Skip to content

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

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

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

or email: psi@nationalarchives.gov.uk.

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

© Crown copyright

Dynamic inspection of public protection. Inspection questions. Guidance and evidence sources.

Published:

Definition: (Back to top)

We define public protection as the strategic and operational effort to prevent serious harm to the public by managing the risks posed by individuals under probation supervision. This includes assessing risk accurately, engaging with the person on probation to deliver constructive interventions, implementing robust risk management plans, ensuring compliance with court orders and licences, and working collaboratively with other agencies (e.g. the police, social care services and Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA)) to reduce the likelihood of reoffending and serious harm.

Introductory notes (Back to top)

Dynamic inspections of public protection differ from our core probation inspections. The purpose of our core probation inspection programme is to judge the quality of delivery against a set of standards and rate this delivery in terms of its sufficiency. We then leave the probation delivery unit (PDU)/region to respond to this and make improvements as they see fit. The purpose of dynamic inspections of public protection is to focus in more detail on public protection to inform targeted follow-up activity in regions. We take a narrower and deeper (‘deep dive’) focus on public protection.

To provide tailored, bespoke follow-up activity, we must accurately diagnose the issues for that region. Without such a diagnosis, we would only be able to provide universal follow-up activity, which is less likely to meet the specific needs of that region. Inspectors should be aware that:

  • The inspections are of all public protection work – not just domestic abuse and safeguarding.
  • The inspection questions are a guide and not an exhaustive list.
  • Inspectors are not expected to give binary yes/no answers to any of the questions.
  • The inspection questions are to enable us to understand our case inspection findings so that we can target improvement activity in a bespoke way for each region.
  • The inspection questions will be supported by guidance and suggested sources of evidence.

Inspectors will have case inspection data and information and regional case assurance tool (RCAT) data about the quality of risk assessment and management. Alongside the suggested questions, inspectors will need to explore this data and information and pick up themes in each region.

1. Leadership (Back to top)

Strategic

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

Guidance

Each region should have delivery plans and strategies that actively underpin and drive the region’s public protection work. Inspectors should look for evidence of mechanisms at a regional level that enable plans to be delivered across the region and by PDUs.

Public protection plans and strategies should be stated clearly. They should be cross-referenced, where relevant, in other documents and pieces of work, such as strategic and business plans, and should give priority to delivering high-quality supervision and services. They should be aligned with the Probation Service’s overall strategic plan. Regions should engage the voluntary and community sector as a strategic partner in developing their plans.

We are interested in how work to protect the public is underpinned by an active strategy and by planning to deliver against the strategy. We want to understand whether strategies and plans set out and do what they are supposed to do, in relation to protecting the public.

Strategies and plans should describe the key actions that leaders and managers will take to ensure these are delivered.  

Evidence

This includes:

  • a public protection strategy – this may be set out in other documents, such as regional business plans, effective practice plans or quality and performance plans, rather than a standalone document
  • quality improvement plan review
  • focus groups with the head of public protection (HoPP), head of operations (HoOp), regional probation director (RPD), head of PDU (HPDU), area executive director (AED)
  • RPD presentation.

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

Guidance

Clear governance arrangements should be in place to ensure that the region is able to deliver its strategies and plans for public protection and enable PDUs to do so. The governance arrangements should support PDUs to deliver their work and provide effective mechanisms to unblock barriers where they exist. Governance arrangements should set out clear lines of accountability and decision-making through relevant boards and meeting structures, with clarity about who is responsible for delivering the different elements of public protection activity. Governance arrangements should be well understood and followed by all involved.

A critical factor in effective public protection governance is whether delivery is scrutinised and approached strategically, whether this is through specific dedicated meetings for different strands of public protection or a component of the regional senior leadership team. A culture of high challenge and high support should underpin effective governance arrangements, and where they are not working, they should be revised. In regions where we have seen clear governance of public protection work, no matter what the structure, we usually found that practitioners were more informed and up to date. Conversely, in areas where we found the poorest-quality practice, we found no evidence of a strategic approach to improving public protection work.

Delivery plans should set out the mechanisms by which the public protection strategy will be translated into practice, where and to whom progress should be reported, and how delivery should be reviewed, with any necessary changes to implementation agreed.

Evidence

This includes:

  • focus groups with key external board representatives
  • interviews with HoPP, HoOp, RPD, HPDU
  • strategic meeting minutes.

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

Guidance

Academic research has contributed significantly to the development of MAPPA. Most recently, the structure of MAPPA meetings has been improved by adopting the ‘Four Pillars’ approach, developed by Professor Hazel Kemshall, as a way of managing and assessing risk in a proportionate, transparent, and balanced way. The Four Pillars approach[1] has four key activities or ‘pillars’: supervision; monitoring and control; interventions and treatment; and victim safety planning. This model has been adopted as the preferred way to structure MAPPA meetings to ensure that actions to manage risk, which are often external controls, are balanced with rehabilitative activities to promote internal change and protective factors. In some regions there may be capacity and staffing issues from the police and from probation that lead to a delay in hearing cases.

Strategic oversight of MAPPA sits with regional HoPPs. Arrangements vary across regions, largely due to geographical differences. For example, most regions span several MAPPA areas, which can prevent the HoPP from attending all strategic management board (SMB) meetings for each MAPPA area they cover. Where this is the case, effective arrangements should be in place, such as an HPDU being delegated to attend the MAPPA SMB. Some HoPPs manage the MAPPA coordinators in the region, while in other areas, line management of coordinators sits with the HPDU. Whatever the arrangements are, communication should be effective, and each region should have a strategic approach, through their regional delivery plans, to deliver changes that affect MAPPA.

A vital role for the SMB is to monitor and evaluate MAPPA operations to ensure that MAPPA is working well within its area; how this is done is determined locally. While there will always be local variation, inspectors should consider whether a more consistent approach  would benefit the transfer of cases, which can sometimes be problematic when there is a different view of MAPPA level between regions. Each SMB considers management information reports as part of its monitoring and evaluation processes. SMBs should scrutinise the rate of referrals and try to understand patterns and trends, focusing on where it appears that MAPPA is not being used sufficiently. MAPPA levels for custody and community cases should be set in a timely manner, taking into consideration the earliest possible date of release and any temporary releases, and be fully informed by information from all relevant agencies in all cases.

Inspectors should look for activity that includes convening task-and-finish groups to review the resources available for MAPPA. This should include ensuring that sufficient staff are available to screen referrals, plan and chair meetings and record accurate meeting minutes promptly.

Evidence

This includes:

  • focus groups or interviews with the MAPPA coordinator, HoPP and MAPPA partners
  • case inspection data and information
  • current data on numbers of MAPPA cases/staff vs capacity
  • SMB minutes.

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

Guidance

Each region should have its own quality management systems in place that cover public protection work. Measures to assure the quality of public protection delivery may be nationally prescribed or developed by the region to evaluate progress in achieving its own, and the PDUs’, public protection objectives, and how effective its processes are in achieving these objectives.

Regional leaders should be able to articulate the key performance measures that apply to public protection, the reasons why they are important, and the part they play in achieving high levels of performance. This should be informed by the routine analysis of accessible performance information, segmented appropriately and interrogated to identify trends, causes, and potential improvements. Performance measures alone are not sufficient to measure the quality of the information returned, and inspectors should ensure that leaders have the right information to understand effectiveness.

Inspectors should test whether leaders are aware of the quality of public protection delivery and what the issues are, as well as how detailed and ‘correct’ their analysis/understanding is and what they are doing about it. To drive improvement in public protection leaders should be taking tangible action that is the right action. Leaders should communicate the drivers of high quality public protection work to regional staff and heads of service for the PDUs. These should be appropriate to the roles of the staff who are carrying out this work and improving service delivery.

Inspectors should expect to see evidence that the region is benchmarking its public protection systems, processes, and performance measures across its PDUs and with other regions. They should also see evidence that it is setting and reviewing stretch targets to drive improvement, analysing trends, identifying reasons for high performance and under-performance, and addressing under-performance when necessary.

Public protection performance measures should be reviewed regularly, to ensure that they are driving the right behaviours and outcomes. They should be refined when necessary, so that they do not encourage perverse behaviours or have unintended consequences.

Evidence

This includes:

  • performance information segmented appropriately
  • discussions with regional leaders and senior and middle managers
  • discussions with staff
  • descriptions of the public protection performance management and assurance systems
  • examples of public protection performance and assurance reports that address how improvements will be made
  • presentations by leaders on the reason why particular measures are important, the drivers of performance, and the roles of staff in pursuing them and improving service delivery
  • focus groups and/or interviews with the RPD, HoPP, HoOp and head of performance and quality (HP&Q).

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

Guidance

Inspectors should look for evidence that senior leaders align their strategic plans with public protection duties and frameworks such as the Serious Violence Duty, Working Together to Safeguard Children and the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 (which requires children who experience the effects of domestic abuse to be regarded as victims in their own right).

Senior leaders should be represented in key partnership forums and ensure that responsibilities are clear and followed across the partnership. Policies and procedures should reflect current legislation, guidance and best practice. Staff should be aware of these policies and regular training should be provided to ensure they adhere to them. There should be effective systems to track compliance (such as quality assurance and performance dashboards) and managers should be equipped to have sufficient oversight of frontline practice.

Evidence

This includes:

  • strategic plans
  • public protection policies/procedures
  • focus groups with the RPD and HoPP.

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

Guidance

For each significant change to any systems, processes, or staffing, a full assessment should be undertaken to identify the actual or potential impact on public protection work. Recent examples include the introduction of the operational initiatives Reset an Impact. Inspectors should look for evidence that the region has fully considered how to implement these new directives safely and in a way that promotes public protection in its widest sense. This may include how risk monitoring and management need to change to be effective under the new arrangements. This should be considered under strategic and operational delivery mechanisms and agreed at the appropriate levels. There should always be safe systems of working in place, which have been properly risk assessed under health and safety regulations, so that significant changes result in changes to risk assessments and delivery procedures.

Evidence

  • case inspection data and information
  • regional responses to reset and impact
  • focus groups with the RPD/HoOps/HPDUs
  • risk register
  • impact assessments
  • internal thematic assurance activity.

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

Guidance

Each region should have detailed risk registers or equivalent arrangements specific to the region, overseen by senior leaders, that describe public protection risks at regional and operational (across PDUs) level. Plans to mitigate each risk should be appropriate, achievable, and detailed, with specific risk owners allocated. Controls should be specified and should provide a warning if a risk is increasing. Inspectors should look for evidence of regular review to identify any new public protection risks and those that no longer require attention. Regional risk registers should be set within the context of the overall Probation Service national risk register but identify and weight public protection risks in the regional context.

Evidence

This includes:

  • a description of the service’s risk management arrangements
  • recent risk registers, or their equivalent, and their reviews
  • recent minutes of risk management and/or audit committee meetings that apply to the inspected area equality impact assessments, and risk assessments for specific services or activities
  • scrutiny of contracts or service level agreements for contingency arrangements, to ensure continuity of provision – for example, of women’s services
  • recent specific examples of contracts and service level agreements
  • discussions with responsible leaders for managing contracts and external provider arrangements
  • feedback from probation practitioners, domain two interviews, staff, and meetings with people on probation
  • evidence of reviewing arrangements for service delivery provided by dynamic framework providers.

Operational

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

Guidance

Regional leaders should be able to articulate the key performance measures that apply to their area of delivery, the reason why they are important, and the part they play in achieving high levels of performance. This should be informed by the routine analysis of accessible performance information, segmented appropriately and interrogated to identify trends, causes, and potential improvements. Leaders should communicate the drivers of high quality public protection work to regional staff and heads of service for the PDUs. These should be appropriate to the roles of the staff who are carrying out this work and improving service delivery.

Each region should have its own quality management systems in place that cover each of its key service delivery functions and PDUs. Measures to assure the quality of service delivery may be nationally prescribed or developed by the region to evaluate progress in achieving its own, and the PDUs’, service delivery objectives, and how effective its processes are in achieving these objectives.

In addition to this internal assurance activity, each region should have external assurance arrangements in place for public protection. These will differ between regions but may include advisory groups or lay members, or relate to arrangements in specific cases, such as domestic homicide reviews, serious case reviews and serious further offence reviews. Inspectors should consider what intelligence these provide about the efficacy of arrangements to protect the public.

Evidence

This includes:

  • performance dashboard data
  • quality assurance reports
  • SMB audit findings
  • findings from joint partnership assurance activity.

1.9 How effective are operational relationships with police?

Guidance

The region should ensure that there are effective systems for accessing and exchanging police information, including information on domestic abuse.

The Probation Service has provided probation regions with extra funding to recruit additional administration staff, to drive improvement in obtaining information from the police and children’s social care services. Regional leaders can determine how best to deploy this resource following negotiations with local police forces and children’s social care services. Most aim to train staff to use police intelligence systems and, therefore, be able to complete enquiries without adding workload pressure to police forces.

To support the flow of information between the police and probation services, a national Information Sharing Agreement (ISA18) has been negotiated between the Probation Service and the National Police Chiefs’ Council. This provides a basis for defining arrangements between local probation services and police forces. While the spirit of the agreement is positive in recognising the importance of sharing information, there are gaps whereby police forces can reject enquiries if the Probation Service cannot identify any known history of violence. Most police forces deliver over and above the provision set out in the ISA; but inspectors should check whether this is the case in each region and, if not what action is being taken to address it.

In addition to any proactive exchanges of information, probation practitioners should be enabled to make enquiries with police forces periodically throughout the sentence when reviewing risks or when they have a concern that risks are escalating. Where agreements are in place to facilitate regular enquiries at an agreed interval, for example every 12 weeks, this may be detrimental, as it can lead to enquiries being refused between these times, despite concerns having arisen, such as a new partner or increased substance misuse.

At a regional level and across all the region’s PDUs, it should be clear who is responsible for ensuring information is shared effectively with the police, what the arrangements are for the oversight of information exchange, and how regional leaders ensure that escalation routes are effective when arrangements are not working effectively. Inspectors should look for evidence of effective communication and problem-solving forums at an operational level between relevant probation staff/managers and police teams, such as domestic abuse, serious organised crime (SOC) and sexual offending. Inspectors should consider whether these are properly attended by relevant agencies, whether drivers and barriers to effective communication and joint working are routinely discussed, and whether efforts are made to resolve these effectively at the front line. Where barriers persist, inspectors should consider whether there are appropriate escalation routes that are understood and used.

Evidence

This includes:

  • data on enquiries and responses
  • examples of the quality of data and information exchange
  • mechanisms in place to check the quality of information and escalate issues
  • RCAT data
  • case inspection data
  • focus groups based on case inspection data and information (in some areas we will find positive work with some partners and not others)
  • minutes from the community safety partnership (CSP)/local criminal justice board (LCJB)/safeguarding boards (and relevant subgroups).

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

Guidance

The region should ensure that there are effective systems for accessing and exchanging information with children’s social care and that arrangements to support multi-agency working are in place. In addition to any proactive exchanges of information, probation practitioners should be enabled to make enquiries with children’s social care periodically when reviewing risks or when they have a concern that risks are escalating. Where agreements are in place to facilitate regular enquiries at an agreed interval, for example every 12 weeks, this may be detrimental, as it can lead to enquiries being refused between these times, despite concerns having arisen.

At a regional level, and across all the region’s PDUs, it should be clear who is responsible for effective information exchange, what arrangements are in place to support multi-agency working with children’s social care, what the arrangements are for the oversight of information exchange, and how regional leaders ensure that escalation routes are effective when arrangements are not working effectively. Inspectors should look for evidence of effective communication and problem-solving forums at an operational level between relevant probation staff/managers and children’s social care. Inspectors should consider whether these are properly attended by relevant agencies, whether drivers and barriers to effective communication and joint working are routinely discussed, and whether efforts are made to resolve these effectively at the front line. Where barriers persist, inspectors should consider whether there are appropriate escalation routes that are understood and used.

Leaders should have oversight of effective information exchange and multi-agency working by completing a monthly audit of cases referred. They should consider the quality of the information provided and the response received, and the quality, or lack of, of any multi-agency working. Where issues are apparent, leaders should work to achieve resolutions.

Evidence

This includes:

  • data on enquiries and responses
  • examples of the quality of data and information exchange
  • mechanisms in place to check the quality of information and escalate issues
  • RCAT data
  • case inspection data and information
  • focus groups based on case inspection data and information
  • minutes from CSP/LCJB/safeguarding boards (and relevant subgroups).

1.11 How effective are operational relationships with adult social care?

Guidance

The region should ensure that there are effective systems for accessing and exchanging information with adult social care and that arrangements to support multi-agency working are in place. In addition to any proactive exchange of information, probation practitioners should be enabled to make enquiries with adult social care periodically when reviewing risks or when they have a concern that risks are escalating. Where agreements are in place to facilitate regular enquiries at an agreed interval, for example every 12 weeks, this may be detrimental, as it can lead to enquiries being refused between these times, despite concerns having arisen.

At a regional level, and across all the region’s PDUs, it should be clear who is responsible for effective information exchange, what arrangements are in place to support multi-agency working with adult social care, what the arrangements are for the oversight of information exchange, and how regional leaders ensure that escalation routes are effective when arrangements are not working effectively. Inspectors should look for evidence of effective communication and problem-solving forums at an operational level between relevant probation staff/managers and adult social care. Inspectors should consider whether these are properly attended by relevant agencies, whether drivers and barriers to effective communication and joint working are routinely discussed, and whether efforts are made to resolve these effectively at the front line. Where barriers persist, inspectors should consider whether there are appropriate escalation routes that are understood and used.

Leaders should have oversight of effective information exchange and multi-agency working by completing a monthly audit of cases referred. They should consider the quality of the information provided and the response received, and the quality, or lack of, of any multi-agency working. Where issues are apparent, leaders should work to achieve resolutions.

Evidence

This includes:

  • data on enquiries and responses
  • RCAT data
  • case inspection data and information
  • focus groups based on case inspection data and information
  • minutes from safeguarding boards (and relevant subgroups).

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

Guidance

This includes any relevant public protection partners such as serious organised crime, counter terrorism teams, youth justice services, prisons, health services, approved premises and the UK Borders Agency.

The region should ensure that there are effective systems for accessing and exchanging information with public protection partners and that arrangements to support multi-agency working are in place. In addition to any proactive exchange of information, probation practitioners should be enabled to make enquiries with public protection partners periodically when reviewing risks or when they have a concern that risks are escalating. Agreements should allow for information exchange as and when it is needed.

At a regional level, and across all the region’s PDUs, it should be clear who is responsible for effective information exchange and arrangements to support multi-agency working with public protection partners, what the arrangements are for the oversight of information exchange, and how regional leaders ensure that escalation routes are effective when arrangements are not working effectively. Inspectors should look for evidence of effective communication and problem-solving forums at an operational level between relevant probation staff/managers and public protection partners. Inspectors should consider whether these are properly attended by relevant agencies, whether drivers and barriers to effective communication and joint working are routinely discussed, and whether efforts are made to resolve these effectively at the front line. Where barriers persist, inspectors should consider whether there are appropriate escalation routes that are understood and used.

Leaders should have oversight of effective information exchange and multi-agency working by completing a monthly audit of cases referred. They should consider the quality of the information provided and the response received, and the quality, or lack of, of any multi-agency working. Where issues are apparent, leaders should work to achieve resolutions.

Evidence

This includes:

  • data on enquiries and responses
  • RCAT data
  • case inspection data and information
  • focus groups based on case inspection data and information.

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

Guidance

‘Effective’ means that operational arrangements can properly inform assessing, level-setting and review.

Inspectors should explore whether MAPPA level 1 arrangements support timely, reflective decision-making about the management of cases eligible for MAPPA, and whether this is informed by intelligence from other relevant agencies. Systems should support routine review of these decisions and, where relevant, escalation to levels 2 and 3. There should be effective communication channels between probation staff and partner agencies, which ensure that information is shared to inform assessment and decision-making. Leaders should be aware of the extent of any backlog and have an effective strategy to address this.

The quantity of MAPPA resources alone does not ensure the best quality of MAPPA management, and there is no one specific model that will be most effective. For instance, a well-resourced distinct MAPPA team may result in generic probation practitioners being removed from the process and lacking confidence in their own decision-making about MAPPA levels. Inspectors should look for a culture in which practitioners and managers feel ownership over decision-making, with MAPPA embedded in their case management practice.

Evidence

This includes:

  • case inspection data and information
  • MAPPA data
  • SMB audits
  • focus groups.

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

Guidance

‘Effective’ means that operational arrangements can properly inform assessing, level-setting and review.

Inspectors should look for MAPPA thresholds being applied correctly. Category 3 referrals should be made to manage individuals who present a high risk of domestic abuse where formal multi-agency management and oversight through MAPPA would add value to the risk management plan.

Inspectors should expect the quality of referrals for levels 2 and 3 to be appraised. Arrangements should be in place to ensure that thresholds are appropriate and consistent and that staff understand them. It should be clear how decisions to increase or decrease the level of MAPPA management are reached, and thresholds should be applied consistently.

MAPPA chairs should be confident and competent and supported by effective partnership arrangements. All relevant agencies and providers should actively contribute to effective public protection.

Staff involved in the MAPPA process should be appropriately trained so that they can prepare for and present or contribute to a case in a multi-agency forum. They should understand how MAPPA fits with other multi-agency forums, such as Integrated Offender Management and Multi-Agency Risk Assessment Conferences (MARACs).

Cases should be heard in a timely manner. In some regions, the police and probation services have capacity and staffing issues, which lead to delays in hearing cases. Inspectors should consider current data on the numbers of cases/staff vs capacity. The quantity of MAPPA resources alone does not ensure the best quality of MAPPA management, and there is no one specific model that will be most effective. For instance, a well-resourced distinct MAPPA team may result in generic probation practitioners being removed from the process and lacking confidence in their own decision-making about MAPPA levels. Inspectors should look for a culture in which practitioners and managers feel ownership over decision-making, with MAPPA embedded in their case management practice.

Evidence

This includes:

  • case inspection data and information
  • MAPPA data
  • SMB audits
  • focus groups.

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

Guidance

The Violent and Sex Offender Register (ViSOR) is a national database of people who pose a serious risk of harm to the public. It holds information on all offenders with sexual offender registration conditions imposed on them following criminal conviction, and violent and potentially dangerous persons. ViSOR aims to ensure that MAPPA agencies contribute and share intelligence and case information on MAPPA offenders to improve communication that supports effective risk management, public protection, and transfers.

ViSOR should add value to probation practitioners and to multi-agency working. Inspectors should check that this is the case and check for any unnecessary need to duplicate information. Regional leaders should ensure that everybody who needs to access ViSOR is able to do so, and that backlogs are minimal. Poor practice around ViSOR can result in missed opportunities to improve information exchange about the most high-risk people on probation and work to keep people safe.

Evidence

This includes:

  • ViSOR figures (staff trained/staff vetted/usage % in expected cases)
  • backlog data
  • case inspection data and information
  • focus groups with MAPPA chairs/police
  • practitioner dashboard (cases requiring ViSOR registration but none is captured).

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

Guidance

Effective public protection work is not only about MAPPA-eligible cases. Inspectors should consider regional arrangements for all public protection delivery. This should include considering whether:

  • effective systems are in place for screening cases to identify public protection factors at allocation
  • there are clear criteria or thresholds to escalate concerns when eligibility for MAPPA is not met or there are disagreements about thresholds
  • there is evidence of effective communication from partnership agencies to inform assessments and decision-making about risk and public protection
  • relevant agencies are engaged in managing risk collaboratively
  • appropriate interventions are delivered to address relevant risks
  • practitioners are responsive to changes in circumstances or emerging risks and escalation pathways are clear
  • there are appropriate management oversight procedures to ensure effective public protection activity
  • there are effective arrangements for cases to be referred to relevant multi-agency forums (MAPPA/Integrated Offender Management)
  • evidence of any specialist arrangements for managing cases with specific factors linked to risk (such as mental health or substance use).

Evidence

This includes:

  • case inspection data and information
  • critical case reviews or similar specific oversight arrangements for very high risk of serious harm cases
  • focus groups with the HPDUs/partners
  • RPD presentation
  • bespoke service provision details.

1.17 How do regional leaders ensure the safety of victims?

Guidance

Regional leaders should actively promote a culture that prioritises the safety of victims. This should be underpinned by regional policies and processes that support their safety, for example in relation to domestic abuse and stalking. Leaders should be active in strategic boards to review victim safety, such CSPs, safeguarding boards and MARAC steering groups. This should include the safety of all victims, not just those eligible for the statutory victim contact scheme.

Inspectors should consider whether:

  • regional leaders ensure that the quality of information exchange helps to identify and protect all victims
  • there are effective relationships between sentence management teams and victim contact scheme staff
  • there are appropriate protective conditions included in risk management planning and these are monitored and enforced effectively
  • regional priorities linked to victim safety are clearly understood and implemented by operational delivery staff
  • regional structures and resourcing ensure that information-sharing and exchange between victim liaison officers (VLOs) and probation practitioners are effective
  • the region ensures victims can access clear, accurate and timely information
  • VLOs have the right tools and technology to enable them to support victims effectively.

Evidence

This includes:

  • focus groups with the HPDUs/partners/strategic victim lead
  • ISAs
  • case inspection data and information.

Learning

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

Guidance

Regions should have an agreed and understood approach to organisational learning and development that drives improvement in public protection work. This should include the use and analysis of diversity information, which may be collected at regional or PDU level, to help the region to develop and deliver a high-quality service.

If a region does not have diversityinformation about people on probation with protected characteristics, it should be working to fill the information gaps. This could mean undertaking short surveys, or some engagement work.

The region should use the diversity information that it collects not just to identify, mitigate, or remove poor public protection practice, but also to identify ways to advance equity of opportunity. Driving improvement across a region can happen at different levels, so any learning and action taken should be disseminated through appropriate structures, such as staff meetings, quality improvement fora, and individual staff supervision. Learning can be communicated internally, externally, and between providers through exchanges, showcases, and research and evaluation publications.

Inspectors should look for diversity information being used to drive effective public protection work. This includes whether specialist services have been commissioned to address diversity factors linked to public protection, such accommodation provision for sexual offenders/high-risk offenders, or whether there are multi-agency forums tailored to meet the local risk profile of people on probation. Another example would be where the equity, diversity and inclusion strategy recognises the impact of cultural competence of staff on public protection work.

Evidence

This includes:

  • engagement activities
  • surveys of people on probation
  • staff survey results
  • complaints records and responses
  • results of engagement activities or surveys to help to understand the needs and experiences of people with different protected characteristics
  • information from the public, and from voluntary organisations, to help the region to understand the needs and experiences of people on probation with different protected characteristics
  • segmentation data/needs analysis.

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

Guidance

Public protection policies should drive effective public protection practice across the region. Inspectors should look for evidence that policies, practice and expectations have been communicated clearly and understood and implemented as intended. This should be supported by staff receiving regular, relevant, and role-specific learning and development. This should equip staff with the skills and knowledge necessary to implement effective public protection practice.

The region should have established mechanisms for disseminating policies and practices that staff engage with. There should be buy-in of middle managers, who should monitor public protection delivery effectively to ensure that policies are being implemented correctly.

There should be mechanisms for assurance activity to identify strengths and areas for improvement, and this should inform the review of policies where appropriate.

When any new policy is introduced, frontline staff should be consulted about the potential effectiveness and any challenges in implementing it this. Learning from serious incidents, inspections, or audits should be used to refine regional public protection policies where needed. Where public protection policies involve partners, regional leaders should be working with those partners to embed practices in the way that the policies intended.

Evidence

This includes:

  • RCAT data
  • focus groups with the HPDUs, HoOPs, HP&Q, partners
  • RPD presentation.

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

Guidance

The evidence base includes academic research, inspection evidence and a region’s own evaluation findings.

For service improvement plans to be effective, they must be informed by regular and routine monitoring to check whether they are achieving their aims. They should also be informed by evidence from research about what is likely to work and improve delivery.

Monitoring should include examining the process improvements to identify whether they are achieving what was intended, taking account of feedback from stakeholders on how they are working in practice. Improvement plans should be monitored routinely by someone responsible for managing the relevant process, reporting under an appropriate governance arrangement. They should be aligned with the evidence base, both building on existing research and contributing to it.

Where appropriate, inspectors should consider whether the region carries out external monitoring to improve the integrity of the process. They should also consider whether it provides opportunities for engaging researchers, or collaborative working with similar organisations undertaking a comparable improvement process, to benchmark progress and maximise learning.

The region should focus on continuous improvement and evaluate and review the regional vision and strategy regularly. These evaluations and reviews should be based on data and involve relevant stakeholders.

Evidence

This includes:

  • RPD presentation
  • focus groups with the HP&Q/commissioning.

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

Guidance

Inspectors should look for examples of learning being taken forward and improvement action being taken in public protection practice. This could be through child safeguarding practice reviews (CSPRs) in England, single unified safeguarding reviews (SUSRs) in Wales, domestic abuse related death reviews (DARDRs), serious further offence (SFO) reviews or any internal or multi-agency reviews. Inspectors should check for the findings of any HM Inspectorate of Probation SFO quality assurance reviews that have been completed in the previous 12 months. Quality assurance from the national SFO team and internal audits should also be considered. Regions should have an agreed and understood approach to organisational learning and development, which supports their journey of continuous improvement. Learning should be shared appropriately across public protection partners.

Learning can take place at all levels, so there must be processes in place for capturing, applying and assessing the impact of the learning across the region. This entails that, for example:

  • evaluations and lessons learned reviews are completed on service improvement activity
  • complaints are reviewed, and lessons learned are captured
  • there is a process for cascading organisational learning through units and teams
  • learning is built into future organisational development plans and incorporated into training programmes
  • there is evidence of learning in inspected cases
  • information from research is published on intranet fora and included in knowledge banks.

Complaints processes should be publicised widely, and regular reviews of complaint handling undertaken, to ensure that resolutions have been followed through and that any trends have been identified and addressed.

Evidence

This includes:

  • widespread promotion and understanding of the complaints policy
  • examples of the dissemination of evaluation reports
  • the terms of reference of learning and quality fora, along with notes and presentations made
  • meetings with relevant leaders and development teams
  • evidence of learning from SFOs
  • examination of organisational development and learning plans.

2. Staffing (Back to top)

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

Guidance

It is important for inspectors to look both at spans of control (the number of staff that the HoPP is responsible for) and the weight of other functional responsibilities. The extent to which the HoPP has a business function or administrative support will be relevant, as will the size of the geographical area they are responsible for and the number of teams. The HoPP should be able to provide effective oversight of public protection activity, as well as supervision and support for their staff, to hold them accountable for their work, and to support and develop them. Job descriptions should be appropriate to the role.

Inspectors should consider which public protection responsibilities the HoPP is accountable for and which they deliver directly, and check that there is an appropriate balance. Where public protection responsibilities are delegated to HPDUs and other functions, inspectors should look at how much oversight the HoPP has and the support they have in delivering good public protection outcomes. For instance, the HoPP may be supported by an appropriately deployed deputy.

Evidence

This includes:

  •  meeting with HoPP, RPD, HPDUs, HoOPs
  •  regional presentation.

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

Guidance

It is important for inspectors to look both at spans of control (the number of staff that the HPDUs are responsible for) and the weight of other functional responsibilities. The extent to which the HPDUs have a business function or administrative support will be relevant, as will the size of the PDU they are responsible for and the number of teams. HPDUs should be able to provide effective oversight of public protection activity, as well as supervision and support for their staff, to hold them accountable for their public protection work, and to support and develop them. Job descriptions should be appropriate to the role.

Inspectors should consider which public protection responsibilities the HPDUs are accountable for and whether this is appropriate. Where public protection responsibilities are delegated to HPDUs and other functions, this should be overseen effectively. Sufficient support should be provided to the HPDUs to enable them to deliver good public protection outcomes.

Evidence

This includes:

  • meetings with head of public protection, RPD, HPDUs, HoOps
  • regional presentation.

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

Guidance

HPDUs should have the appropriate level of support to enable them to deliver effective public protection work. Inspectors should consider:

  • whether induction focuses sufficiently on public protection, setting out the requirements, expectations and accountabilities for the role in relation to public protection
  • how effective line management support for HPDUs is
  • the type and level of support HPDUs get from the HoPP
  • whether HPDUs have access to data and management information that supports effective assurance of public protection
  • whether HPDUs have adequate resources to implement effective public protection work, including staffing, information exchange arrangements, the ability to commission necessary services and appropriate escalation routes into the region to address challenges
  • whether the support provided for individual HPDUs meets their needs at the stage they are at in their career, taking account of their level of experience and the context of changing operational directives.

Evidence

This includes:

  • focus groups with the HPDUs, HoOps, HoPP
  • workforce planning strategies, recruitment and development plans, information on the qualifying routes available, data on projected numbers needing to achieve qualifications, the numbers of staff progressing through these routes, success rates, and the support arrangements for staff to enable them to progress satisfactorily
  • discussions with HR and training managers.

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

Guidance

HPDUs should be given access to training, mentoring, or peer support to strengthen leadership of public protection. Clear expectations should be set out, describing public protection responsibilities, and these should be linked to regional plans and performance frameworks.

There should be a clear mechanism for identifying any public protection concerns for which an HPDU is accountable, such as SFO findings and performance measures.

Regional leaders should intervene promptly and proportionately when public protection standards are not met, to address poor performance by HPDUs. Regional governance structures should support accountability effectively.

Inspectors should look for evidence of performance measures and quality improvement outcomes being used to drive improvement in public protection, including leaders responding to assurance findings, and demonstrate improvements.

Evidence

This includes:

  • focus groups – HPDU, HoOPs, RPD, partners, HP&Q
  • SFOs, CSPRs in England, SUSRs in Wales and DARDR action plans
  • performance data
  • case inspection data and information.

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

Guidance

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. In public protection it focuses particularly on ensuring that actual or potential victims are sufficiently protected from harm. Our full policy statement on management oversight can be found on our website: HM Inspectorate of Probation management oversight (justiceinspectorates.gov.uk).

Oversight of risk of harm, and safety and wellbeing are different from regular staff supervision and the general oversight of practice. However, they may sometimes be undertaken at the same time, and discussions in supervision may help to identify the need for management oversight.

Regional arrangements and activity should promote and enable effective management oversight of public protection work. This requires sufficiently trained managers and staff, promotion of a professionally curious approach, and sufficient resources being available to allow for effective management oversight to take place.

Evidence

This includes:

  • evidence from inspected cases
  • structured meetings with staff and managers
  • key policies, guidance, and frameworks on management oversight
  • information obtained from interviews with case managers or responsible officers
  • staff survey results

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

Guidance

Regions should expect and enable the active management of case allocation processes that promote high-quality public protection work. Allocation processes should be guided by principles that ensure the level of risk presented in a case is commensurate with the level of experience and expertise of the allocated probation practitioner. We expect all cases assessed as high or very high risk of serious harm to be managed by a qualified probation officer, or by a trainee under the guidance of a qualified officer. We also expect complex cases with active domestic abuse and/or safeguarding issues, whatever the level of risk of serious harm, to be managed by a qualified probation officer. If a decision has been made to allocate medium risk of serious harm cases, including less complex domestic abuse and/or safeguarding cases, to staff without a probation officer qualification, we expect those staff to be suitably experienced and trained, and to be actively supported. Training records should provide evidence of staff completing appropriate training to manage complex domestic abuse and safeguarding cases.

All probation practitioners should only be allocated work that matches their level of training and expertise. PDU staff should have had the necessary training in the areas of work they have not been familiar with since probation services were separated in 2014 and/or since they joined the respective legacy Community Rehabilitation Company and National Probation Service organisations. They should not simply be allocated work because they have capacity. Staff who are on Professional Qualification in Probation training should be allocated appropriate cases that meet their learning and development needs. Inspectors should check that appropriate co-working opportunities are provided to enable less experienced staff learn how to manage high- and very high-risk cases.

Regions should expect and enable work to be allocated appropriately, and workloads monitored and adjusted as necessary, using appropriate workload management tool to reflect a reasonable caseload. There should be evidence that this is the case consistently across the region. PDUs must be able to prioritise those who pose the greatest risk and not simply be firefighting. Workload management and redeployment policies should be delivered.

Evidence

This includes:

  • case inspection data and information
  • staff survey results
  • focus group with the HPDUs.

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

Guidance

There should be a strategy that sets out how all staff in the region are supported to attend training and participate in learning opportunities that are relevant to their public protection learning needs. Training should be evaluated to identify whether it is effective in meeting identified public protection learning objectives, and whether it meets the public protection learning needs of staff and supports them responsively. The strategy should facilitate continuous learning and development.

Systems should be in place to enable all staff in the region to have access to in-service training, external training, and other public protection learning opportunities where appropriate. Inspectors should see that the range and availability of all of these are actively promoted and readily accessible. Practical input should be included in learning and development, for instance on preparing for and presenting cases at MAPPA meetings. Inspectors should consider how effectively the learning and development provision for staff supports and enables them to deliver high-quality public protection work.

Evidence

This includes:

  • learning and development strategy
  • policies on accessing training and providing cover for staff to access training
  • data on numbers of staff trained
  • annual training reports
  • information from staff about whether they can access sufficient in-house training and whether it meets their learning needs, including the experience of staff undertaking these qualifying routes
  • workforce planning strategies, recruitment and development plans, information on the qualifying routes available, data on projected numbers needing to achieve qualifications, the numbers of staff progressing through these routes, success rates, and the support arrangements for staff to enable them to progress satisfactorily
  • discussions with HR and training managers
  • the scale of the offer of development opportunities and the take-up of these by staff; examples may include attendance at conferences or workshops, training courses, work shadowing, or attachments to another service or function
  • staff survey results.

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

Guidance

The region should actively promote and value a culture of learning and continuous improvement in public protection work. Inspectors should look for:

  • regional leaders who model and promote a culture of transparency, learning, and accountability
  • training and development strategies that are tailored to the individual needs of staff, based on staff’s skills, experience and knowledge
  • mechanisms to reflect on complex cases, near misses, and good practice
  • audits and reviews that are used not just for compliance, but to generate learning and inform development
  • practitioners being encouraged to share insights, raise concerns, and contribute to service improvement in public protection
  • recommendations from HM Inspectorate of Probation, serious case reviews, or safeguarding boards that are used to drive improvement
  • joint training, shared reviews, or cross-agency learning events that are used to strengthen public protection.

Evidence

This includes:

  • regional strategies or plans for promoting organisational learning
  • examples of public protection learning and development opportunities that have recently (within the last 12 months) been made available to staff, and that staff have taken up
  • examples of how these opportunities have supported staff learning and continuous improvement – for example, blogs, case studies, or the sharing of emerging good practice
  • assurance and audit processes
  • staff obtaining new qualifications
  • training needs analysis
  • staff survey results.

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

Guidance

For public protection learning and development to be effective, it must be informed by monitoring to check whether it is achieving its aims. Regions should have an agreed and understood approach to organisational learning and development, which assists their journey of continuous improvement. Learning can take place at all levels, so there must be processes in place for capturing, assessing, and applying the learning across the PDUs as applicable. Monitoring should include examination of the intended improvements, from learning to identify whether they are achieving what was intended, with feedback from staff, where relevant, on how they are working in practice. Inspectors should consider whether:

  • evaluations and lessons learned reviews are completed on service improvement activity
  • there is a process for cascading organisational learning through units and teams
  • learning is built into future organisational development plans and incorporated into training programmes
  • there is evidence of learning in inspected cases.

Evidence

This includes:

  • focus groups
  • case inspection data and information
  • staff survey results.

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

Guidance

Regions should have formal procedures in place for addressing staff competence issues. Where managers identify poor public protection performance, they should identify its causes, such as heavy workload, lack of relevant training, inefficient processes, lack of resources or suitable ICT, or poor staff competence. Managers should be transparent with staff about their practice deficits and follow a staged and proportionate response. This should start by focusing on support to develop staff’s public protection practice but could result in formal improvement plans if practice does not improve.

Line managers should be trained and competent in implementing development and improvement plans, with support from senior managers. Senior managers should monitor the use of performance improvement notices and plans, to ensure that they are being used fairly and appropriately across the region. Examples may include where poor performance by a member of staff has been identified and managers have not responded appropriately to a subsequent lack of improvement, or where the use of performance improvement processes are inconsistent or lack a developmental focus.

Monitoring should identify any disproportionate use of such processes for diverse groups.

Evidence

This includes:

  • performance management and improvement policies and processes
  • discussions with managers about how they apply performance improvement processes
  • discussions with staff about how performance improvement processes are applied
  • monitoring data on staff who are subject to performance improvement
  • capability and disciplinary processes, by location, grade, and protected characteristics.

3. Services (Back to top)

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

Guidance

High-quality services are timely, are appropriate to manage risks, meet needs and build strengths, are delivered in appropriate and accessible locations and are informed by robust and regular evaluation and review. Inspectors should look for:

  • clear and well-understood access and referral routes for services to protect the public
  • effective collaborative working between service providers and probation practitioners, including information-sharing, risk assessment and management
  • sufficient activity across the period of supervision
  • availability across the region, including rural and high demand locations
  • responsivity to protected characteristics and diverse needs
  • coordinated planning to avoid duplication or gaps
  • the voice of people on probation being used to evaluate available services.

Evidence

This includes

  • commissioning plans
  • service directories
  • focus groups with the HPDUs and partners.

3.2 How do commissioning arrangements drive effective public protection work?

Guidance:

Commissioning is the entire strategic process of identifying needs, planning, procuring, and evaluating services to achieve specific outcomes. Effective contract management in public protection is required to ensure that enough of the right services are available in a timely way.

Inspectors should be able to see that the region has a strategy and plan in place for how services to protect the public will be commissioned. This should include arrangements for the routine review and evaluation of services commissioned through the Regional Outcomes and Innovation Fund (ROIF). Mechanisms should be in place to monitor referrals, meet demand and provide the necessary services, with a route to escalate concerns. Regional commissioning activity should support local public protection delivery. HPDUs should have sufficient freedom and flexibility to determine public protection provision in their own areas.

Commissioning should be based on an analysis of risk, needs, and strengths, and should fully consider diversity factors. Arrangements with providers should include the review and evaluation of provision, and remedial action should be taken where required to improve delivery and respond to any concerns. Commissioning should provide services to ensure that sufficient public protection activity can be provided across a period of supervision.

Inspectors should look at the arrangements to review and evaluate the demand for, and quality of, provision. They should look for examples of remedial action being taken, where required, to improve delivery and respond to any concerns. Where there are significant gaps in capacity and/or the range of provision, credible action should be taken to address this.

Evidence

This includes:

  • regional commissioning strategy/plan
  • guidance available for staff on the range of PDU and regional commissioned services
  • guidance available for people on probation on the range of PDU and regional commissioned services
  • case inspection data and information
  • timetables for the delivery of programmes or rehabilitation activity requirement (RARs) activities where these are locally commissioned
  • policies on waiting lists
  • discussions with commissioners of services.

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

Guidance

Contract management is the operational phase of delivery that focuses on administering and overseeing a commissioned agreement to ensure the service is delivered according to the agreement. Effective contract management in public protection is required to ensure that enough of the right services are available in a timely way.

Contract management arrangements should ensure that commissioned services to protect the public are delivered in the way that they were intended. Inspectors should look at the arrangements to review and evaluate the demand for, and quality of, provision. They should look for examples of remedial action being taken, where required, to improve delivery and respond to any concerns. Where there are significant gaps in capacity and/or the range of provision, credible action should be taken to address this.

There should be a plan in place that includes arrangements for the routine review and evaluation of delivery, and processes for checking to see that provision is available in the way intended.

Evidence

This includes:

  • contract management arrangements, action plans and outcomes
  • information from the contract management team, and meetings with providers and those with regional lead responsibility for services
  • management information to show that the quality of services is reviewed and evaluated routinely, and remedial action is taken where required
  • service action plans
  • examples showing that the region can demonstrate how review and evaluation processes are used effectively to drive improvements in the quality of provision
  • examples showing that remedial action has been taken where required.

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

Guidance

Ensuring that key relationships with other agencies are working well is an essential part of keeping the public safe. There should be good working relationships with other organisations at all levels across the region. Regions should enable HPDUs to engage with their equivalents to ensure that working arrangements are sound; that team managers are working to improve communication and unblock problems; and that probation practitioners are following key agreements, protocols, and pathways to ensure that information is exchanged, and referrals dealt with appropriately.

There should be evidence that, through the PDU’s involvement in key partnership arrangements, joint initiatives are undertaken to strengthen single and joint agency practice in managing risk of serious harm and safeguarding. The active involvement of heads of service for the PDU or their equivalents in MAPPA strategic management boards is a prerequisite. Regional leaders should be assured that partners are appropriately engaged with MAPPA arrangements. at all levels with MAPPA arrangements.

HPDUs should be involved in local safeguarding arrangements for people on probation at board level, and appropriate staff should be engaged in relevant subgroups, such as training and effectiveness. While there is no statutory requirement for membership of a safeguarding adults board, the Probation Service National Partnership Framework (June 2015) stipulates that each PDU should be a member of a safeguarding adults board.

PDUs should nurture relationships with other key partners. These include the police, for work relating to serious and organised crime, guns, and gangs; domestic abuse units and MOSOVO (management of sexual or violent offenders) teams; person on probation and adult social care services, including multi-agency safeguarding hubs or their equivalent; MARACs; local prison governors; and forensic mental health services. It is important that PDUs have good working relationships with local authority and independent housing providers, to secure safe accommodation for those assessed as presenting a high or very high risk of serious harm, and with youth offending teams when transferring cases to adult probation services.

There should be clear referral pathways, protocols for information exchange, and active involvement in key boards and fora. The effectiveness of these arrangements should be demonstrated through initiatives to improve joint working on specific issues, joint training initiatives, and lessons learned reviews.

Forming a judgement about the effectiveness and consistency of working relationships with these key agencies across a wide geographical footprint is not easy. To make a positive judgement, a sampling of arrangements, protocols, and minutes of meetings is required to identify whether there is consistent practice and involvement as far as can be reasonably judged. This might be supported further by evidence provided by the PDU about how it ensures the effectiveness of these working arrangements, where it is aware of any difficulties, and what it is doing to resolve these.

Evidence

This includes:

  • case inspection data and information on the effectiveness of relationships to manage the risk of serious harm
  • minutes of relevant meetings (for example, MAPPA strategic management boards, MAPPA panels, safeguarding boards, MARACs, integrated offender management, and reducing reoffending boards)
  • meetings with senior staff from relevant agencies
  • referral protocols and agreements
  • meetings with managers, administrators, and frontline practitioners
  • probation practitioner survey.

Evidence

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

Guidance

For both magistrates’ courts and Crown Courts to make appropriate use of the full range of sentencing options, they need to have enough detail about the services available. The services that support sentencing options include, but are not limited to:

  • accredited programmes
  • RARs, with information on the portfolio of structured interventions and toolkits available
  • drug treatment
  • alcohol treatment
  • mental health treatment requirements
  • attendance centres
  • electronic monitoring
  • approved premises
  • unpaid work placements.

The primary interface with courts will be at PDU level staff but regional leaders should expect and enable PDUs to keep courts up to date with sentencing options. This should be in enough detail and in such a way as to give the courts confidence, when passing sentence, about what the sentence is likely to achieve and what activities are likely to be delivered as part of it. Courts should also be kept informed when services change or are suspended, or new options become available.

Courts should be provided with detailed information on the programmes and interventions that the region delivers, and that are available within the PDU, and its arrangements for delivering drug, alcohol, and mental health treatment, in liaison with local providers.

In addition to providing written information, PDUs should also make presentations to sentencers at bench meetings, training events, and other appropriate fora about the availability and nature of interventions, the outcomes achieved, and their effectiveness. Any sentencer surveys should clarify whether sentencers are content that they have the detailed information they require.

Evidence

This includes:

  • sentencer liaison arrangements or strategy
  • information provided to sentencers, including newsletters and other communication channels, minutes of liaison meetings, and presentations made
  • sentencer surveys
  • meetings with liaison judges and chairs of magistrates’ benches.

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

Guidance

This is important because it can influence the sentences given. PDUs should be expected and enabled to work to build sentencers’ confidence by having effective mechanisms in place to gather judicial feedback, such as a sentencer survey, court user groups, or sentencer liaison meetings. Groups should be attended by the appropriate staff and stakeholders and should be effective forums for sharing views, information and concerns.

Sentencers should be kept informed about available public protection related requirements and interventions, eligibility criteria, and capacity.

Evidence

This includes:

  • sentencer liaison arrangements or strategy
  • information provided to sentencers, including newsletters and other communication channels, minutes of liaison meetings, and presentations made
  • sentencer surveys
  • meetings with liaison judges and chairs of magistrates’ benches.

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

Guidance

Regional arrangements should expect and enable public protection interventions to be responsive and personalised. Delivery should accommodate protected characteristics or diversity factors. This includes direct one-to-one work, structured interventions, unpaid work and programmes, and should take place across all risk levels.

Evidence

  • case inspection data and information
  • focus groups with interventions, Commissioned Rehabilitative Services providers and other commissioned providers.

3.8 How do enforcement arrangements support effective public protection?

Guidance

Leaders should ensure that enforcement policies are clear and consistently applied, including in response to national policy changes or operational directives. Regional leaders should have mechanisms in place to ensure that they understand and remove barriers to enforcement.

Staff should understand when and how to take enforcement action in response to non-compliance and increasing risk. Where alternatives to recall are used, these should be proportionate, evidence-based and reviewed. Enforcement decisions should be guided by risk to the public, victim safety and proportionality, and subject to appropriate oversight and authorisation. In the event of recall, there should be effective communication with victims, where appropriate, and with other agencies involved with the person on probation.

Evidence

This includes:

  • enforcement policies
  • performance/organisational data
  • case inspection data and information
  • focus groups with the HPDUs/HP&Q.

3.9 How is technology used to protect the public?

Guidance

Regions should be proactive in the use of technologies to manage risk, in particular the use of electronic monitoring. HM Prison and Probation Service’s electronic monitoring programme is managed centrally by an electronic monitoring team.

Regions should:

  • ensure that all probation practitioners receive training in electronic monitoring and in how to integrate the different types of technology available into the overall case management of people on probation
  • ensure that probation practitioners clearly record and analyse how electronic monitoring will support the risk management of people on probation
  • ensure that probation practitioners clearly identify electronic monitoring requirements in sentence planning processes, including reviewing progress regularly with the person on probation
  • ensure that training of court staff includes the availability of GPS technologies as a sentencing option, and that it provides staff with a clear understanding of their purpose and scope
  • work with local partners to improve the timeliness of domestic abuse and safeguarding information-sharing at the pre-sentence/pre-release stage to inform robust assessments
  • ensure all cases are enforced as required
  • promote the benefits of GPS technology in allowing probation practitioners to have greater oversight of the activities of their cases, thus enhancing risk management
  • ensure that all electronically monitored requirements made by courts or prisons are communicated correctly or actioned by electronic monitoring providers
  • have systems in place for accessing partner agencies’ systems and ensure these are used effectively to support the prompt and accurate exchange of information
  • use data tools to identify emerging risks and public protection concerns.

Evidence

This includes:

  • electronic monitoring data
  • casework inspection data and information.

Footnotes/References (Back to top)

[1] WOOD, J. and KEMSHALL, H., 2010. Effective multi-agency public protection: learning from the research.