alcohol Treatment Requirements (ATR), Drug Rehabilitation Requirements (DRR) and Alcohol Abstinence Monitoring Requirements (AAMR). Health and Justice Coordinators had developed joint working agreements for these requirements and were monitoring newly sentenced cases to ensure they accessed swift treatment, although partnership resources were also affecting outcomes. While there was a steady increase in the use of DRR, there was less with ATR. The presence of court-based recovery workers aimed to increase these requirements, which was happening most successfully in courts serving Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland. Understaffing was a primary barrier in the region’s plan to implement semi-specialist substance misuse teams in every PDU.

Each PDU in the region had a connected health and justice co-ordinator, to strengthen the pathway between criminal justice and health systems. The health and justice role was strategic and, while coordinators were visible and had constructive relationships within PDUs, the positioning of the role meant that some coordinators had limited ability to translate its strategic intent into influence at PDU level.

Regional leaders recognised that in recent years there had been a dilution in skills and focus on substance misuse holistically. Busy practitioners did not always have the time to explore the root cause of substance misuse or harm reduction for example. Permeating into sentence management was a slower process and the link between strategy and operations had been lost as a result. Dependence and Recovery funding had facilitated some positive targeted work such as treatment staff in some prisons and courts, training for practitioners in continuity of care and Naloxone, as well as a health bus – a mobile healthcare service for vulnerable or transient people on probation.

Court practice across the East Midlands reflected themes we are seeing nationally, particularly in the frequency of cases being sentenced without a Pre‑Sentence Report (PSR). Although the region had undertaken work to inform and engage sentencers, less than half the cases we inspected had no report, and only some individuals were given requirements that were appropriate to their needs. Often this linked back to pressures in court and the number of people listed per day. Limited probation resources were also a factor. Sentencers were not always willing to wait for suitability assessments for drug and alcohol treatment requirements for example. This raised questions about how the region were assured that the right people were receiving PSRs. Regional colleagues gave assurance that sentencer liaison activity had taken place, including events facilitated by Health and Justice Coordinators. Regional leaders were supporting staff to address this issue through a cross‑grade working group focusing on ‘the right report at the right time’.

The region had an admirable focus on improving transitions for people leaving prison and returning to the community, impacting on stability and the safeguarding of victims. Work to strengthen resettlement arrangements had gained momentum, supported by clearer continuity of care for those on prescribed medication as part of their treatment plan. Preparation for release and improved information‑sharing between probation and prisons were also evident in both casework and strategic arrangements up to the Area Executive Director office. We were encouraged by the region’s dedicated focus on individuals serving IPP sentences: the systematic progression, and the use of panels and emerging semi‑specialist public protection pilots represented thoughtful and effective practice. Regional leaders had developed an audit tool for resettlement cases, and the leadership and operational grip on this area were notable. Sufficient work had been done to plan and review risk management in more than half the MAPPA Level 1 cases (multi-agency public protection arrangements) we inspected. At the last inspection, we found that practitioners were not always liaising with partners ahead of reviews. This had improved with the exception of the police where overarching barriers to receiving quality information were evident. There was some variance in how level one cases were reviewed and the region were pausing further strategic decisions until the conclusion of the MAPPA Level 1 policy framework review. Some dysfunction was evident in the appropriateness and quality of referrals for MAPPA Levels 2 and 3, and there was an underlying lack of understanding of MAPPA at practitioner level. Lines of accountability had become skewed, and some practitioners appeared to rely on MAPPA processes for assurance rather than confidently fulfilling their responsibilities as the lead agency for managing risk.

Regional colleagues and partners demonstrated clear and effective strategic arrangements for identifying and managing the most significant or prolific Serious Organised Crime (SOC) nominals. Below this highest tier, the wider cohort of individuals across Nottingham city and county benefited from enhanced information‑sharing and targeted support through the Joint Intelligence Programme (JIP), which disrupts organised crime and protects vulnerable individuals. While there remained more to do to build practitioner confidence and curiosity in identifying more subtle indicators of exploitation and SOC within general sentence management, the focused allocation of resources to the most serious and impactful nominals was evident and appropriate.

Across the region, approved premises (APs) experienced capacity pressures, identified in both casework and meetings with regional leaders. In the East Midlands, these pressures had led to shorter stays, which in turn increased release activity and expended significant energy and resources into securing move-on accommodation. Despite this, we saw a range of positive practices, including appropriate use of Release on Temporary Licence (ROTL) from prison to APs, strong pre‑release planning, and early referrals that supported smoother transitions. Men in particular were not disproportionately affected by out‑of‑area placements. The main challenges related to move‑on accommodation, where limited availability and lengthy processes continued to impede timely progression. However, HPT (homeless prevention team) probation colleagues demonstrated risk-aware, progression-focused practice, with one of the largest provisions nationally, including placements for women. Derbyshire’s designated accommodation for high‑risk, harder‑to‑place individuals was another notable strength, reflecting proactive efforts to overcome gaps in local housing stock.

Staffing levels, although consistent with the period the region was last inspected, were still affecting the amount of work operational staff were able to complete. It was also referred to frequently in SFO reviews as an underpinning factor affecting time and cognitive capacity to manage complex cases. The region benefited from two heads of operations and leaders were working to support staff with both wellbeing and tools to guide decision making. However structural constraints, particularly delays in vetting and recruitment, continued to impede progress and added complexity to an already challenging operating environment.

---

Regional recommendations (Back to top)

1. Improve the quality of court reports to inform sentencing proposals and work with sentencers to ensure that advice from probation court staff is obtained pre‑sentence.
2. Strengthen strategic and operational arrangements between probation and substance misuse providers to effectively address the risks to the public associated with substance misuse.
3. Improve the assessment, recording and management of MAPPA cases by strengthening practitioner understanding of MAPPA and lines of accountability.
4. Ensure domestic abuse and safeguarding information is analysed sufficiently to inform the quality of assessment, planning, and management of people on probation.

HMPPS recommendations (Back to top)

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

---

Scoring (Back to top)

Key question	Percentage ‘Yes’
Does assessment focus sufficiently on keeping other people safe?	41%
Does planning focus sufficiently on keeping other people safe?	57%
Does the implementation and delivery of services effectively support the safety of other people?	46%
Does reviewing focus sufficiently on keeping other people safe?	56%

---

Follow-up activity (Back to top)

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

---

Key contextual facts (Back to top)

Number of people supervised (on 30 September 2025) 1	15,158
MAPPA-eligible offenders (on 31 March 2025)2	6,687
Victim satisfaction performance SL021 (April 2024 – March 2025)3	89.8%

Staffing level (staff in post full time equivalent (FTE))4
Senior probation officer (SPO)	Probation officer (PO)	Probation services officer (inc. Professional Qualification in Probation (PQiP))
88%	64%	140%

Average caseload at the point of inspection (FTE)
PO	PSO (exc. PQiP)	PQiP
39.95	49.19	22.64

Recall rates (in the 12 months prior to inspection)	23.03%
Average rehabilitation activity requirement (RAR) wait time (in the 12 months prior to inspection)	Not available
Percentage of RAR days completed (in the 12 months prior to inspection)	39%
Percentage of accredited programme requirements completed for individuals convicted of a sexual offence (in the 12 months prior to inspection)	27.3%
Percentage of accredited programme requirements completed for individuals not convicted of a sexual offence (in the 12 months prior to inspection)	21.2%

Risk of Serious Harm classification of inspected cases
Low	Medium	High/very high
7%	55%	34%

Further information (Back to top)

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

---

Footnotes (Back to top)

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

---