Evaluating the impact of the Probation Service’s efforts to combat domestic abuse
A review of the actions resulting from the 2023 thematic inspection of work undertaken, and progress made, by the Probation Service to reduce the incidence of domestic abuse and protect victims.
Introduction (Back to top)
The impact of domestic abuse in England and Wales is extensive. It affects millions of adults and children, and has a disproportionate impact on women. When we inspected this topic in 2023, around 30 per cent of individuals on probation were current or former perpetrators of domestic abuse. Despite some policy advancements, we found that little progress had been made in practice since our previous inspection of domestic abuse in 2018, and significant issues remained.
In our 2023 inspection, only 28 per cent of cases had a sufficient risk assessment, and 45 per cent of people who should have received interventions had not. Staffing shortages and high caseloads were worsening the situation and limiting the effectiveness of the probation service’s work in relation to domestic abuse. Changes in legislation through the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 had not been fully implemented in probation practice and we found a lack of coordination and information-sharing between agencies. Probation teams were under pressure, with new staff lacking the necessary experience to manage complex cases. Our report highlighted these ongoing challenges and urged urgent action to improve the assessment and management of domestic abuse cases, to ensure better support for victims and more effective rehabilitation for perpetrators.
Given the prevalence and impact of domestic abuse, we have revisited the topic to explore progress against the recommendations we made in 2023. In this report we will use data from our core inspection programme and performance information from His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) to understand whether progress has been made in improving the response to domestic abuse.
Methodology (Back to top)
We assessed the actions taken in response to our previous recommendations using the following methods:
- We applied the case inspection tool from the original thematic inspection to remotely inspect the records of 112 people on probation with existing domestic abuse concerns who began their current supervision in early February 2025. The sample consisted of 38 post-sentence licences, 46 community orders and 28 suspended sentence orders.
- We analysed core probation inspection data from 24 probation delivery units (PDUs) across the three regions inspected between November 2023 and October 2024. To evaluate domestic abuse practice, we isolated cases where inspectors identified domestic abuse as a significant concern linked to serious harm. This resulted in a total sample of 709 cases. Within the sample, 38 per cent were individuals on release from prison and 62 per cent had received community or suspended sentence orders.
- We called for examples of effective practice through the National Domestic Abuse Reference Group
- We reviewed the HMPPS action plan linked to the inspection.
Summary of findings (Back to top)
Of the 13 recommendations we made in 2023, sufficient progress had been made in three, some progress in six, and insufficient progress in two. For the remaining two, we were unable to assess progress due to limitations in the available evidence. While there have been notable improvements in certain areas of practice, domestic abuse continues to be inadequately considered or addressed in too many cases. This highlights a need for sustained focus and consistent implementation of existing policies and guidance.
Review of progress against recommendations (Back to top)
| Recommendation 1: HMPPS should publish a domestic abuse strategy for the Probation Service and review progress against it regularly. The strategy should be gender and culturally informed, and ensure that the voice of the victim is fully considered and that probation leaders are fully engaged in local multi-agency responses to domestic abuse |
| HMPPS response – partly agreed |
In response to this recommendation, HMPPS stated that it did not intend to have separate strategies for different offence types. HMPPS published its rehabilitation strategy internally in September 2023. This is a general strategy, which does not specifically address domestic abuse. It gives a commitment to invest in the proper provision of services, including adjusting the approach to groups where the evidence indicates differing offending-related needs and risks.
As we did not interview the practitioners linked to our sample for this review, we were unable to gather further insights into their confidence in working with domestic abuse perpetrators. However, this issue is explored further in recommendation 4 (see below).
In the action plan linked to the thematic inspection, HMPPS made commitments under the following four headings:
- Staff are equipped to work with domestic abuse perpetrators
HMPPS reports that it has attempted to ensure staff are equipped to work with domestic abuse perpetrators. For example, it has promoted the domestic abuse policy framework, created new domestic abuse e-learning, and developed advanced domestic abuse continuous professional development (CPD) training and an awareness campaign, which attracted over 5,000 registrations and positive feedback from attendees who said it would impact on their practice. As we did not interview the practitioners linked to our sample for this review, we have not gathered any additional information linked to confidence in working with perpetrators of domestic abuse. However, the topic is considered further as part of recommendation 4.
- The right interventions are available and being used
The HMPPS effective proposal framework team produces monthly reports for probation regions, which highlight cases where individuals were eligible for accredited programmes but did not receive them. This is a helpful development to track whether programmes are being appropriately identified. However, it does not address our concerns that, even when programmes are identified, they are not always delivered. HMPPS is making significant changes to the delivery of accredited programmes, moving away from offence-specific programmes and replacing them with a new generic programme. Inevitably this requires the old programmes to be phased out as the new one is introduced. In our review, 19 individuals (17 per cent) had received some domestic abuse interventions, and in 32 cases no interventions had been delivered and inspectors deemed this appropriate. This left 61 instances (54 per cent) where inspectors judged that some interventions should have been delivered but were not.
- Risk is accurately assessed based on information from other agencies
HMPPS has worked with the National Police Chiefs’ Council and police forces locally to improve access to information on domestic abuse. Domestic abuse performance data is now included in monthly reports that are given to regional probation directors. HMPPS says that monthly recorded activity in relation to domestic abuse enquiries more than doubled between April 2022 and March 2023, which is to be commended. Guidance on domestic abuse and child safeguarding activity has also been updated. HMPPS reports that there was a significant increase in the number of staff accessing the guidance following an intranet awareness-raising campaign in August 2023.
The domestic abuse and safeguarding enquiries practitioner guidance sets out why practitioners should consider domestic abuse in every case. It states that court staff must search for indicators of domestic abuse in all cases but stops short of saying that police enquiries should be made in all cases. It says instead that if domestic abuse is a feature, information must be sought.
HM Inspectorate of Probation expects the Probation Service to obtain sufficient information on domestic abuse from the police in all cases at the point when a pre-sentence report is ordered by the court.[1] In our review we found that, in 84 per cent of cases, the Probation Service sought information from the police before providing any advice to the courts at the sentencing stage. In a further small number, it sought information after providing advice but before allocating the case to a practitioner. In six cases (nine per cent) where advice was given to court, there was no record that the Probation Service had obtained information from the police on domestic where this was necessary. Encouragingly, in 90 per cent of cases where the Probation Service requested information from the police, it received a timely response that informed the advice given to court – an improvement compared to our thematic inspection, where the figure was 75 per cent.
- Plans include work with partner agencies to keep victims safe
Against this commitment, HMPPS has provided new domestic abuse training materials for practitioners. It reports that these have a greater focus on victims’ perspectives and on safeguarding. In our spotlight review of cases, we assessed that practitioners shared information sufficiently with other agencies involved in managing the risk of domestic abuse in 42 per cent of cases.
Assessment of progress – some progress
The absence of a dedicated domestic abuse strategy for probation work remains a significant gap. However, some progress has been made in areas of practice that would likely form part of such a strategy. These are discussed more fully throughout this review.
| Recommendation 2: HMPPS should ensure that all people on probation who require an intervention receive one in a timely way and clearly record any rationale for not delivering if plans change, monitor the delivery of all interventions, and analyse attrition rates and shortfalls against potential need |
| HMPPS response – agreed |
Ensuring individuals receive the right intervention aligns with the overarching HMPPS rehabilitation strategy, which promotes delivery of appropriate services, for the right people, at the right time. HMPPS reports that it is improving the quality of its data, which will enable it to better understand identified need and delivery of interventions. In addition, it says that reporting mechanisms are now in place to actively monitor and analyse attrition rates from accredited programmes and track individuals who have a planned programme but have not yet attended it, or are at risk of not completing it.
Data on interventions is also collected through the domestic abuse dashboard and considered by the National Domestic Abuse Forum. Regional probation directors receive management information generated from the effective proposal framework tool to support them in identifying whether appropriate recommendations are being made in court reports.
Our core inspections assess whether sufficient services are being delivered to address individuals’ identified risks and needs. Our aggregated core adult probation inspection sample comprised 709 cases where domestic abuse was a concern. Of these, 57 individuals were subject to a requirement to complete the accredited Building Better Relationships (BBR) programme. An additional 25 individuals had other programme requirements. Of these, 21 were expected to complete the Thinking Skills Programme (TSP), and four were expected to complete Horizon or iHorizon.[2]
Inspectors judged that, of the 82 individuals with a programme requirement, only 37 (45 per cent) began their programme work at an appropriate time. Our core inspections consider probation practice in the earlier stages of supervision, and it is not possible to ascertain if individuals went on to complete programmes as intended later in their sentence. In terms of other interventions, nine individuals had received structured interventions, 86 had received input from toolkits, 88 had been referred to commissioned rehabilitative services, and 175 had received no intervention at all. Our findings indicate that, in too many cases, family and relationship issues linked to the risk of serious harm were not adequately addressed. Inspectors found that in 80 per cent of cases involving domestic abuse concerns, the services delivered were insufficient to address family and relationship issues related to the risk of harm.
In our sample of 112 domestic abuse cases for this report, three individuals had received some accredited programme delivery, and three had attended a structured intervention. In all cases where interventions were delivered by someone other than the probation practitioner, there was good communication between the practitioner and the intervention facilitator, and the practitioner supported the individual’s attendance at the intervention. We saw 11 instances where individuals had received some sessions from a one-to-one toolkit but these largely appeared to be ad hoc rather than a planned programme of work linked to their sentence plan. As outlined above, we also found few interventions in the cases we sampled, with just over half of the individuals receiving no interventions when inspectors assessed that they should have.
Assessment of progress – some progress
Better mechanisms are now in place that should enable leaders to understand the volume of intervention delivery. However, our core inspection findings and this review have found that too few individuals are receiving the support and intervention they need to address domestic abuse concerns.
| Recommendation 3: HMPPS should ensure that all actual and potential future adult and child victims of domestic abuse are identified accurately and work with other agencies, such as the police, children’s social care services, and specialist domestic abuse services, to ensure that victims are protected and informed at each stage of the sentence management process |
| HMPPS response – agreed |
HMPPS have reported two completed actions in response to this recommendation: a reviewed and improved training package for domestic abuse risk assessment and management, and an increase in the resources available to support information-sharing. HMPPS states that the feedback on training has been positive, with learners reporting that they can apply their knowledge to practice. While this is encouraging, positive feedback alone does not guarantee improved practice. For example, in our thematic inspection, most practitioners felt they had received sufficient training to work effectively with domestic abuse perpetrators. However, our fieldwork revealed gaps in their depth of knowledge, suggesting that practitioners’ confidence is not always a reliable indicator of competence. Not all practitioners will yet have had the benefit of the new training; while some aspects of the data in our spotlight review show an improving picture in relation to the assessment of domestic abuse, there remains a need for significant improvements in practice overall.
With regard to information-sharing, HMPPS tracks performance data to monitor whether practitioners have requested information from the police and other services to inform assessments. It has found that the volume of requests has increased. Our core inspection data and spotlight data show that there have been improvements in gathering information on domestic abuse. In most cases, sufficient information about domestic abuse is obtained either at the court stage or at the start of supervision. In a minority of cases, the information received is either inadequate or not provided at all, despite being requested. Obtaining relevant information is a positive foundation; however, it must also be used in a meaningful way to contribute to robust risk assessment.
In addition, HMPPS is piloting giving probation practitioners access to the Police National Database (PND). This would allow them to gather cross-force information rather than just information held by the local police force. In our thematic inspection we shared a poor practice example that demonstrated how crucial information can be missed when cross-force information is not obtained; therefore, routine checks against the PND would be a positive development to protect potential victims.
Our spotlight review shows that practice in identifying and analysing the risks to adults and children has improved since our thematic inspection. This has been supported by effective information-gathering from the police and children’s social care services. However, our findings also show that the level of activity and attention given to supporting victims (both adult and child) throughout the sentence has remained essentially unchanged. Sufficient attention had been paid to supporting child victims in just 43 per cent of cases, and adult victims in 39 per cent of cases.
Table 1
| Does assessment sufficiently analyse any specific concerns about actual identifiable and potential child victims? | |
| Yes | 54% |
| No | 46% |
Table 2[3]
| Does assessment sufficiently analyse any specific concerns about actual identifiable and potential adult victims? | |
| Yes | 62% |
| No | 38% |
Table 3
| Is sufficient attention paid to supporting actual and potential child victims in the case? | |
| Yes | 43% |
| No | 57% |
Table 4
| Is sufficient attention paid to supporting actual and potential adult victims in the case? | |
| Yes | 39% |
| No | 61% |
Assessment of progress – some progress
HMPPS has made progress in improving probation practitioners’ access to the critical information required for accurate risk assessments in domestic abuse cases. This is now seldom a barrier, although more care needs to be taken to ensure that requests are suitably tailored to the individual being assessed. While our inspection findings show that protective actions for those at risk are still too often inadequately planned or executed, the improvements in information-sharing provide a strong foundation for further progress in safeguarding practice.
| Recommendation 4: HMPPS should ensure that all probation practitioners and managers are familiar with and work in accordance with the domestic abuse policy framework |
| HMPPS response – agreed |
Our thematic report found that, although most practitioners reported that they had received sufficient training and development to work effectively with perpetrators of domestic abuse, our casework findings gave rise to concerns that this was not the case. Current core inspection findings show that, generally, practitioners feel they have the necessary skills to manage the cases they are allocated, most of the time (see table 5 below). We did not interview practitioners as part of this spotlight review, and therefore cannot directly compare current views with those captured during the thematic inspection. However, the high proportion of cases involving domestic abuse in our core inspection programme (59 per cent) offers a useful indication of practitioners’ current level of confidence in managing this type of risk.
Table 5
| Do you have the necessary skills, experience, and knowledge to supervise this case? | |
| Always | 39% |
| Most of the time | 58% |
| Not that often | 3% |
HMPPS’s domestic abuse policy framework is clear about the expectations for managing individuals under community supervision who pose a risk of domestic abuse. It includes the following expectations:
- be clear about who is at risk, including identified adults and children, and articulate any safeguarding concerns
- adopt and maintain an investigative approach to ensure that information about the individual’s circumstances and risk is up-to-date
- liaise with people and organisations with an interest in the individual and/or the victim and any children, to gather and share information to aid our risk assessment
- request police domestic abuse information, periodically throughout sentence and record the fact that it has been requested in the relevant case management system
- follow up if requested information is not forthcoming
- monitor the individual’s relationships and any changes in behaviour or changes in circumstances that might indicate either an increase or a reduction in risk
- act on new information, review and update OASys, RMP [risk management plan] and SARA [spousal assault risk assessment] where any significant change occurs that may impact on risk of serious harm.[4]
Our spotlight review found that practitioners did not always apply these key practices with the rigour needed to fully understand an individual’s circumstances. One area of particular concern was the reviewing of practice. In 73 per cent of cases where a review was required, it had not been completed. This meant that changes in factors related to domestic abuse were not identified or addressed, and necessary adjustments to the ongoing plan of work were not made. It is essential that review processes are strengthened to ensure that practitioners recognise and respond to evolving risks appropriately.
The HMPPS domestic abuse framework also states that where an individual is not suitable for or is unable to complete an accredited programme, they should be referred to a structured intervention or work from a one-to-one toolkit should be undertaken. Inspectors identified that over half the individuals in our sample should have been given some form of intervention but had not, and no clear rationale for this had been recorded. This indicates that this part of the framework is not being followed as intended.
Assessment of progress – insufficient progress
Our core inspections do not explicitly consider knowledge or awareness of domestic abuse guidance, and we did not interview practitioners as part of the spotlight review; however, our findings about this area of work indicate that the practice guidance is not always being followed consistently in relevant cases. It is likely that factors other than knowledge about the framework are acting as barriers to this area of work, including workloads and demand management strategies.
| Recommendation 5: HMPPS should ensure that decisions taken under the prioritisation framework for sentence management for red or amber status maintain partnership working and intervention delivery to protect domestic abuse victims |
| HMPPS response – agreed |
The Probation Prioritisation Framework for Sentence Management is currently in place, and was last issued in June 2024. The document sets out a framework that regional probation directors (if moving to amber status) or the National Operational Stability Panel (if moving to red status[5]) can use to make operational decisions to relieve workload pressures based on local capacity. The document does mandate several safeguarding activities linked to domestic abuse, such as SARA, Multi-Agency Risk Assessment Conference (MARAC) referrals, and domestic abuse support officer referrals. However, it does not provide additional guidance on managing perpetrators, and the concerns we had during our thematic inspection remain.
Our spotlight review shows that there are still deficits in the delivery of sentences to perpetrators, with insufficient delivery of interventions and a lack of reviewing activity to make necessary adjustments throughout the sentence. Since our 2023 thematic inspection, HMPPS has put several other resource demand management strategies in place, including early prison releases, SDS40[6] and curtailing supervision early under Probation Reset. A current risk or history of domestic abuse does not exempt individuals from these measures. For example, only those presenting a very high risk of serious harm would be exempt from Probation Reset,[7] however, those who pose a high risk of serious harm would not be seen in final third of their sentence, regardless of ongoing risk factors. It is positive that individuals with an index offence or history that indicates domestic abuse are excluded from the measures set out in the Probation Impact[8] initiative, which reduces the level of contact for individuals who meet the criteria.
In our spotlight review we saw multiple examples where contact had been reduced without a clear rationale, even though there were still clear ongoing risks. In contrast, the case below shows a positive example of where changes in risk were properly considered and changes to supervision made as a result.
| Effective practice example |
| Aiden is a 30-year-old man who received a 48-month custodial sentence for violent disorder, possession of a weapon and assault. The assault constituted domestic abuse. Aiden was released following recall for non-compliance with the conditions of an earlier release. He had nine months of his licence remaining and was managed as a Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA) Category 2 Level 1 case throughout. Aiden’s practitioner delivered sessions from the Skills for Relationships toolkit, and Aiden also engaged with substance misuse interventions. He appeared to engage well in the strengths-based discussions and presented as motivated to change. His risk was reviewed, and his reporting frequency was reduced on account of this progress. However, when it came to light that Aiden had not disclosed a new relationship, enforcement action was taken, and a thorough review was completed. Adjustments to the risk management plan were made to respond to the emerging risks. These included increasing his risk classification and reporting frequency. A referral under Claire’s Law was also made. Why this is effective – reviewing leads to appropriate adjustments to the risk management and sentence plans The practitioner delivered an appropriate intervention aimed at addressing Aiden’s risk of domestic abuse. Aiden’s progress was considered, taking into account his engagement in supervision. The case was managed appropriately based on what was known, using all available information. It appeared that Aiden was making good progress and therefore his reporting was reduced. The practitioner remained vigilant and curious. When it became clear Aiden had not been honest about his relationships, the practitioner reviewed all factors and amended the risk management and sentence plans to address the emerging risks. Action was taken to safeguard potential new victims, and enforcement action was taken to ensure Aiden understood the significance of the breach of his licence. |
Assessment of progress – insufficient progress
More resource management measures have been put in place to reduce the workload of probation practitioners. However, not all of these adequately consider the risks of domestic abuse or maintain partnership working and delivery of interventions in domestic abuse cases.
| Recommendation 6: HMPPS should develop a comprehensive system to manage requests for disclosures of past perpetrator behaviour to new partners in relation to domestic abuse, including decision-making, delivery, and recording, through a route which provides appropriate support and safeguarding for those receiving information |
| HMPPS response – agreed |
At the time of the thematic inspection, HMPPS had identified concerns about the legal basis on which probation staff could make disclosures about the domestic abuse history of individuals who had been identified as posing a risk within intimate personal relationships. Probation staff were stopped from making disclosures and they were briefed that disclosure should be undertaken through the Domestic Violence Disclosure Scheme (DVDS) in collaboration with police. Updated guidance on disclosures was issued to staff in June 2023, and continues to be in place. Use of the DVDS scheme provides the audit trail called for in our recommendation.
Now that disclosures are no longer made by probation staff, it is critical that the police inform practitioners when they have made a disclosure. In our spotlight report we saw cases where probation practitioners had made referrals for the new partner of a known perpetrator to be given a disclosure under DVDS; however, it was not always clear whether the practitioner was then informed if a disclosure had been made, what the content had been or what the response was. This prevented them from including this information in their risk assessment and management. In some police force areas, further refinement of the process is needed to ensure this information is routinely shared.
Assessment of progress – sufficient progress
The procedure for making disclosures is now clearly defined within a framework that includes essential safeguards and a transparent rationale for decision-making. It is imperative that probation staff are promptly informed about the outcomes of disclosures, including whether any information has been shared and the specific details disclosed. This knowledge is crucial in enabling them to integrate this information effectively into their ongoing risk assessments, to keep the public safe and support informed decision-making.
| Recommendation 7: HMPPS should review its national information-sharing agreement with the National Police Chiefs’ Council, to ensure that it closes the current loophole that allows police forces to refuse probation staff enquiries about information on domestic abuse incidents (for example, past callouts) involving a person under probation supervision |
| HMPPS response – agreed |
The information-sharing agreement (ISA) between the National Police Chiefs’ Council and HMPPS was updated in June 2024. It gives the rationale and lawful authority for the police to share information with HMPPS at different stages of the criminal justice process. It sets out the reason for the ISA as follows:
‘This ISA has been developed to support appropriate information sharing between the Probation Service and the Police to protect the public. Research and various high-profile reports following the commission of serious offences by those subject to probation supervision have shown that decisions around risk are often made without using all available information.’
The ISA acknowledges that it is the position of HM Inspectorate of Probation that, due to the often-hidden nature of domestic abuse, requests for information on domestic abuse should be made for all individuals assessed by the Probation Service, not just those with relevant convictions or a previous history of abuse.
‘HM Inspectorate of Probation expects the Probation Service to initiate domestic abuse checks with the Police in all cases at the point a pre-sentence report is ordered by the court. Arrest and police response activity related to incidents strongly believed to have happened, but which could not be proved may be indicative of a pattern, or emerging pattern, of behaviour and therefore can be significant in assessing the risks an offender may present to the public.’
Our concern about the previous iteration of the agreement was that it allowed forces to refuse to provide information in cases where the Probation Service did not have evidence of previous violence. This might happen, for example, if an individual was appearing in court for the first time for a non-violent offence and had not previously been supervised. In cases like this, there may be a history of concerns about domestic abuse that had not resulted in convictions. Such information is crucial to forming an accurate risk assessment of the individual. It ensures that the sentence does not make inappropriate requirements, for example imposing an electronically monitored curfew at an address where a perpetrator lives with a partner. While most police forces were routinely providing information over and above that set out in the ISA, some were not. This was having a negative impact on the ability of the Probation Service in those areas to safely assess those under their supervision. The current ISA states:
‘Prior to sentencing, the police will only share information about defendants or offenders where there are indicators that they present a potential or actual risk of serious harm to the public. Irrespective of the index offence, on request police will share information about defendants or offenders where they have information related to concerns about sexual offending, domestic abuse, stalking or child safeguarding concerns.’
This provision may still be open to interpretation depending on whether it is the police or the probation practitioner who has identified the indicators. If the meaning is that probation staff need to provide evidence to support their concerns this would not be an improvement on the previous version. However, if the understanding is that the police will provide information when there are indicators related to risk of serious harm (which may or not be known to the Probation Service), this improves the position. As we have not yet inspected in the force areas where the issue was most prevalent, we do not yet know whether this change has improved the provision of appropriate information.
The ISA sets out intentions of the document as follows:
‘While it sets out principles to be adhered to as good practice, it is not intended to preclude the proactive sharing of information on a case-by-case basis where risks are identified. Fundamentally, this ISA is intended to emphasise the importance of sharing information in order to protect the public.’
‘This agreement promotes appropriate information sharing and enables the Police to provide detailed information to the Probation Service in certain circumstances, including arrest history and, where proportionate to the management of risk, other non-conviction information.’
In future iterations of the document, it may be useful to clarify what ‘detailed information’ includes. Our inspections have shown that some forces routinely provide information that does not include the names of potential or alleged victims when the police have responded to call-outs. This means that probation practitioners must make further requests for these details, which increases the volume of work for all involved. The names of other parties involved in domestic abuse incidents is crucial to forming robust risk management plans and identifying who is at risk from the perpetrator. Without names, it is not possible to understand if an individual has formed a new relationship or returned to a previous one. In the worst cases, we have seen practitioners making assumptions about who is involved, which may lead to potential victims not being adequately protected.
Assessment of progress – sufficient progress
Our findings show that in most cases, appropriate police information is provided when the request sets out the reasons why it is needed. Further work is needed to ensure that practitioners tailor requests to suit the needs in the individual case. This is discussed further under recommendation 10.
| Recommendation 8: HMPPS should ensure that all DASOs are fully equipped for their role and trained to a high standard, using nationally recognised inter-agency training. |
| HMPPS response – partly agreed |
Design of the newly commissioned domestic abuse safety officer (DASO) learning package began in late 2024 but was temporarily paused in January 2025 and has yet to restart. This has taken a long time to progress, considering relevant guidance manuals for the service have not been updated since 2015. However, positively, independent domestic violence advocate training has been offered in the interim to all DASOs.
Assessment of progress – sufficient progress
While this recommendation was only partly agreed, the aim of offering DASOs a recognised qualification that supports their professional status has been achieved.
| Recommendation 9: The Probation Service should engage in local multi-agency training and awareness-raising events with partner agencies. This should support probation practitioners and managers to develop their understanding of the complexity of domestic abuse, the roles of other agencies that can offer support and information in managing domestic abuse cases, and the changes introduced under the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, which recognise children affected by domestic abuse as victims |
| Probation Service response – agreed |
HMPPS has completed a range of actions against this recommendation, including the following:
- New Professional Qualification in Probation learners and probation services officer recruits have been prioritised to complete the domestic abuse awareness learning. Delivery of this package was increased fourfold to improve capacity. Further, 93 per cent of learners ‘agreed’ or ‘strongly agreed’ that the learning would enhance their practice.
- A new advanced domestic abuse CPD learning package has been developed, which aims to provide experienced practitioners in sentence management with additional information on the roles of other agencies and the importance of multi-agency working. A final impact evaluation of this package is scheduled for July 2026.
- Women’s Aid has been commissioned to prepare a webinar on the value of multi-agency working on domestic abuse and to support practitioners in developing an understanding of services in their local areas.
- An aide memoir has been developed to help practitioners understand controlling and coercive behaviour.
- A national domestic abuse awareness campaign was delivered in November 2023.
Our core inspection programme evaluates the effectiveness of multi-agency working and information-sharing. Findings indicate that information from the police and children’s social care is generally sought and received early in an individual’s supervision. However, inspectors continue to find that assessments too often fail to incorporate all available information sources into their work, leading to gaps in decision-making. During the delivery of sentences, in the majority of cases, practitioners report positive working relationships with other agencies in managing risk of harm most or all of the time (see table 6 below). In contrast, table 7 shows the judgements on the effectiveness of multi-agency working made by inspectors in core inspections. These provide a less positive picture, with effective multi-agency working and information-sharing (specifically in relation to domestic abuse) in only 42 per cent of cases. Our spotlight review shows a similar picture, that information was sufficiently shared with other agencies during delivery of the sentence in 42 per cent of cases where it was necessary, leaving much room for improvement.
Table 6 – Core inspection data
| In this case, were there effective working relationships with other agencies to manage the risk of harm to others? | |
| Always | 26% |
| Most of the time | 51% |
| Not that often | 16% |
| Not at all | 2% |
| Not applicable | 5% |
Table 7 – Core inspection data
| Was there effective multi-agency working, including information-sharing, in respect of domestic abuse? | |
| Yes | 42% |
| No | 58% |
Table 8 – Spotlight review data
| Throughout the sentence, was information shared sufficiently with other agencies involved with managing the risk of domestic abuse? | |
| Yes | 42% |
| No | 58% |
The recommendation aims to improve probation practitioners’ awareness of children as victims of domestic abuse in their own right, in accordance with the definition in the Domestic Abuse Act 2021. This definition does not limit the designation of victims status to those who directly witness abuse, it also includes children who are related to the perpetrator and/or the victim. Our spotlight review revealed that in just over half of the cases where advice was given to the court, children were recognised as victims in their own right. However, in too many assessments, the risks to children were not fully acknowledged or analysed in line with the spirit of the legislation. Some reports indicated that children were only deemed at risk if they directly witnessed the abuse or physically intervened during an assault. Additionally, we found instances where practitioners appeared to conflate intent with potential harm. For example, a perpetrator might be assessed as posing a high or very high risk of serious harm to a partner but a medium risk to a child, even when the harm originated from the same incident. There was often no clear rationale for this assessment beyond the suggestion that the child was not the intended victim. The example below illustrates the practice we observed related to this issue.
| Poor practice example |
| Brent is a 37-year-old man convicted of dangerous driving, for which he received a custodial sentence of 37 months. He lives with his partner and their young children. Brent has no convictions for domestic abuse, but police information details an incident where he is alleged to have assaulted his partner. He denies this took place. Children’s social care services have become involved with the family, and have placed the children on a Child Protection Plan because of significant concerns about their safety. The children have variously reported things that indicate drug use at their home address, the presence of adults whose presentation and behaviour may pose a risk to them, the presence of weapons, and domestic abuse between their parents. Positively, measures are taken to ensure Brent does not return to live at the home address. However, no review of his case is undertaken to provide a rationale for this, indicate how these risks will be managed or detail the involvement of other agencies. His risk assessment states that the risk he poses to his children would only occur if they were to witness him being violent to their mother or get ‘caught in the crossfire’. This minimises the range of other risks they are exposed to. Why this is poor practice – minimisation of the impact of domestic abuse on children Children are profoundly impacted by domestic abuse, even when they do not directly witness incidents. Exposure to a home environment marked by fear, control and emotional volatility can lead to chronic stress, anxiety and developmental disruption. Children often sense tension, overhear conflict or observe the aftermath – such as injuries, emotional distress, or damaged property – which can be just as psychologically harmful as witnessing the abuse itself. As a result of abuse, children may not get the care and support they need from parents and caregivers who are trying to manage their own experience of abuse. The pervasive atmosphere of insecurity undermines children’s emotional safety, attachment and ability to trust adults, with long-term consequences for mental health, behaviour and relationships. Guidance for assessing child victims of domestic abuse is included in the HMPPS Child Safeguarding Policy Framework. Further useful information about the impact of domestic abuse on children, including when this is not directly witnessed, can be found in the NSPCC’s guidance ‘Protecting children from domestic abuse’ and in ‘Effects of domestic abuse on children’, published on the Barnardo’s website. |
In contrast, the following example demonstrates effective practice in recognising and acting on potential risks to children.
| Effective practice example |
| Jim was convicted of violent offences (not related to domestic abuse) and sentenced to a term of imprisonment. He applied for early release under the Home Detention Curfew (HDC) scheme, proposing to reside at his partner’s address, where her two children also lived. Although Jim had previously come to police attention for domestic abuse concerns in past relationships, there was no evidence of similar behaviour in his current relationship. As part of the HDC suitability assessment, enquiries were made to children’s social care, which confirmed that the children were not currently known to services. However, due to concerns about Jim’s lifestyle and peer associations, and the potential impact these could have on his partner’s children, the probation practitioner made a proactive referral to children’s social care. Support was subsequently offered to Jim’s partner under early help provisions. Jim was ultimately released on HDC to an alternative address, ensuring that he did not reside with his partner and her children. The probation assessment and risk management plan explicitly acknowledged the risks to children, including the potential for domestic abuse and the indirect harm that could result from Jim’s presence, even if the children did not directly witness abuse. The practitioner worked closely with the designated family support worker. They carried out joint home visits and shared information regularly to build a clear picture of the children’s experience. Local police provided ongoing intelligence about potential criminal activity, and the practitioner actively participated in Team Around the Family meetings. These forums enabled effective information-sharing and helped Jim’s partner to understand professional concerns and take steps to safeguard her children. Jim was also referred to the Building Choices programme to support his rehabilitation and planning for the future. Additional licence conditions were imposed to monitor his drug use, which had previously been linked to offending behaviour. Why this is effective practice: minimising risks of domestic abuse and harm to children This case demonstrates strong and proactive risk management. The practitioner recognised the risks associated with Jim’s relationship and took appropriate steps to safeguard the children, including making timely referrals and ensuring Jim did not reside at the family home. The assessment acknowledged both direct and indirect risks, and multi-agency collaboration was central to the response. The practitioner’s engagement with children’s services, the police, and family support networks helped build protective factors and supported the family in understanding and responding to concerns. This approach exemplifies how thoughtful, coordinated practice can reduce the risk of domestic abuse and other harm to children. |
Assessment of progress – some progress
HMPPS has commissioned training aimed at raising awareness of the importance of multi-agency working and information-sharing, beyond the police and children’s social care. It has updated relevant policies to reflect legislation for child victims. However, our findings show that information-sharing with relevant agencies and multi-agency working are still not sufficiently effective in too many cases where domestic abuse concerns are known to be present.
| Recommendation 10: The Probation Service should ensure that timely and accurate exchanges of information are supported through local agreements and active relationship management with the police, children’s social care services, perpetrator services, specialist domestic abuse services, and other relevant organisations |
| Probation Service response – agreed |
HMPPS has addressed this recommendation in the following ways:
- arranging for regional probation directors to attend the National Police Stakeholder Group on Domestic Abuse
- updating the domestic abuse and child safeguarding enquiry practitioner guidance in July 2023 and promoting the guidance
- providing examples of good information-sharing through the National Domestic Abuse Reference Group and the Child Safeguarding Reference Group, and delivering a national workshop to ensure all staff understand the expectations for gathering information from the police and local authorities – the workshop covered the value of this information for risk assessments and shared good and successful practice in requesting information from the police
- sharing data monthly through performance and quality leads and the National Domestic Abuse Reference Group.
Our spotlight review showed that, in most cases where practitioners requested information from the police, they received it and used it to inform court reports or initial assessments. However, we found that insufficient enquiries were made during the delivery of the sentence. In 56 per cent of cases, domestic abuse enquiries were not made to the police as required. When enquiries were made, some were not appropriately tailored to the needs of the case and therefore added little to the risk assessment. Examples included enquiries to local police forces that requested information from a time frame when the individual had been in prison. This meant that the request did not reach back far enough to detail incidents of domestic abuse that had occurred in the community. In some cases, repeated requests were made as new staff became involved with the case, despite the information already being available on the case record. In a small number of cases, requests were made to police forces in areas where the individual had not been known to live. This meant that relevant information would not be discovered, unless that area included the Police National Database information in its response.
Our spotlight review found that, in almost all cases where enquiries to children’s social care were needed, these were made before advice was given to the court. We found six cases where this had not happened. In the majority of cases where practitioners made a request for information, they received a response. Again, practice was less positive during the implementation of the sentence, where child safeguarding enquiries had not been made in 55 per cent of the cases where they were needed. The quality of communication with children’s social care services needed to be improved in some cases. We saw examples where requests were poorly completed, with only the adult perpetrator’s name being provided rather than the names of the children. We also saw enquiries being made when a referral was needed because the practitioner had concerns about the safety of a child. In these examples, when an enquiry came back indicating that the child was not known or not current to children’s social care services, no further action was taken. In these cases, practitioners did not appear to be clear about the difference between asking for or providing information and asking for action. In addition, management oversight in these cases did not always address this confusion and ensure that relevant action was taken. This meant that in some cases, information held by the practitioner was not provided to children’s social care and no assessment was undertaken by them to ensure children were appropriately safeguarded. In some cases, records showed that requests were made by administrative staff and lacked clarity or were not clear about what they sought to achieve. The case below provides an example where unclear communication resulted in a lack of safeguarding activity.
| Poor practice example |
| Mark is a 35-year-old man who received a 40-month custodial sentence for a serious assault on the ex-partner of his current partner. Mark’s partner had confided in her ex-partner that Mark had assaulted her. The offence placed Mark under MAPPA, and he was managed at Level 1. The victim was also eligible for contact from a victim liaison officer. Police information showed that Mark had a history of domestic abuse incidents with several partners. He had children with two previous partners. The probation practitioner asked an administrator to make enquiries to the local children’s social care service. They sent a document that provided Mark’s details and stated: ‘Mark has denied having any children however, police intelligence is suggestive he has two children. Possible children below however, this information may not be correct.’ The enquiry was unclear and failed to specify: the purpose of the request (for example, information-gathering or safeguarding referral) the nature of the concerns about Mark the risk posed to any children potentially involved. Children’s social care responded: ‘As the referrer failed to provide reasons for the information request, no additional information will be shared. When requesting for information, referrer should provide clear rational why such information is requested and what is the risk to the children.’ No further communication is recorded in relation to Mark’s children. Why this is poor practice – ineffective communication resulting ineffective safeguarding The probation practitioner in this case did not make clear why they were asking about Mark’s children. They did not make clear whether they were asking for information about the children or asking children’s services to assess the risk to them. If it were the latter, they also provided no information about what their concerns about Mark were. The correspondence resulted in no information being shared and no activity being carried out. It remained unclear whether Mark had children, or whether he had contact with them and, if so, whether any safeguarding measures were in place. This case illustrates the importance of clear, purposeful communication when engaging with safeguarding partners. Probation practitioners must ensure that referrals: clearly set out the concerns and risks specify the information or action being requested are supported by relevant intelligence or case details. Failure to do so can result in missed opportunities to safeguard children and undermines the effectiveness of multi-agency working. |
This recommendation aimed to improve probation’s engagement with local resources aimed at reducing domestic abuse. Our spotlight report found a similar picture to the thematic inspection, with too few cases having any evidence on record of local resources being used to address domestic abuse issues and little contact with independent domestic abuse advisers. Given the demand management processes in place, which mean only those with a higher risk of harm assessment gain access to accredited programmes, it is important that other community resources are used to support perpetrators to address their behaviour. The case below, supplied by the Greater Manchester region, demonstrates effective work with local services to address domestic abuse.
| Effective practice example |
| Alistair had a long-standing history of domestic abuse against his partner. While subject to community orders, his probation appointments were coordinated with the independent domestic violence adviser to ensure the victim could access support services safely while Alistair was otherwise engaged. Following a custodial sentence for non-fatal strangulation against the same victim, Alistair was released to an approved premises and subject to licence conditions informed by engagement with the victim liaison officer. Measures included a placement out of area, which was selected tactically to make travel to the victim’s location difficult. Curfews would ensure that if Alastair failed to report as expected, there would be sufficient time to enact the trigger plan and safeguard the victim before he was able to reach her. Alistair was supported to access education, training and employment opportunities in his new location, with the aim of promoting resettlement and long-term desistance. His probation practitioner maintained regular contact, including a WhatsApp-based arrangement to verify his location if he missed appointments or was delayed. Drug and alcohol use were monitored, as these were linked to his offending behaviour. Alistair had a history of giving false addresses to services so each suggestion he made was thoroughly checked and, where necessary, rejected, without giving away the victim’s new location. Why this is effective – containment of risk alongside supporting desistance and multi-agency working This case illustrates how risk containment and desistance can be pursued simultaneously through thoughtful planning, multi-agency collaboration, and a victim-focused approach. It highlights the importance of tailoring interventions to the individual’s risk profile while maintaining a clear line of sight to victim safety and long-term rehabilitation. This case also clearly demonstrates the skill and persistence that is required in managing high-risk domestic abuse perpetrators. |
Assessment of progress – some progress
This recommendation called for the Probation Service to ensure that local arrangements were in place to support effective information-sharing with all relevant organisations. Our findings indicate that arrangements are in place with police and children’s social care services and work well at the sentencing stage to support assessment. Processes work less effectively during sentence delivery for several reasons. Information is not always sought, practitioners are not always specific about their requests, and they do not always tailor their requests to meet the particular needs of the case.
It is unclear whether appropriate arrangements and relationships are in place with perpetrator services, specialist domestic abuse services, and other relevant organisations. Our case inspection findings provide little evidence that such relationships are routinely used to add value.
| Recommendation 11: The Probation Service should ensure that all practitioners complete high-quality assessments and reviews in domestic abuse cases that fully analyse information from specialist assessment tools, such as the spousal assault risk assessment (SARA), and all available information from other agencies |
| Probation Service response – agreed |
In response to this recommendation, HMPPS launched an updated SARA learning product. Since the product launched in May 2023, 2,554 learners have completed it (of a projected annual new learner pool of 2,000). HMPPS reports that feedback from participants has been positive. Participants say that the product has improved their understanding of SARA and that they can apply what they have learned to their role. In addition, SARA completion rates are being monitored through the National Domestic Abuse Reference Group allowing leaders to drive up numbers. Regional quality teams also measure the quality of practice through use of the regional case audit tool.
Specific guidance, Assessing domestic abuse within OASys, has been promoted through national communications, including throughout the national domestic abuse awareness campaign in November 2023.
Our spotlight review shows that domestic abuse is almost always considered at the assessment stage. Inspectors found that in 93 per cent of cases, it was identified at the earliest possible point. SARAs were already present or completed in 92 of the 110 cases where they were needed as part of assessment. However, in 26 cases the SARA was not accurate; for example, information in the OASys assessment was not included or it had not been updated from a previous assessment and therefore was inaccurate. Inspectors agreed with the assigned SARA risk level in 86 per cent of cases, with one case being assigned too high a level and 12 too low. Compared to the thematic inspection, the quality of SARAs had improved: 43 per cent were deemed to have sufficient analysis compared to 26 per cent. This still leaves much room for improvement, as over half of SARAs lacked sufficiently meaningful analysis.
Overall, we found that assessments provided a sufficiently clear and thorough analysis of the risks of domestic abuse in 48 per cent of cases. This was significant improvement from our thematic inspection, where the figure was 28 per cent.
Reviewing activity was not completed as well in our spotlight sample. Only 28 per cent of cases showed evidence that reviewing activity addressed changes in factors linked to domestic abuse and made necessary adjustments to plans. This compares to 49 per cent in our thematic inspection. People on probation were actively involved in reviewing their progress in just 41 per cent of cases. In 27 out of 41 relevant cases, changes in the risk of harm level were required but not made. Reviewing sufficiently focused on domestic abuse risks in only 27 per cent of cases in the spotlight sample and 23 per cent in the thematic inspection. In too many cases, the absence of a holistic review led to a lack of clarity in sentence delivery, making it difficult to understand what practitioners were aiming to achieve through the sentence.
Assessment of progress – some progress
Our spotlight review identified some progress in the focus on domestic abuse in assessments. SARAs were generally completed; however, in too many cases, the quality was insufficient to meaningfully inform risk management. Reviewing practice remains inadequate, with limited evidence that practitioners are consistently taking appropriate account of changes in circumstances and their implications for risk levels or ongoing supervision.
| Recommendation 12: The Probation Service should ensure that sentence delivery in all relevant domestic abuse cases includes an active role in multi-agency forums and draws on specialist domestic abuse services to ensure that the victim voice is considered fully |
| Probation Service response – agreed |
Our thematic inspection highlighted concerns that key probation staff – including DASOs and victim liaison officers (VLOs) – were not routinely involved in multi-agency forums such as MAPPA, MARAC, and meetings focused on children’s safety and wellbeing. We did not carry out additional focus groups as part of our spotlight review, and therefore were unable to directly ask staff in these roles whether they had observed improvements. However, our case reviews provide some insight: in seven of the 14 cases where DASO involvement was relevant, practitioners had sufficient contact with that service; for VLOs, this was the case in nine out of 13 relevant cases. Inspectors also found that in 20 of the 41 cases where multi-agency working was required, practitioners had made appropriate contributions to partnership arrangements such as Integrated Offender Management (IOM), MARAC, and MAPPA. Inspectors saw five cases where MAPPA should have been considered but had not been. Furthermore, partnership working was found to add value to case management in 42 per cent of relevant cases.
| Effective practice example |
| Ellen, a young woman subject to a community order for offences against her mother and ex-partner, presented with extremely complex needs. Her background included significant trauma, substance misuse, and enduring mental health difficulties. She had experienced time in care as a child and had previously had a child removed from her care. During her supervision, Ellen became involved in several complex and abusive relationships. In various incidents, she was identified as both a victim and a perpetrator. The frequency and severity of these incidents escalated, with police frequently attending reports of domestic abuse at her address. Consequently, her assessed risk of serious harm was raised to very high – both to known adults and to herself. Given the complexity of her needs, the involvement of multiple perpetrators and victims, and the necessity for coordinated multi-agency support, Ellen was referred to MAPPA. She was adopted under Category 3, Level 2 on a discretionary basis. This enabled the Probation Service to secure the involvement of a wide range of partners, including adult social care, housing, mental health services, substance misuse services, and her GP. Together, these agencies contributed to a robust risk management plan. As a result of this coordinated approach, Ellen’s case was eventually de-escalated. However, a multi-agency team remained in place to continue supporting her. Through this collaboration, she was supported to leave several volatile relationships, secure supported accommodation, access detox services on two occasions, and engage with mental health treatment. These interventions contributed to a significant reduction in the risk of further domestic abuse. Why this is effective – discretionary use of MAPPA to devise and deliver a robust risk management plan While Ellen was not automatically eligible for MAPPA, the practitioner recognised the benefit of a formal meeting structure to garner multi-agency support from a range of partner agencies. MAPPA oversight established a strong network of professionals around Ellen who were able to attend to her risks and needs and reduce the risks of further domestic abuse. Crucially, the involvement of her GP provided a holistic view of her health and ensured continuity of care. This was particularly important when other services began to step back. |
| Effective practice example |
| Liam was given a short custodial sentence for assault against his partner. He had a history of forming new relationships that quickly became intense. Often, the women he formed relationships with were vulnerable due to their mental health or substance misuse, or through previous experiences of abuse. Liam was assessed as posing a very high risk of serious harm to partners and was referred to MAPPA under Category 3 as a discretionary case. Liam was also referred to the local WISDOM team, a multi-agency team that works with high-risk domestic abuse perpetrators, comprising the police, Probation Service, forensic psychological services and other local partners. Liam failed to engage in supervision and for a short period his whereabouts were unknown. Through effective multi-agency work he was found in another region. Each of the partner agencies made contact with their counterparts in the new region to share information and ensure the risks Liam posed were known. It was identified that Liam had a new partner and police and probation worked effectively with adult social care to ensure she was safeguarded. Why this is effective – cross-region working across a range of agencies Liam’s case required a high level of multi-agency working across different geographical areas. Effective coordination ensured that all agencies were kept up to date and able to safeguard new potential victims. |
Assessment of progress – unable to assess
As we did not interview staff in the relevant specialist positions as part of this review it is not possible to comment on progress against this recommendation. Nonetheless, we observed some strong examples of effective sentence delivery in the casework, particularly where multi-agency forums were used well and specialist domestic abuse services were consulted to ensure the victim’s voice was meaningfully considered. However, this good practice was not consistently evident across all cases.
| Recommendation 13: The Probation Service should ensure that the respective roles and responsibilities of sentence management and programme teams, including domestic abuse safety officers, are clear. This should include the responsibility to prepare people on probation to attend programmes, to share information and to support risk management throughout sentence delivery. |
| Probation Service response – agreed |
To address this recommendation, HMPPS issued the DASO Practice Manual in July 2025, which clarifies expectations of the DASO role. The recommendation was wider than this and prompted by our findings that there was not sufficient clarity about pre-programme work and what practitioners and programme teams were responsible for. As there were only three individuals in our spotlight sample who were engaged in accredited programmes, and three who had been engaged in structured interventions, it has not been possible to assess progress against this recommendation. Our core inspection programme asks whether there was effective partnership working with interventions teams in individual cases. Again, as most inspected cases did not have an intervention, the numbers being considered are relatively small. However, we found that there is room for improvement in the collaboration between teams to ensure effective joint working takes place in all cases where an intervention is required.
Assessment of progress – unable to assess
From our core inspection date and the spotlight sample we reviewed, it was not possible to ascertain whether practice has improved in this area.
Annexe A: Summary of findings from spotlight case reviews (Back to top)
Assessment
Our review of cases showed that existing domestic abuse is routinely identified at the earliest possible stage of contact with the Probation Service, either through the court process or at the start of a supervision period. More often than not, assessments considered an individual’s protected characteristics and personal circumstances, as well as how these may affect their engagement with their sentence. In most cases, the person on probation’s views were taken into account in their assessment. In our sample, 18 cases out of 112 did not have a SARA completed during assessment, when this should have been done. While the SARA identified the correct risk level in most cases, the analysis was too often insufficient and failed to include available relevant information.
In some cases, there was a contradiction between the SARA and the OASys documents, for example with domestic abuse incidents being described in one document, but not in the other leading to conflicting assessments. Sufficient analysis of the risks to adult victims was recorded in 63 per cent of cases; for child victims, the figure was 54 per cent. Just under half of the assessments drew sufficiently on all available information sources. Inspectors agreed with the assigned risk of harm levels in 85 per cent of the assessments we reviewed. Overall, in our spotlight sample we found that the assessment provided a sufficiently clear and thorough analysis of the risks of domestic abuse in 48 per cent of cases; in our thematic inspection, this was 28 per cent.
Planning
Where individuals were being released from prison, we found sufficient pre-release work to address domestic abuse in 22 out of 38 cases. In 66 per cent of relevant cases, appropriate licence conditions had been applied to manage the risks of domestic abuse. In the overall sample, planning took into account protected characteristics in just under half of the cases, considering their potential impact on engagement with the sentence. Personal circumstances were considered correctly in 69 per cent of the sample. The views of the people on probation were taken into account in planning in 58 per cent of cases; in our original thematic inspection, the figure was 73 per cent. Planning in 30 out of 79 relevant cases did not set out restrictions and measures to protect victims where this was needed. The work of other agencies involved in managing the risks of domestic abuse was partially set out in 48 per cent of cases and fully set out in 15 per cent; this left 37 per cent of cases where this information was missing. In almost two-thirds of cases, information about multi-agency forums relevant to the case was missing. Contingency planning was sufficient in just over half of our sample. Overall, we found that planning sufficiently addressed the risks of domestic abuse in 46 per cent of cases; in the thematic inspection, this figure was 37 per cent.
Implementation and delivery
In 17 per cent of cases, some form of intervention was provided to address domestic abuse. Specifically, three individuals attended an accredited programme, three participated in a structured intervention, and 11 received one-to-one support through a toolkit. In 29 per cent of cases, formal interventions were not identified as necessary. However, in 54 per cent of cases, there was a lack of intervention when it was actually needed.
A DASO was involved in 14 cases; in half of these cases, the practitioner had liaised appropriately with them. In 13 cases, there was a VLO, and practitioners had sufficient contact with them in nine of those cases.
Throughout the sentence, information-sharing with other agencies involved in managing domestic abuse was sufficient in 42 per cent of cases; the figure in our thematic inspection was 34 per cent. We found that partnership arrangements had added value to the management of domestic abuse in 42 per cent of cases. In 33 out of 68 cases where they were relevant, external controls such as civil orders and exclusion zones were monitored appropriately, with enforcement properly considered. Home visits were completed in just under half of the cases where they were required. During sentences, we found that sufficient attention was paid to supporting actual and potential adult victims in 39 per cent of cases and child victims in 43 per cent of cases. Enforcement was used in 58 per cent of cases where it was necessary. Overall, inspectors judged that the implementation and delivery of sentences managed the risks of domestic abuse effectively in 29 per cent of cases; in the thematic inspection, the figure was 27 per cent.
Reviewing
Inspectors found that reviewing activity identified and addressed changes in factors linked to domestic abuse in 28 per cent of our sample. In the thematic inspection this figure was 49 per cent. People on probation were involved in reviewing their progress in 41 per cent of cases. Information from other agencies was gathered and used to review progress in 38 per cent of the sample. Management oversight was found to be effective in 18 per cent of the cases we reviewed. In 56 per cent of cases it was not effective in addressing issues relating to domestic abuse. Overall, inspectors found that reviewing focused sufficiently on domestic abuse in 27 per cent of cases; in the thematic inspection, this figure was 23 per cent.
Annexe B: Characteristics of sample (Back to top)
| Sex | Number | % |
| Men | 93 | 83% |
| Women | 10 | 9% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Not clearly recorded | 9 | 8% |
| Race and ethnic category | Number | % |
| White | 89 | 79% |
| Black and minority ethnic | 12 | 11% |
| Other groups | 3 | 3% |
| Not clearly recorded | 8 | 7% |
| Type of case being inspected | Number | % |
| Post-release supervision | 38 | 34% |
| Community order | 46 | 41% |
| Suspended sentence order | 28 | 25% |
| Grade of current or last probation practitioner | Number | % |
| Probation officer (member of staff with a recognised probation qualification) | 71 | 63% |
| Trainee (member of staff currently on a formal training programme to achieve a probation officer qualification) | 7 | 6% |
| Probation services officer (member of staff working directly with service users, without a recognised probation officer qualification) | 28 | 25% |
| Other, or not clear | 6 | 5% |
| Number of domestic abuse victims the perpetrator has had | Number | % |
| 1 | 34 | 30% |
| 2 | 30 | 27% |
| 3 | 18 | 16% |
| 4 | 13 | 12% |
| 5 | 7 | 6% |
| 6 or more | 10 | 9% |
| Number of years the person on probation has been identified as presenting a risk of domestic abuse | Number | % |
| <1 | 4 | 4% |
| 1 – 3 | 39 | 35% |
| 4 – 6 | 20 | 18% |
| 7 – 9 | 13 | 12% |
| 10 or more | 36 | 32% |
References and footnotes (Back to top)
[1] Probation inspection Case assessment rules and guidance (CARaG) March 2025, section 2.1.04 Probation-D2-CARaG.pdf
[2] Horizon is an accredited offending behaviour programme for adult men convicted of a sexual offence. It is delivered by HMPPS for men in custody and in the community. iHorizon is designed for individuals with convictions that relate to indecent images of children only.
[3] Due to rounding, the data does not add up to 100 per cent.
[4] Ministry of Justice and HMPPS (2020, updated 2022), Domestic abuse policy framework, p. 17.
[5] Under this framework, leaders can apply for amber or red status for PDUs which allows certain practice expectations to be reduced or paused to release capacity and enable staff to focus on core tasks.
[6] The SDS40 early release scheme aims to alleviate prison overcrowding. It allows prisoners to be released after serving 40 per cent of their sentence instead of the standard 50 per cent
[7] Unless other factors such as active child protection arrangements or Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements at Level 2 or 3 were in place. Individuals who fall into Probation Reset remain subject to reactive management, which means if risk increases and the criteria for exemption are subsequently not met, full supervision can be reinstated.
[8] The Probation Impact initiative sets out arrangements for working with individuals assessed as posing lower risks of harm. It sets out arrangements for support that should be delivered in the first 16 weeks of a sentence, after which contact delivered by probation practitioners will cease.