Probation case inspection: Case assessing rules and guidance (CARaG)

Published:

5 October 2026

Version 1.0 October 2026

Introduction (Back to top)

In probation delivery unit (PDU) inspections, we inspect the quality of work according to three standards: assessing, planning and delivery. We apply the same expectations of quality to all the cases that we inspect, regardless of the length and type of supervision. However, we take a proportionate approach to the volume of work that can be delivered, based on the length and type of supervision. So, although there is less work in cases where probation contact is suspended or terminated early, we expect the quality of assessing, planning and the short period of delivery in such cases to be the same as in cases with a longer period of supervision. ‘Quality’ includes making timely referrals to the right services and completing robust exit planning to engage the person on probation, achieve change and keep people safe.

Case inspection standards, questions and prompts are supported by the case assessing rules and guidance (CARaG). This is a comprehensive set of published rules and guidance to be followed by inspectors and local assessors when they assess cases. The CARaG promotes transparency and consistency in our inspection of cases. Where appropriate, it sets out where expectations differ due to the impact of early termination or probation contact being suspended. Inspection staff and local assessors should use the CARaG as a reference document when assessing a case. Guidance is provided in the CARaG for all key questions and prompts in the standards framework, as well as for questions that we ask to gather additional data (‘information questions’). The CARaG is updated regularly to ensure that it remains consistent with any changes that we make at standard, question and prompt level and so that it remains linked to evidence.

Key

Example	Question format	Represents:
Does assessing identify offending-related factors?	Plain text	A question directly linked to a prompt in the inspection standards. The answers to these questions directly influence the summary judgement at key question level.
Was a report offered to the court when the case was sentenced?	Italics	An information question, asked to provide additional background information about the case.
Does planning focus sufficiently on engaging the person on probation?	Bold text	A summary judgement question, answering a key question from the inspection standards, and directly influencing the rating for the relevant standard.

Inspection principles (Back to top)

Proportionality and prioritisation

Some cases that we inspect are only supervised by the probation service for a short period of time. We recognise this and make our judgements based on what is reasonable to achieve in the period of supervision. We pay attention to signposting, referral and exit planning for when probation contact ends. We expect to see work that addresses the individual’s risks, strengths and needs in a case but is proportionate to the order – both active contact and planning for beyond this. This is the proportionality principle.

Aligned to this we expect to see probation practitioners prioritising their work with each person on probation in line with the limitations of the probation contact. For example, work to stabilise a person on probation sufficiently may need to be undertaken in the early stages of an order to enable offending behaviour work to be delivered at a later stage. This is the prioritisation principle.

Recording of work

Appropriate recording is an important part of casework, and we would usually expect to see a formal written assessment and plan. However, this is not the only place where we will see records of assessing and planning activity. For example, evidence may also come from probation contact records or a discussion with the probation practitioner. Where there is no formal written assessment or plan, we do not automatically say this is insufficient. Instead, we consider the impact of the lack of a formal written assessment or plan. For example, where there is no written assessment but assessing activity is evidenced elsewhere, this could be sufficient if there is enough elsewhere of effective assessing. However, where there is no written assessment and assessing is not captured elsewhere in case records, this would be insufficient. We see reviewing as a dynamic process across assessing, planning and delivery and as such look for evidence of responsivity to change and reviewing not only in written reviews but across other evidence within the case file.

Keeping people safe

HM Inspectorate of Probation expects all factors relevant to risk of harm to be considered, not just factors related to risk of serious harm.

Court work

We inspect cases where there has been some court work. Where there has been activity at court in a case inspectors should familiarise themselves with this but not inspect it. We do not make judgements about court work in our PDU inspections.

Post-release cases

We inspect cases from the point of release. Inspectors should be familiar with pre-release activity as this provides a context to inform post release assessing, planning and delivery. However, we do not make judgements about pre-release work.

Post-recall cases

Cases transferred in or out of the PDU

We inspect cases transferred into or out of the PDU as part of our PDU case samples. In cases transferred out, we expect the probation practitioner in the PDU to take full responsibility for assessing, planning and delivering services until the point that a formal transfer is agreed by the receiving area; this will include any work delivered by another area under temporary caretaking arrangements. In cases transferred in, we inspect the work of the receiving area from the point that the formal transfer is accepted on the case management system. We may consider any assessing that has been completed by the transferring area, but the receiving area is responsible for ensuring that sufficient assessing and planning are in place to manage the case from the point of the formal transfer.

Cases that have terminated

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

Cases with multiple sentences

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

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

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

Definitions (Back to top)

Domestic abuse

We recognise the cross-government definition of domestic abuse as any incident of controlling, coercive or threatening behaviour, violence or abuse between those aged 16 or over who are, or have been, intimate partners or family members, regardless of their gender or sexuality. Domestic abuse covers, but is not limited to, the following types of abuse:

psychological
physical
sexual
financial
emotional

Child safeguarding

Child safeguarding is the action taken to protect children from abuse, promote their wellbeing, and ensure safe care. Safeguarding describes the overall, proactive steps to keep all children safe and promote welfare. Child protection is the specific, targeted work done to help a child who faces active abuse or severe harm.

Safety of the person on probation

Across each of our three case inspection standards, there are two strands of work: achieving change and keeping people safe. The keeping people safe strand consists of two elements: ensuring that risk is managed effectively and ensuring that the person on probation is safe.

Ensuring safety for the person on probation means that where the individual needs activity to keep them safe, the right activity has been assessed, planned for and delivered to meet those needs.

Information about the case (Back to top)

2.0.09 Is there evidence that the person on probation has been asked about their diversity characteristics at the start of the current period of supervision?

It is important that each period of supervision starts with a discussion with the person on probation about their specific diversity characteristics. This will enable the probation practitioner to develop an understanding of the person on probation’s lived experience, and the impact of diversity characteristics on their life. That provides a solid basis for establishing a positive working relationship for the period of supervision. While completing a diversity monitoring form may be a part of that process, it is not sufficient on its own.

Assessing information (Back to top)

The questions in this section are asked to gather evidence that allows the lead inspector to draw out themes about assessing for achieving change and keeping people safe.

They do not have a direct bearing on the summary judgement for assessing.

2.3.04 Was sufficient information about domestic abuse obtained?

We expect the Probation Service to obtain sufficient information about whether the person on probation is a perpetrator or potential perpetrator of domestic abuse, in all cases at the point when a pre-sentence report is ordered by the court. If there was no court report, or information was not obtained at the court stage, we expect the Probation Service to obtain this information as part of assessing activity once the case has been allocated (or transferred to the community offender manager, in custodial cases). The only situation where fresh enquiries are not required is when sufficient, up-to-date information about known domestic abuse concerns is available from other sources, such as records of a currently supervised case or information from the Crown Prosecution Service.

We expect the Probation Service to be working with police forces to facilitate a clear, detailed and speedy response to all enquiries across assessing activity.

We recognise that there are several different ways the Probation Service can obtain information about domestic abuse, including direct enquiries to the police, enquiries through a multi-agency safeguarding hub (MASH), and routine information-sharing by the police.

To be sufficient, information must cover a reasonable period of time, and must provide enough detail to allow the Probation Service to understand the behaviour that has come to police attention. A simple list of dates of police call-outs is unlikely to be sufficient. Checks should be refreshed before the individual is released if significant time has passed since any checks were made at the court/allocation/transfer stage.

Information about the person on probation being a victim of domestic abuse is considered under keeping the person on probation safe.

2.3.05 Was information about domestic abuse used in assessing the case?

We expect any relevant information about the person on probation being a perpetrator or potential perpetrator of domestic abuse to be used in assessing the case. It should therefore be discussed with the person on probation as part of assessing activity. If the information obtained confirms there are no factors related to domestic abuse, this should be clearly recorded. If there are factors related to domestic abuse, irrespective of whether the index offence is one of domestic abuse, this information should be clearly set out as part of the assessing, to identify and analyse any patterns of abusive behaviour that have been demonstrated by the person on probation, beyond those that have attracted convictions.

If there is a curfew in the case, it is critical that any information about domestic abuse is explicitly referenced, to ensure the safety of partners or other family members who may be living at the proposed curfew address.

2.3.06 Was sufficient information about safeguarding children obtained where needed?

We expect to see clear evidence recorded in assessing activity that shows whether the person on probation has been asked if they have children or are in contact with children (so that we know if information about child protection or child safeguarding is required). We expect the Probation Service to obtain information about child protection and child safeguarding in all cases where the person on probation:

has children, or
is in contact with children, or
presents a potential risk of harm to children.

We recognise that there are several different ways the Probation Service can obtain information about child protection and child safeguarding, including direct enquiries to children’s social care and enquiries through a MASH. Whatever the local arrangements, we expect the Probation Service to obtain sufficient information about child protection and child safeguarding in all relevant cases at the court report stage. If there was no court report, or information was not obtained at the court stage, we expect the Probation Service to obtain this information as part of assessing activity once the case has been allocated (or transferred to the community offender manager, in custodial cases).

To be sufficient, information must cover a reasonable period of time, and must provide enough detail to allow the Probation Service to understand the behaviour of the person on probation and/or concerns about children they are in contact with that have come to the attention of children’s services. Enquiries should be made in the person on probation’s home local authority area, and in the local authority area where any relevant children live, if different. A simple list of dates of probation contact with children’s social care is unlikely to be sufficient.

We expect this information to be obtained, if required, as part of the court report process. Enquiries should identify whether any children in probation contact with the person on probation have ever previously:

received early help intervention, or
been identified as a child in need, or
been subject to a child protection plan.

The only situation where fresh information is not required when the person on probation has children, is in contact with children or presents a potential risk of harm to children is where sufficient, up-to-date information about child safeguarding concerns is available from other sources, such as records of a currently supervised case or CPS information. Checks should be refreshed before the individual is released if significant time has passed since any checks were made at the court/allocation/transfer stage.

We expect the Probation Service to be working with local authorities to facilitate a clear, detailed and speedy response to all requests for information.

2.3.07 Was information about safeguarding children used, where required, in assessing the case?

We expect any relevant information about child protection and child safeguarding to be used in assessing the case. It should therefore be discussed with the person on probation as part of assessing. If the information obtained confirms there are no factors related to child protection and child safeguarding, this should be clearly recorded. If there are factors related to child protection or child safeguarding, this information should be clearly set out, to identify and analyse any ongoing risks to children.

If there is a curfew in the case, it is critical that any information about child protection is explicitly referenced, to ensure the safety of children who may be living at the proposed curfew address.

2.3.10 In the opinion of the inspector, was current domestic abuse concern an important factor linked to risk of harm?

‘Current’ includes situations where the person on probation has previously shown behaviour related to domestic abuse that is neither so historical that it has become irrelevant, nor has been addressed by interventions to a point where future domestic abuse is unlikely. This includes any cases where the person on probation is assessed as presenting a risk of harm to current, previous or future partners (medium or higher), irrespective of whether they are currently in a relationship.

2.3.11 In the opinion of the inspector, were current child safeguarding concerns an important factor linked to risk of harm?

‘Current’ includes situations where the person on probation has children or is in contact with children who are subject to multi-agency child safeguarding arrangements, or where the person on probation is assessed as presenting a risk of harm to children (medium or higher), irrespective of whether they are currently in contact with children.

2.3.13 What is the current risk of serious harm classification of the person on probation, according to the probation practitioner?

Record the current risk of serious harm classification according to the probation practitioner.

2.3.19 Was sufficient domestic abuse and child safeguarding information obtained and used as part of the assessment of suitability for curfew?

In cases where an electronically monitored curfew is proposed, including home detention curfew, and a curfew is a requirement of a community sentence, we expect the Probation Service to obtain and use information about domestic abuse and child safeguarding.

Domestic abuse information should be requested in all cases. Information obtained should be sufficient to identify any known behaviour or risk of harm in connection with the proposed curfew address and any residents there, and also any behaviour related to other people on probation or circumstances that might suggest an ongoing risk of domestic abuse. We believe a curfew should not be proposed if there is any evidence of ongoing risk of domestic abuse.

We expect to see clear evidence recorded that shows whether the person on probation has been asked if they have children or are in contact with children (so we know if information about child protection or child safeguarding is required).

We expect the Probation Service to obtain information about child protection and child safeguarding in all cases where a curfew is being considered and the person on probation:

has children, or
is in probation contact with children, or
presents a potential risk of harm to children.

Information obtained should be sufficient to identify whether the person on probation poses any ongoing risk of harm to children who might be resident at, or visiting, the proposed curfew address. We believe a curfew should not be proposed if there is any evidence of ongoing risk to children at the proposed curfew address.

Assessing (Back to top)

2.1.1 Is assessing well informed, personalised and engaging, focusing on how to achieve change?

Assessing includes all assessing activity, not just the preparation of a written assessment. We look for evidence from a range of sources, including case records, written assessments, specific or specialist assessments, notes from internal or multi-agency meetings about the person on probation, and the case discussion with the probation practitioner. We judge the quality of assessing in its entirety rather than at any one point in time. We do not require the use of any specific assessing tool and we look at assessing in the round to ensure that sufficient information about the person on probation and their circumstances has been gathered and analysed. We expect initial assessing to be completed early enough in the sentence to support planning and delivery. This should be from the overall assessing at the start of the community sentence or at the point a community offender manager should have been assigned to a custodial case being inspected.

Where there is no formal written assessment, we do not automatically say this is insufficient. Instead, we consider the impact of the lack of a formal written assessment. For example, where there is no written assessment but assessing activity is evidenced elsewhere, this could be sufficient. Where there is no written assessment and assessing is not captured elsewhere in case records, this could be insufficient. We see reviewing as a dynamic process across assessing and as such look for evidence of responsivity to change and reviewing not only in written reviews but across other evidence within the case file.

If a written self-assessment has been completed (such as the OASys self-assessing questionnaire), this may contain useful information. We expect the practitioner to consider information from previous periods of probation supervision and to identify any potential barriers to engagement, which may be indicated by information from previous breaches or non-compliance.

Assessing should be proportionate to the person on probation’s needs, the nature of their offending, their personal circumstances, the sentence length and any suspension of probation contact.

We inspect against our published standards, not against the adherence of the Probation Service to any specific policy on assessing.

Timescales

We do not specify the timescale within which initial assessing should be completed. However, if there is a delay in completing significant elements of initial assessing, this can result in a negative judgement, even when any finalised assessing is otherwise sufficient. If the person on probation has been subject to other sentences at the point the sentence being inspected began, previous assessments can be taken into account, but we would expect them to be reviewed and updated for the sentence. In some cases, the person on probation will have received additional community sentences/post-release supervision starting after the date of the sentence that is subject to inspection. We would expect to see a review in those circumstances.

a) Does assessing identify the offending-related factors impacting on behaviour?

There should be an analysis of offending behaviour that explains why the person on probation committed the offence, not just how. Where there has been previous offending, we expect assessing to identify and incorporate information relevant to the current offence as well as any previous offending history. Information from prosecution documents should be used, and any discrepancies between the prosecution account and that given by the person on probation should be explained.

There should be an exploration of what happened and what the person on probation thought about it, at the time and afterwards. This should include analysis of the person on probation’s acceptance of responsibility, and their attitude to, or motivation for, the offence.

Assessing should identify and analyse the specific factors that contributed to the index offence and other offending. Ideally, the evidence for this will be within single documents, but inspectors will also look at self-assessment, notes of interviews, and other available documents. For more complex cases, additional specialist assessments may be needed.

b) Does assessing analyse the person on probation’s strengths and protective factors?

Probation practitioners should take care to avoid deficit-based assessing that only focuses on the person on probation’s risks or concerns. They should ensure assessing is balanced, to include the person on probation’s strengths and protective factors as a basis for achieving change.

There should be a clear identification of the person on probation’s strengths. Research indicates that a person on probation’s strengths are shaped by personal characteristics, experiences and circumstances. Strengths can be identified by the person on probation, their family members, the education provider, or any other involved professional. They can also be identified through working with and engaging the person on probation, as well as any self-assessing. This information should be analysed in terms of the impact of each on the person on probation.

Protective factors should be identified at the levels of the person on probation, their family, the community, and society, recognising the importance of considering the person on probation in the context of their lives. Protective factors can include those that relate to the person on probation, such as positive use of leisure time and engagement in education, and factors that relate to wider family, peers and community networks. Inspectors will look for evidence that the service has identified any actual strengths and protective factors, and any factors that have the potential to be enhanced.

c) Does assessing recognise and analyse diversity factors?

Inspectors expect to see a meaningful exploration of any diversity factors relevant to the person on probation, including equity, diversity and inclusion.

We recognise the nine protected characteristics (sex, age, race, religion and belief, disability, pregnancy and maternity, sexual identity, gender reassignment and marriage or civil partnership) and expect to see recognition and analysis of these for the person on probation.

Assessing should consider all of the key areas of intersectionality, self-identity and cultural heritage that impact on the person on probation’s lived experience. Assessing should analyse and recognise inequalities, exclusion and discrimination that the person on probation might experience.

Analysis should include a description of any circumstances that are relevant to the person on probation’s life, and of how these affect or have affected their life. As part of a personalised approach, assessing should consider the person on probation’s lived experience, including their family and their environmental and social context. This can include practical issues such as living in a rural area or the person on probation’s ability to attend appointments. Probation practitioners should consider personal factors, such as issues with attachment, speech, language and communication needs, and learning difficulties or disabilities, including attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and autism spectrum disorder. They should also consider whether the person on probation has experienced trauma, and what impact this may have on them, including on their behaviour and their ability to engage in an intervention.

Once the person on probation’s diverse needs are identified and recognised, we expect to see appropriate analysis of them. This needs to go beyond simply listing any factors relevant to the person on probation; it should include analysis of their impact on the person on probation. This may be evidenced in written assessments, case records or case discussions with the practitioner. Where there is limited probation contact with the person on probation, probation practitioners should still fully consider diversity factors and any potential barriers to engagement, as the starting point for being able to put in place appropriate, personalised arrangements for any direct delivery before suspension, and for post-supervision support.

d) Does assessing analyse capacity for change, participation, and community integration?

We expect the probation practitioner to analyse the person on probation’s capacity for change, and their ability to participate and engage in the community in which they live. Assessing should consider the person on probation’s self-identity, motivation and capacity to change. There should be a clear strengths-based focus on achieving change. Assessing should analyse the person on probation’s sense of belonging, integration, participation and connectedness to the community in which they live. It should consider how factors in the person on probation’s life may affect these.

e) Does assessing analyse the motivation, readiness and ability of the person on probation to engage and comply with the sentence?

There should be analysis of the person on probation’s readiness to engage and comply with the sentence, recognising the different stages in the cycle of change. Probation practitioners should recognise the level of the person on probation’s motivation to comply, and any supporting or contradictory factors. There should be more than a simple statement about this. Where relevant, there should be analysis of any past engagement with services, including an understanding of whether the person on probation attended appointments, actively engaged with the service or disengaged from it, and the reasons for that.

f) Does assessing provide an opportunity for the active participation of and co-production with the person on probation?

People on probation should be given the opportunity to meaningfully collaborate and participate in assessing activity. We expect the probation practitioner to use language or tools that facilitate the person on probation’s understanding. For co-production, we expect the person on probation to have had the opportunity to feel listened to, be meaningfully involved, and be supported in engaging with the assessing activity. We are looking for clear evidence of an understanding of the person on probation’s perspective on their behaviour, and we expect to see the person on probation’s voice, views and needs being incorporated and analysed throughout the assessing process. We expect to see use of an interpreter where the person on probation does not speak English as a first language.

g) Does assessing draw on available sources of information and involve other agencies where appropriate?

Where appropriate, we expect to see a multi-agency approach to assessing to achieve a complete picture of the person on probation’s life. Assessing should be based on all the information identified. Where a person on probation is involved with other agencies, staff should obtain information on how well they engage with that agency, what work has been completed or is ongoing, and anything that facilitates or hinders the person on probation’s engagement. Historical information from other agencies should be referenced, analysed and evaluated in the current circumstances.

h) Is assessing responsive to changes to ensure continued engagement and compliance?

The assessing process should be dynamic, considering, analysing and responding to changes in the person on probation’s circumstances to ensure continued engagement and compliance. This includes changes in the person on probation’s context and social environment, strengths and protective factors, capacity for change, community integration and co-production, diversity and attitudes, motivation and behaviour.

Assessing should also recognise what may be needed to support exit planning, in particular for cases that are terminated early or where probation contact may be suspended. Information should be obtained where there are others working with the person on probation to ensure that all relevant and current information is known. Being responsive to change includes assessing the person on probation’s engagement to date, and their response to interventions that have been delivered. The person on probation should be actively engaged in ongoing assessing activity and discussions around change and progress. This could be evidenced in reviews of written assessments, case records and the case discussion with the practitioner.

Summary judgement: Is assessing well informed, personalised and engaging, focusing on how to achieve change?

Inspectors will judge whether the overall quality of assessing is sufficient to engage the person on probation and achieve change. This should be proportionate to the needs of the person on probation and the nature of the sentence and should be sufficiently personalised, identifying the most important factors related to engaging with and achieving change for the person on probation. For example, sufficient assessing of a person on probation with a limited offending history may be less detailed than assessing of someone with more convictions.

Assessing should recognise and analyse a person on probation’s diverse needs. Initial assessing should be prompt and proportionate to the person on probation’s needs, and it should be conducted early enough in the period of work with the person on probation to inform planning and delivery.

Ongoing assessing should be dynamic, responsive and timely. The person on probation’s voice should be evident throughout, and we expect assessing to show that the probation practitioner understands the person on probation within the context of their life.

Inspectors need to consider their answers to all the questions in this section and decide whether the strengths outweigh any deficiencies. We are not looking for perfection, but for sufficient assessing of the most important factors in engaging and achieving change for the person on probation. Where there are gaps in assessing activity, inspectors will consider their impact in the context of the person on probation. In some circumstances, a particular omission may be enough to lead to a judgement of insufficient. For example, assessing that failed to take into account a person on probation’s learning disability may be judged insufficient, even if it covered all other factors relevant to engaging and achieving change for the person on probation.

2.1.2 Is assessing well informed, personalised and engaging, focusing on how to keep people safe?

Note: HM Inspectorate of Probation expects all factors relevant to risk of harm to be identified and analysed, not just factors related to risk of serious harm.

a) Does assessing identify and analyse all risk of harm to others?

In any assessing of risk of harm to others, we expect any and all factors related to the risk of harm to be described and analysed, not just factors related to risk of serious harm. We expect to see a clear analysis of any risks to children (known to the person on probation or children in general), and of any risks of domestic abuse (to intimate partners and/or other family members). Harm includes physical harm, sexual harm and psychological harm. We expect probation practitioners to identify the potential for long-term psychological harm arising from non-violent offences, such as neglect or domestic abuse by the person on probation.

Assessing for risk of harm should consider:

actuarial risk assessing (including Combined Serious Reoffending Predictor (CSRP) and ARNS predictors for sexual and violent offending (OVP, OSP/DC, OSP/IIC)
static risk factors, including age and gender, and the nature, number and circumstances of previous convictions
dynamic risk factors (which may be acute or stable)
- acute dynamic risk factors are those that have the potential to change quickly, such as substance misuse
- stable dynamic risk factors are those that may change over a longer period, such as problem-solving capability or response to trauma
strengths of the person on probation, including internal protective factors (such as feeling part of the community or being hopeful about the future)
resources available to the person on probation, or external protective factors (including positive personal relationships and access to rehabilitative interventions)
capacity and motivation to change (including the extent to which the person on probation is able and willing to engage with risk management).

Information should be verified where possible, and the credibility and relevance of information considered.

b) Does assessing analyse any specific concerns and risks related to actual and potential victims?

Assessing should identify, where possible, any and all actual or potential victims, using the following categories: general public, known adults, children, staff, and prisoners. Within these broad headings, the assessing should clearly identify any sub-groups that are more likely to be at risk, such as ‘general public – peers in pubs/clubs’, ‘known adults – grandparents’, ‘children – within family and friendship circles’ or ‘staff – police and security guards’.

When assessing who might be potential future victims, we expect probation practitioners to look for patterns of behaviour that are repeated and therefore likely to reoccur. Attention should be paid to any specific diversity characteristics of the victim that may either make them more likely to be targeted or make it harder for them to report offences.

We expect assessing to be clear about whether there is ongoing risk to any victims of current or previous offences. Assessing should specify the nature and level of any ongoing risks to current or previous victims, and to any identifiable potential victims.

c) Does assessing incorporate the needs of the victim(s)?

Inspectors expect the needs of any identified victims to be incorporated into assessing.

Where a victim’s needs and wishes are known, these should be clearly recorded and considered when assessing the person on probation. This can include any needs identified by a victim in relation to keeping them safe from future harm from the person on probation. Information from prosecution papers, victim impact statements or any other sources of information relating to the victim’s needs should be considered and incorporated into assessing activity. This is particularly important if a victim is eligible for the victim contact scheme but has chosen not to engage.

Where it is clear that there is no information about the victim’s needs/wishes, and they are not involved in the victim contact scheme, this should not be scored negatively.

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

We expect assessing for keeping people safe to be based on all available sources of information. This could include current and previous records of probation supervision or assessing by other agencies. Information from the person on probation (and their family members, if available) should also be considered. Assessing should consider previous convictions and other previous known or suspected behaviour, including information about offending abroad.

We expect the probation practitioner to seek as much relevant information as possible. If needed, they should also use escalation processes to obtain key sources of information that are held by other agencies. However, the assessing should not be delayed unnecessarily if some information is not available. Judgements should be based on the sources of information that the probation practitioner would reasonably have been able to access at the time of the assessing.

We expect probation practitioners to consider the impact of any trauma experienced by the person on probation on the risk to others. In some cases, there will be no previous convictions or information about past behaviour. Probation practitioners should be persistent in trying to obtain information from other organisations. They should analyse whether past behaviours remain relevant, and the circumstances in which the behaviour may manifest. An example would be a return to drinking following a period of abstinence.

Where the person on probation is a foreign national, Probation Service internal guidance sets out how relevant information may be obtained, including from the Home Office, an ACRO check and the Foreign National Offender (FNO) Hub.

e) Does assessing analyse whether work to contribute to community safety could be undertaken collaboratively with other agencies?

Other agencies can hold valuable information about the person on probation and the context of their life, and may be well placed to understand their person on probation’s risk of harm to others. Other agencies can also play an important collaborative role alongside probation intervention in keeping other people safe. This can be particularly important where the probation service’s input is short, where there are specific/specialist risks or where the risks presented by a person on probation will continue beyond the period of supervision. Working collaboratively in such instances can ensure vital continued oversight and intervention.

Probation practitioners should consider the role of other agencies in keeping the community safe. It should ensure their views are incorporated and consider whether work can be undertaken collaboratively with them to support other people’s safety. For example, they should obtain the views of children’s services and police who manage people with sexual convictions about the risk and their role in community safety.

f) Is assessing responsive to change, maintaining effective arrangements that support community safety?

Assessing should consider, analyse, and be responsive to changes in the person on probation’s circumstances that have impacted on, or may impact on, community safety (both positively and negatively).

Assessing should respond to new and changing information in a timely manner and ensure this supports effective arrangements that contribute to community safety. Assessing needs to be dynamic and timely, and to actively consider any changes to the context of the person on probation and their wider familial and social environment, strengths, protective and structural factors. Further offending or concerning behaviours, changes in medication, engagement, mental health, or accommodation factors, for example, may reduce or increase concerns in relation to keeping the person on probation safe.

Assessing should also consider if a sentence is coming to an end, including through early termination, or contact is to be suspended, and appropriately analyse exit planning and the resources or support required to contribute to community safety. This should be done in a timely and responsive manner when there is a change or new information becomes available.

Being responsive to change includes assessing the person on probation’s engagement to date, their responses to the activities and interventions that have been delivered, and how this might impact on community safety. The person on probation should be actively involved in ongoing assessing activity and discussions around change, as well as their progress.

g) Does assessing identify and analyse the safety of the person on probation?

There are a range of factors that can make a person on probation vulnerable, or at risk of victimisation or exploitation. These may include learning difficulties, care experience, substance misuse or mental health needs. There may be key moments of specific risk to the person on probation, such as a relationship ending or a loss of accommodation.

The probation practitioner should be aware of what is needed to keep the person on probation safe- identifying and analysing where these needs exist in a person on probation’s life. When assessing, probation practitioners should show professional curiosity about what is happening in the person on probation’s life. They should be alert to the range of types of potential exploitation, which can include the following:

criminal and sexual exploitation, including county lines
modern slavery and trafficking
radicalisation
serious violence, including group or peer-related violence
internet-based online exploitation (probation contact and non-probation contact offences)
forced marriage, honour-based abuse and female genital mutilation.

Probation practitioners should use appropriate language when identifying and analysing risks to the person on probation. The person on probation’s voice and views in relation to what is needed to keep them safe should be incorporated into assessing.

h) Does assessing analyse whether work that would keep the person on probation safe could be undertaken collaboratively with other agencies?

Other agencies can hold valuable information about the person on probation and the context of their life and may be well placed to understand how the person on probation can be kept safe. Other agencies can also play an important collaborative role alongside probation intervention in keeping people on probation safe. This can be particularly important where the probation service’s input is short, or where there are specific/specialist risks to a person on probation that will continue beyond the period of supervision. Working collaboratively in such instances can ensure vital continued support.

Probation practitioners should consider the role of other agencies in keeping people on probation safe. Where relevant probation practitioners should ensure that partner agencies’ views are incorporated and consider whether work can be undertaken collaboratively with them to support a person on probation’s safety. For example, they should engage with domestic abuse services to understand the role of this service if they are supporting a person on probation.

i) Is assessing responsive to change, maintaining effective arrangements to keep the person on probation safe?

Assessing should consider, analyse, and be responsive to changes in the person on probation’s circumstances that have impacted on or may impact on their safety (both positively and negatively).

Assessing should respond to new and changing information in a timely manner and ensure this supports effective arrangements that keep the person on probation safe. Further offending or concerning behaviours, changes in medication, engagement, mental health, or accommodation factors, for example, may reduce or increase concerns in relation to keeping the person on probation safe. Assessing should be responsive to changes in circumstances or new information.

Assessing should also consider if a sentence is coming to an end or contact is to be suspended, and appropriately analyse exit planning and the resources or support required to safeguard the person on probation.

Where appropriate, this should include obtaining information from others working with the person on probation to ensure that there is an up-to-date, shared understanding of the person on probation, that relevant and current information is known and that its impact is analysed and understood. This should be done in a timely and responsive manner when there is a change or new information becomes available.

Being responsive to change includes assessing the person on probation’s engagement to date, their responses to the activities and interventions that have been delivered, and how this might impact on their safety. The person on probation should be actively involved in ongoing assessing activity and discussions around change, as well as their progress.

2.1.3 Summary judgement: Is assessing well-informed, personalised and engaging focusing on how to keep people safe?

‘Keeping people safe’ has two elements – one is contributing to community safety and the other is promoting the safety of the person on probation.

Inspectors will judge whether the overall quality of assessing is sufficient to keep people safe. Assessing should be proportionate to the needs of the person on probation and the nature of the sentence and should be sufficiently personalised, identifying the most important factors related to keeping people safe. For example, sufficient assessing of a person on probation with a limited offending history may be less detailed than assessing of someone with more convictions.

Inspectors will judge whether overall assessing sufficiently analyses how to contribute to community safety and keep the person on probation safe. Assessing should analyse and recognise the person on probation’s diverse needs and how these are relevant to keeping people safe. Initial assessing should be prompt and proportionate to the person on probation’s needs, and it should be conducted early enough in the period of work with the person on probation to inform planning and delivery. Ongoing assessing should be dynamic, responsive and timely. The person on probation’s voice should be evident throughout, and we expect assessing to show that the probation practitioner understands the person on probation within the context of their life. Inspectors need to consider their answers to all the questions in this section and decide whether the strengths outweigh any deficiencies. We are not looking for perfection, but for sufficient assessing of the most important factors in keeping people safe. Where there are gaps in assessing activity, inspectors will consider their impact in the context of the person on probation. In some circumstances, a particular omission may be enough to lead to a judgement of insufficient. In other cases, a number of small omissions may be outweighed by other areas of practice, making the case sufficient overall.

Planning (Back to top)

2.2.1 Is planning well informed, personalised and engaging, focusing on how to achieve change?

Planning

Planning includes all planning activity, not just the preparation of a written plan. We judge planning in its entirety rather than at any one point in time. Evidence for this standard may come from the case discussion with the probation practitioner and ongoing case records, as well as from a written plan. Planning should be proportionate to the person on probation’s risk and needs, and to the nature and requirements of the sentence and the length of contact period. The plan must be understandable to the person on probation and other agencies. The person on probation should understand their role in planning, and the actions that are expected of them. Where people on probation are subject to a range of plans (such as a sentence plan, multi-agency public protection arrangements (MAPPA), or child protection plan), these should be coordinated, including agreement on the sequencing of actions. Planning should cover actions to support engagement and desistance (achieving change) as well as to manage risk of harm and to provide safety and support for the person on probation (keeping people safe).

Where there is no formal written plan, we do not automatically say this is insufficient. Instead, we consider the impact of the lack of a formal written plan. For example, where there is no written plan but planning activity is evidenced elsewhere, this could be sufficient. Where there is no written plan and planning is not captured elsewhere in case records, this could be insufficient. We see reviewing as a dynamic process across planning and as such look for evidence of responsivity to change and reviewing not only in written reviews but across other evidence within the case file.

Cases where active probation contact is short

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

a) Does planning set out what is needed to achieve change and prioritise those areas that are most critical?

Planning should reflect the relevant factors in the case and should be proportionate to the nature of the sentence. Planning should be appropriate to the stage the person on probation is at in the cycle of change. Where the assessing has failed to identify factors needed to achieve change, planning should still address them.

We expect to see some evidence of sequencing, and prioritisation of work to be undertaken. Where this has not happened, there should be a clear explanation, such as initial work being needed to enhance engagement or increase motivation. For example, homelessness may need to be addressed before any specific work on other offending-related factors. Plans should be proportionate to the needs of the person on probation. Care should also be taken to ensure planning does not overload the person on probation. The person on probation should be given any help that they may need to develop structure and routine and to achieve positive change. Activities and interventions may need to be broken down into a small number of ‘chunks’ or ‘steps’ with realistic, short-term objectives.

Planning should be integrated with any other plans involving the person on probation, such as joint working with the police in cases where people on probation have been convicted of sexual offences.

In cases where suspension of probation contact is anticipated, we expect planning for the active period of supervision and handover or exit planning to frontload delivery of interventions during the active period of supervision. We also expect to see realistic planning for services that can be accessed after supervision has been suspended (where required).

b) Does planning take account of the person on probation’s strengths and protective factors and seek to reinforce or develop these to build resilience?

As part of an individualised approach, planning should consider the person on probation’s lived experience, including their family, environmental and social context, and plan for and reflect how this may affect the person on probation’s ability to engage with interventions. It is key that planning translates the assessing of the person on probation’s needs and strengths into what needs to be done and that it recognises the uniqueness of the person on probation and the factors identified in their assessing.

Planning should identify where activities and interventions will be delivered and should ensure this is achievable for the person on probation. This might include considering the level of family support, local transport links and the impact of living in a rural area. Planning should consider the context in which the person on probation is living, build on personal, familial and structural support, and identify how to support and develop the person on probation’s strengths and protective factors.

Probation practitioners should use available information on whether the person on probation has experienced trauma, plan for the impact this may have on their ability to engage in an intervention, and plan how best to deliver services that will meet their needs.

c) Does planning address all the person on probation’s diversity factors including how they could affect engagement and compliance?

There should be meaningful planning that accommodates all diversity factors relevant to the person on probation. Planning should take a personalised approach that takes account of the person on probation’s specific needs, including the person on probation’s protected characteristics. We recognise the nine protected characteristics (sex, age, race, religion and belief, disability, pregnancy and maternity, sexual identity, gender reassignment and marriage or civil partnership) and expect to see planning that recognises and considers all of these where they are relevant to the person on probation.

Where the person on probation has specific learning or neurodiversity needs or a personality disorder, bespoke approaches may be required. Where there is joint working with other agencies, such as the police in cases involving sexual offences, an appropriate approach to planning should be agreed with the other staff involved.

Where assessing has not identified all relevant factors, we still expect planning to be based on all relevant factors, rather than just those that have been identified.

In cases where suspension of probation contact is anticipated, we expect planning for the active period of supervision and handover or exit planning to take sufficient account of the personal circumstances of the person on probation. This is to ensure that services directly delivered or referrals made for post-supervision probation contact are appropriate and accessible, including referral to services appropriate for specific diversity factors. Practitioners should consider the accessibility of appropriate support by the person on probation after early termination or after supervision has been suspended.

d) Does planning create opportunities for change, participation and community integration?

Planning should create opportunities for change, setting out services and/or activities that will help the person on probation to achieve change and participate and integrate into the community.

Planning should consider the community in which the person on probation lives and their sense of belonging, integration, participation and connectedness to it, and how these can be built on or developed. Planning should consider the person on probation’s hobbies and interests, their peer groups and relationships, and the community in which they live, and look at how to work with the person on probation to facilitate and create opportunities for participation and community integration.

e) Does planning take account of the motivation, readiness and ability of the person on probation to engage and comply with the sentence?

The level, pattern and type of probation contact planned should be appropriate within the requirements of the sentence, proportionate to the case, and set at a level that meets the person on probation’s needs. There should be an explicit record of what/when/where probation contact will take place. Probation contact should occur in a suitable and safe place that allows for privacy and effective case management.

We recognise that the Probation Service sets expectations for the frequency of probation contact; inspectors are aware of these but will still make judgements based on whether the set level of probation contact meets the needs of the case and is achievable, rather than whether it complies with operational arrangements. Where the case terminates early or probation contact is likely to be suspended, we expect planning to prioritise work to be done by the Probation Service before suspension, and to reflect services that may be needed beyond the point of suspension.

Where there are arrangements for flexible types of probation contact, inspectors will use their judgement about the appropriateness of such arrangements.

f) Does planning provide opportunities for the active participation of and co-production with the person on probation?

There should be evidence that the person on probation has actively and meaningfully participated in planning activity. A plan that the person on probation does not sufficiently understand, has not contributed to, or does not agree with is less likely to be successful.

During planning, building a rapport, asking open questions, and ensuring the person on probation’s understanding are critical. The emphasis is on meaningful participation, where the person on probation can speak their mind, give their views on what should be included in planning, with their opinions being considered seriously, and be given due respect. The person on probation should be supported to invest in the planning process and have a voice in the development of plans.

Planning should be a learning process that enables the person on probation to think about how they would like to be in the future, and how they can develop and acquire the skills necessary to achieve this.

Language used with people on probation when developing planning activity should be positive, engaging, non-stigmatising and empowering and in line with the person on probation’s development and understanding.

At the end of the planning process there should be a shared understanding of the expectations of the plan, with planned activities and interventions clearly specified and detailed.

g) Is there effective planning of delivery with other services, including for exit planning and referral to mainstream services?

Planning should set out services and/or activities that will help the person on probation to engage and achieve change. It should be clear what the person on probation is expected to do, and when they have achieved the desired outcome. Planning should be appropriate to the stage the person on probation is at in the cycle of change.

Inspectors will expect to see a personalised approach when selecting interventions to address the needs of the case.

Examples of activities could include:

allocation to a specific unpaid work project to improve employability skills
programmes designed to address specific issues, such as emotional management
enforceable appointments with a specialist organisation to help achieve specific outcomes relating to housing or financial needs
working with a mentor – for example, to attend college, go to the library or help prepare a CV
structured sessions with the probation practitioner, third-sector provider or in-house specialist, to help improve a person on probation’s ability to solve problems or access and maintain engagement with other services.

Planning should always consider the work of other agencies engaged with the person on probation to better coordinate, align and complement plans and delivery. Planning needs to identify clear lines of responsibility for the different agencies involved with the person on probation, with clarity on who will do what and when. Planning should consider how information will be shared and gathered to ensure all partner organisations have a shared holistic understanding of the person on probation.

In cases where suspension of probation contact is anticipated, we expect planning to be clear about the services that will be provided, both for the active period of supervision and handover or exit planning to continue to address the critical needs of the person on probation (where needed), related to desistance, after supervision has ended.

h) Is planning responsive to changes to ensure continued engagement and compliance?

Planning should be responsive to changes that have impacted on, or may impact on, continued engagement and compliance. Plans should be adjusted accordingly to support effective arrangements to maintain engagement and compliance.

To ensure planning remains current and relevant, the probation practitioner should consider any changes to the person on probation’s context and their wider familial and social environment, strengths, protective factors and structural factors. For example, if the person on probation were to lose employment or leave education/training, become homeless, or start or resume using substances, planning would need to demonstrate responses to these changes in a timely manner. Where appropriate, probation practitioners should obtain information from others working with the person on probation to ensure there is an up-to-date, shared understanding of the person on probation that informs planning.

Planning should be reviewed on an ongoing basis to check that interventions are still appropriate and that services are promoting engagement and compliance. When planning is reviewed this should identify what has been effective and what has been achieved, as well as work that is still outstanding or needs to be reconsidered or redesigned. Any problems with delivery of planned services should be resolved immediately, and should not wait for a formal, written review. Planning needs to be flexible to maintain a personalised, tailored approach to the person on probation

We do not always have to see a formal written review of a plan, but we do expect to see evidence that demonstrates planning has been appropriately responsive to change. Evidence may come from written reviews, ongoing case records, notes from a risk panel or meeting, or a discussion with the case manager.

Summary judgement: Is planning well-informed, personalised and engaging focusing on how to achieve change?

Inspectors will judge whether the overall quality of planning is sufficient to engage the person on probation and achieve change. This should be proportionate to the needs of the person on probation and the nature of the sentence and should be sufficiently personalised, prioritising the most important factors related to engaging and achieving change for the person on probation.

Inspectors will judge whether overall planning has engaged the person on probation and set out how to achieve change. Planning should be prompt, recognise and analyse a person on probation’s diverse needs and be proportionate to these needs. The person on probation’s voice should be evident throughout, and we expect planning to show that the probation practitioner understands the person on probation within the context of their life.

Inspectors need to consider their answers to all the questions in this section and decide whether the strengths outweigh any deficiencies. We are not looking for perfection, but for sufficient planning that addresses the most important factors in engaging and achieving change for the person on probation. Where there are gaps in planning, inspectors will consider their impact in the context of the person on probation. In some circumstances, a particular omission may be enough to lead to a judgement of insufficient. For example, planning that failed to consider a person on probation’s learning disability may be judged insufficient, even if it covered all other factors relevant to engaging and achieving change for them.

In cases where suspension of probation contact is anticipated, we expect to see sufficient planning for the active period of supervision and planning for a clear handover to other agencies at the point that supervision is suspended (where needed).

2.2.2 Is planning well informed, personalised and engaging, focusing on how to keep people safe?

Note: HM Inspectorate of Probation expects all factors relevant to risk of harm to be planned for, not just factors related to risk of serious harm. Some cases assessed as low risk of serious harm will therefore require planning to address factors related to harm.

a) Does planning set out what is needed to keep other people safe, addressing risks and prioritising those which are most critical?

Planning should identify activities and interventions that minimise any identifiable risk of harm to others (not just risk of serious harm) and address all factors relevant to keeping other people safe. The person on probation should be involved in the planning to address the safety of others.

Planning should identify the activities, services and interventions that strengthen existing protective factors for keeping others safe, promote existing support and interventions and/or external controls that are in place, and identify any new controls and/or interventions that are required. Planning should specify who is to complete the activities, and how the person on probation knows when the outcome has been achieved. It should address all factors relevant to keeping other people safe, irrespective of whether they were identified at the assessing stage.

Planning should prioritise the most critical factors, which are those with the strongest link to the likelihood of harm being caused. It should also consider what actions need to be taken if these factors change and the risk to others increases or decreases.

Planning should be proportionate to the nature of the sentence, and the level and nature of risk of harm. In cases that will terminate early or where suspension of probation contact is anticipated, we expect to see clear planning for the active period of supervision and also clear arrangements for how risk of harm factors will be followed up by other agencies after supervision has finished or is suspended.

b) Does planning pay attention to the available timescales, coordinating with any other agencies’ planning and the need for sequencing?

Planning should reflect the relevant factors in the case and be proportionate to the nature of the sentence. Planning should be realistic about what can be achieved in the available timescales, recognising that it may not be possible to work on all of the person on probation’s identified risk of harm needs within the available timescales. Planning should then consider what else is required to support the person on probation and meet these needs in the longer term. Planning should ensure there is ongoing involvement of other agencies and appropriate onward referrals as part of exit planning, where this is required. Exit planning should consider how progress can be sustained, as well as identifying what ongoing work may be needed and who will provide it.

Where the assessing has failed to identify factors in how to keep people safe, planning should still address them. There should be evidence of sequencing, and prioritisation of work to be undertaken. Where this has not happened, there should be a clear explanation, such as initial work being needed to manage the immediate risks of harm to others.

In post-release cases, initial planning while the person on probation is still in custody should prioritise critical resettlement factors, but should also set out longer-term planning to contribute to community safety after release. Planning should be integrated with any other plans involving the person on probation, such as joint working with the police in cases where people on probation have been convicted of sexual offences.

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

Depending on the level and nature of the risk of harm presented by the person on probation, not all of these elements are necessary in every case.

Planning for constructive interventions may include:

supervision as part of the order or licence, and supervision that may be offered by other organisations working with the person on probation
specific, focused interventions, including accredited programmes or one-to-one interventions designed to address factors linked to risk of harm
trauma-informed planning, where necessary.
Planning for restrictive interventions may include:
control measures such as curfews or accommodation at approved premises, which aim to restrict the ability of the person on probation to cause harm
identifying an appropriate unpaid work placement to avoid probation contact with potential victims
monitoring of activities by the probation practitioner, police or others, to ensure compliance and identify changes in risk factors
planning to keep actual and potential victims safe, including specific licence conditions and information-sharing.

We will judge whether all reasonable constructive and restrictive interventions have been used, depending on the needs of the case. In some cases, very few or no restrictive interventions may be required. All cases where there are factors related to risk of harm should have at least some constructive interventions.

In cases that will terminate early or where suspension of probation contact is anticipated, we expect to see planning for the active period of supervision and planning for clear information-sharing at the point supervision is suspended, where the Probation Service will no longer be delivering interventions.

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

The content and rationale of other agencies’ plans should be known to the probation practitioner. Copies of the plans should be available on the case record. There should be integration between different plans, and they should support each other.

Where more than one agency is involved with the person on probation, planning should be clear about which agency will lead on each activity, how activities will be coordinated, and how agencies will communicate with each other to ensure that work with the person on probation is cohesive. Where the person on probation is subject to plans managed by other agencies, such as child protection plans or MAPPA, probation planning should be coordinated with and refer to these plans to ensure work is cohesive and joined up. Plans should be integrated and should support each other.

Where a case is assessed as high/very high risk of harm, and significant multi-agency risk management is needed, it is essential that plans such as those contained in MAPPA notes and child safeguarding records are aligned, and make clear reference to each other, to facilitate joint working and ensure that emergency action can be taken safely if required.

In cases that will terminate early or suspension of probation contact is anticipated, we expect to see planning for the active period of supervision and planning for clear information-sharing at the point supervision is suspended, where the Probation Service will no longer be delivering interventions.

e) Does planning address any specific concerns and risks related to actual and potential victims?

This question only applies if there are identifiable actual or potential victims.

Inspectors will look for planning that addresses specific concerns and risks related to actual and potential victims. We expect to see clear planning to keep actual and potential victims safe. Probation practitioners should have a clear understanding of the impact offences have had on victims and have used all available sources of information to gain this understanding. Planning should focus on identifying appropriate activities to minimise the risk to identifiable or potential victims and reduce the likelihood of revictimisation or further offending towards victims. This could be through formal requirements such as restricted activities, exclusion zones, conditions, restraining orders, or informal activities that support the safety of actual and potential victims.

There should be clear and regular communication with a victim worker or any person working with a victim to ensure the victim’s views on their safety are taken into consideration. Planning should identify actions and interventions to address risks to actual and potential victims. It should include what needs to be done, who needs to do it and when concerns and risks should increase.

f) Is planning responsive to change, maintaining effective arrangements to contribute to community safety?

Planning should be responsive to changes that have impacted on, or may impact on, keeping people safe. Plans should be adjusted accordingly to support effective arrangements to keep people safe.

To ensure planning remains current and relevant, the probation practitioner should consider any changes to the person on probation’s context and their wider familial and social environment, strengths, protective and structural factors. For example, if the person on probation were to begin a new relationship or start or resume using substances, planning would need to demonstrate responses to these changes in a timely manner. Where appropriate, probation practitioners should obtain information from others working with the person on probation to ensure there is an up-to-date, shared understanding of the person on probation that informs planning to contribute to community safety.

Planning should be reviewed on an ongoing basis to check that interventions are still appropriate and that services are contributing to community safety. Reviewing of planning should identify what has been effective and what has been achieved, as well as work that is still outstanding or needs to be reconsidered or redesigned. Any problems with delivery of planned services should be resolved immediately, and should not wait for a formal written review. Planning needs to be flexible to maintain a personalised, tailored approach to the person on probation.

We do not necessarily expect to see a formal written review of a plan, but we do expect to see evidence that demonstrates planning has been appropriately responsive to change. Evidence may come from written reviews, ongoing case records, notes from a risk panel or meeting, or a discussion with the case manager.

g) Does planning promote safety for the person on probation as foundations for change?

A range of positive and negative factors can influence a person on probation’s safety. Probation practitioners should consider all relevant factors in planning activity and recognise the complex relationships between them. Planning for the safety of a person on probation should include work to be done directly with the person on probation and work to be done by probation, potentially on a multi-agency or partnership basis.

Planning should identify activities, services and interventions that support the person on probation’s safety. Planning should clearly include the person on probation’s views about their safety, and what is needed from their perspective to achieve safety. The person on probation should be involved in developing plans for safety in a collaborative manner, rather than planning being ‘done to’ the person on probation.

Planning should also promote any existing controls and interventions, internal and/or external supports and interventions necessary to promote the person on probation’s safety. Planning should make it clear how these will be monitored.

h) Does planning include relevant action to be undertaken collaboratively with other agencies to keep the person on probation safe?

Probation practitioners should incorporate information about the safety of the person on probation from relevant other agencies and use this appropriately as part of their planning activity. Other agencies can hold valuable information about the person on probation and the context of their life. Other agencies should be given the opportunity to participate actively in safety planning, interventions and reviews, and offered ways to contribute as partners in the work being undertaken.

If the person on probation has complex needs, planning should recognise that they may need extensive longer-term support at individual, family and community levels. The probation practitioner should consider how this will be facilitated, coordinated and continued once contact ends.

For a care-experienced person on probation, the views of a relevant social worker and any other professional working with the person on probation should also be included in planning. This could be a professional person such as a support worker, an extended family member or a family friend.

i) Is planning responsive to change, maintaining effective arrangements to keep the person on probation safe?

Planning should be responsive to changes that have impacted on, or may impact on, a person on probation’s safety.

To ensure planning is current and relevant, the probation practitioner should consider any changes to the person on probation’s context and their wider familial and social environment, strengths, protective and structural factors. Being responsive to change means that planning may change depending on the person on probation’s circumstances. For example, if the person on probation were to become homeless or start or resume using substances, planning would need to demonstrate responses to these changes in a timely manner. Where appropriate, probation practitioners should obtain information from others working with the person on probation to ensure there is an up-to-date, shared understanding of the person on probation that informs planning to keep them.

Summary judgement: Is planning well-informed, personalised and engaging focusing on how to keep people safe?

‘Keeping people safe’ has two elements – one is contributing to community safety and the other is the safety of the person on probation.

Inspectors will judge whether the overall quality of planning is sufficient to keep people safe. This should be proportionate to the needs of the person on probation and the nature of the sentence and should be sufficiently personalised, prioritising the most important factors related to community safety and the safety of the person on probation.

Inspectors will judge whether overall planning has focused sufficiently on keeping people safe. Planning should recognise and analyse a person on probation’s diverse needs in relation to keeping people safe. Planning should be prompt and proportionate to the person on probation’s needs. Ongoing planning should be dynamic, responsive and timely. The person on probation’s voice should be evident throughout, and we expect planning to show that the probation practitioner understands the person on probation within the context of their life.

Inspectors need to consider their answers to all the questions in this section and decide whether the strengths outweigh any deficiencies. We are not looking for perfection, but for sufficient planning that addresses the most important factors in contributing to community safety and promoting the safety of the person on probation. Where there are gaps in planning, inspectors will consider their impact in the context of the person on probation. In some circumstances, a particular omission may be enough to lead to a judgement of insufficient. For example, planning that failed to consider a person on probation’s learning disability may be judged insufficient, even if it covered all other factors relevant to keeping people safe.

In cases that will terminate early or where suspension of probation contact is anticipated, we expect to see sufficient planning for the active period of supervision and planning for a clear handover to other agencies at the point when the case is terminated or supervision is suspended.

Delivery information (Back to top)

The questions in this section are asked to gather evidence to allow the lead inspector to draw out themes about delivery for achieving change and keeping people safe from the inspected cases.

They do not have a direct bearing on the summary judgement for assessment.

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

2.5.15 Was there effective multi-agency working, including information-sharing, in respect of safeguarding children?

Cases where there is an active child protection plan are excluded from suspension of probation contact. In other cases where there are current, active concerns about safeguarding children, we expect to see probation practitioners working in partnership with other agencies involved in the case up to the point where the case is terminated early or supervision is suspended. This applies in cases where concerns for children arise from the person on probation, and when children in contact with the person on probation are at risk from others. We expect to see information-sharing, both in terms of formal reports for multi-agency meetings, and informal updates to other agencies, such as children’s social care, about changes in the case.

2.5.16 Was there effective multi-agency working, including information-sharing, in respect of domestic abuse?

In cases where there are current concerns about domestic abuse, whether the person on probation is the perpetrator, victim, or both, we expect to see probation practitioners working in partnership with other agencies involved in the case up to the point where there is early termination or where supervision is suspended. This includes information-sharing in terms of formal reports for multi-agency meetings, such as multi-agency risk assessment conferences (MARAC), and informal updates to other agencies, such as police and domestic abuse workers, about changes in the case.

Before suspension of probation contact, we expect to see clear handover or exit planning to ensure other agencies have been made aware of the impact of suspension and cessation of active monitoring.

The Probation Service should actively monitor any information received in respect of domestic abuse, including information about new addresses or new partners, after supervision has been suspended; new information received should be investigated and shared with other relevant agencies as necessary, to ensure a continued response to potential domestic abuse during the suspension period. This might include making referrals to specific domestic abuse services.

The Probation Service should also respond to any information-sharing requests from other agencies that may be received after probation contact has been suspended. That should include continued attendance at MARAC in relevant cases.

2.5.18 In MAPPA cases, is there evidence of coordinated multi-agency oversight, including joint working with the police?

In all MAPPA cases, irrespective of the category and level, we expect to see a coordinated multi-agency approach. We expect to see joint working with the police, particularly in cases where the person on probation has committed sexual offences. In all MAPPA cases, we expect to see clear management oversight of the work of the probation practitioner.

Where a person on probation is assessed as medium risk of harm to children or higher, but there are no active concerns (they have no children of their own and are not known to be in contact with any children) then it may be that no further multi-agency liaison is required, beyond initial enquiries to verify this, or additional enquiries to confirm there are no changes. In this situation, inspectors will answer this question positively. The Probation Service should actively monitor any information received in respect of safeguarding children after supervision has been suspended; new information received should be investigated and shared with other relevant agencies as necessary, to ensure continued safeguarding of children during the suspension period.

2.3.1 Are personalised, coordinated and engaging services delivered to achieve change?

Note: Delivery includes supervision appointments and interventions.

Delivery (Back to top)

Delivery

‘Delivery’ refers to the delivery of an intervention not the delivery of an outcome. This means that where there has been non-compliance delivery can be sufficient even if the intended outcome has not been achieved because of that non-compliance.

Early termination and cases where contact is suspended

Some cases are terminated early or probation contact with the person on probation is suspended before the end of the order or licence. In these cases, we expect to see some delivery by the Probation Service during the active period of probation contact and evidence of delivery through onward referral and building exit plans for the person on probation. We do not inspect delivery by other agencies beyond the point where probation contact is suspended or a case is terminated. In cases that will terminate early or where contact is suspended, we expect to see front-loaded delivery to meet the needs of the person on probation during the period of probation contact before suspension.

a) Are the right services delivered to engage the person on probation and achieve change?

Probation contact includes both interventions and supervision appointments. In considering the quality of probation contact, we include the nature of the probation contact and the level (amount) of that probation contact. Both elements should be compatible with engaging the person on probation and achieving change.

Inspectors will consider the nature, length and requirements of the order or post-release supervision. In cases that will terminate early or where supervision will be suspended, we expect delivery to be front-loaded during the active period of supervision. Timely referral to services that can meet ongoing need once supervision has ended should be made, where relevant.

In addition to ensuring that specific interventions are delivered, the probation practitioner has additional offender management activities, including encouraging motivation, promoting and sustaining hope, and overseeing the overall direction and sequencing of activities. Supervision appointments should be offered based on need and there may also be other unstructured discussions between the probation practitioner or others and the person on probation, to support them in addressing their identified needs.

Where a person on probation is electronically monitored, this should be used as part of the approach to achieving change, where relevant. Where a person on probation is undertaking an accredited programme, effective delivery should include regular appointments with the probation practitioner while the programme or other work is being undertaken. Where the quality of probation contact has been insufficient, inspectors will identify whether that was because of the nature or level (amount) of probation contact, or whether it was due to non-compliance.

b) Does delivery take account of the person on probation’s strengths and protective factors, and seek to reinforce or develop these to build resilience?

As part of a personalised approach, the probation practitioner should consider the person on probation’s lived experience, including their familial, environmental and social context. The content of delivery, interventions and activities should be relevant to the person on probation’s life. Tasks and activities should be achievable for the person on probation. Delivery should be appropriate to the stage the person on probation is at in the cycle of change.

We expect probation practitioners to engage with key people on probation in the life of the person on probation, where appropriate, to support engagement and achieve change. Given the evidence of the central role that can be played by partners and some family members, probation staff should consider how to support and maintain these crucial relationships, where that can be done safely. In some circumstances, there may be other professional workers with a key role in the life of the person on probation.

In cases where supervision has been suspended, we expect delivery during any active period of supervision and handover or exit planning to support engagement with direct delivery by the Probation Service, and by other services after contact is suspended. Where there are ongoing conditions or requirements, such as drug testing or accredited programmes, we expect to see clarity with providers about ongoing communication about compliance. During the period of suspended probation contact, we still expect to see a response to new information or concerns raised by others working with the person on probation.

c) Do the services provided address all the person on probation’s diversity factors making them the most likely to engage the person on probation and achieve change?

Delivery should take account of all diversity factors relevant to the person on probation. This includes needs related to equity, diversity and inclusion.

We recognise the nine protected characteristics (sex, age, race, religion and belief, disability, pregnancy and maternity, sexual identity, gender reassignment and marriage or civil partnership) and expect to see delivery that recognises and considers the impact of all of these for the person on probation.

For example, delivery should:

explicitly consider the person on probation’s race or ethnic background in the context of their community and the impact this might have on the person on probation
clearly set out how any disabilities, learning difficulties, and mental health or neurodiversity needs will be accommodated and considered
consider how the person on probation’s speech, language or communication needs may impact on their understanding and engagement and ensure work is appropriately personalised
consider the impact of sex, sexual orientation or gender identity on the person on probation
accommodate any religious commitments or care responsibilities of the person on probation
consider all key areas of intersectionality, self-identity, cultural heritage which impact on the person on probation’s lived experience.

As part of any direct delivery of services by the Probation Service before early termination or suspension, we expect consideration to be given to factors related to diversity and engagement, to encourage compliance. That would include personalised delivery of services, appropriate to the person on probation, before suspension, and an understanding of the relevant factors so that handover can take place to appropriate agencies for ongoing support after suspension. We would expect to see active referrals, brokering and information-sharing with other agencies to encourage ongoing engagement, with a focus on addressing diversity and inclusion.

d) Is focus given to maintaining an effective relationship with the person on probation, encouraging and enabling engagement?

The probation practitioner should focus on developing a rapport with the person on probation and establishing a sense of trust from the outset. Methods should be used that engage, interest, and motivate the person on probation, are meaningful to them, and enable them to participate fully. We expect to see evidence that the probation practitioner has created the space and opportunity to build a trusting and supportive working relationship with the person on probation and prioritised meaningful collaboration with them.

Probation practitioners should respond to incidents of non-engagement using a clear, measured and motivating approach to encourage participation. Proactive work should continue with people on probation who have been subject to warnings, breach proceedings or recall. Where relevant, electronic monitoring should be used appropriately to support engagement.

Where a person on probation has been recalled to prison, work should start immediately to prepare for custody-based sentence planning, or release where appropriate. For those breached on community orders, we will look for evidence of actions taken to re-engage the person on probation, including discussion about the reasons for enforcement, and how to avoid future non-compliance. Working through challenges such as this can strengthen the working relationship between the person on probation and the probation practitioner and can be a critical part of achieving change.

In cases where suspension of probation contact is anticipated, we expect any issues of non-compliance to be dealt with swiftly during the active period of supervision, to maximise opportunities for services to be delivered.

e) Is delivery aligned and coordinated with the delivery of other services including exit planning and referral to universal services where relevant?

People on probation should be supported in accessing targeted, specialist and mainstream services, which includes probation practitioners supporting any existing engagement with services in the community and ensuring that its own interventions do not distract from this.

Where other agencies or organisations are delivering services to the person on probation, we expect to see the probation practitioner coordinating that activity. This could include supporting the person on probation at a first appointment or session(s) with other agencies as part of handover or exit work. Clear lines of responsibility should be in place for the different agencies involved or working with the person on probation, with clarity about who is doing what and when, to maximise the impact of working together for the benefit of the person on probation. Probation practitioners should ensure information is shared with and obtained from other agencies to align and coordinate the delivery of services, including regular communication about attendance and progress.

The probation practitioner needs to refer the person on probation to mainstream services, if required, to ensure continuity of support once a period of active supervision ends. This is so that the person on probation can continue to achieve positive change after the period of supervision ends. Signposting alone may not be sufficient; instead, and depending on the circumstances of the person on probation, active referral, arranging introductions and support to attend may be needed.

f) Are the quality and impact of the work with the person on probation to achieve change reviewed and adapted where necessary?

Reviewing is an ongoing process; it should recognise and respond to any changes in the circumstances of the person on probation. We expect to see evidence that the probation practitioner is proactively reviewing the quality of work being delivered and considering whether the work is having the intended impact, including in response to any changes in circumstances. In considering the quality of probation contact, we include the nature of the probation contact and the level (amount) of that probation contact. Both elements should be compatible with engaging the person on probation and achieving change.

Written reviews may form part of the reviewing process; the timing of written reviews should depend on the needs of the case, and, except for reviewing immediately after release, we do not set any specific timescale for this.

Reviewing should consider the person on probation’s engagement to date, their responses to the activities and interventions that have been delivered, and whether they are achieving the desired changes or progress is being made. Positive change for a person on probation can be a gradual, non-linear, and multidimensional process. If the probation practitioner identifies anything that is not working to achieve change for the person on probation, it should adjust delivery to ensure it fits the current situation.

g) Are enforcement actions taken when appropriate?

This question refers to early enforcement action, including the issue of warning letters or applications to vary licence conditions, as well as formal action such as breach or recall. Prompt formal enforcement action should be taken when needed and appropriate.

We expect reasonable efforts to be made to engage with the person on probation at the earliest stage of any non-compliance, before any formal enforcement action (breach or recall) is taken. A variety of ways to engage should be used, for example telephone calls or a home visit. If there have been several incidents of non-compliance, we would expect to see formal enforcement unless a clear rationale has been set out for not doing this. For all decisions about formal enforcement, we expect probation practitioners to bear in mind the overall level of compliance, any factors related to risk of harm or likelihood of reoffending, and the ‘public interest’ in enforcement. There should be clear decisions made about how enforcement issues will be followed up after supervision has been suspended.

This is a balanced judgement, and it must be clear that when professional judgement is used, this is appropriate, and that the person on probation does not inappropriately dictate the management of the case.

If non-compliance was a barrier to delivering planned services, this will not necessarily result in a negative answer. A judgement will be made on the level of effort, skills and tenacity used to try to engage the person on probation in the interventions.

Summary judgement: Are personalised, coordinated and engaging services delivered to achieve change?

Inspectors will judge whether the overall quality of delivery is sufficient to engage the person on probation and achieve change. This should be proportionate to the needs of the person on probation and the nature of the sentence and should be sufficiently personalised, prioritising the most important factors related to engaging and achieving change for the person on probation.

Inspectors will consider their answers to all the questions in this section and decide whether the strengths outweigh any deficiencies. We are not looking for perfection, but instead for sufficient planning in the circumstances of the case. Where there are deficits, inspectors will consider their impact in the context of the case. So, in some circumstances, insufficient planning for a single critical factor, such as failing to communicate sufficiently with a prisoner before release from custody, may be enough to lead to a judgement of insufficient.

Well-focused delivery is personalised, delivered appropriately without drift, and clearly focuses on what was trying to be achieved.

Delivery should be proportionate to the needs, characteristics and circumstances of the person on probation and commensurate with the nature of the offence and the length and context of the person’s involvement with the probation service. Personalised delivery means that the person on probation’s context is understood, delivery is personalised, sequenced and tailored accordingly, and the person on probation understands what is being delivered and why. Sufficient delivery for a person on probation with a limited history of offending and few needs may be less frequent and have less content than for a person on probation who has had more involvement with the criminal justice system or a higher level of need. In cases that have been terminated early or supervision has been suspended, we expect to see delivery during any active period of supervision and handover or exit planning to support the person on probation to engage both with direct delivery by the Probation Service, and to receive services from other agencies after early termination or after supervision has been suspended.

2.3.2 Are personalised, coordinated and engaging services delivered to keep people safe?

Note: HM Inspectorate of Probation expects all factors relevant to risk of harm to be addressed, not just factors related to risk of serious harm. Delivery includes supervision appointments and interventions.

a) Are the right services delivered to keep other people safe, contributing to effective risk management?

We will consider the duration of the person on probation’s period of engagement and look at the work that could reasonably be delivered during that timescale. The right services should be delivered to contribute to effective risk management and the order of interventions should be considered, to ensure that critical factors to keep other people safe are addressed as a priority.

Where a person on probation is electronically monitored, this should be used where relevant to contribute to effective risk management.

We recognise that interventions may need to be staggered, sequenced and broken into smaller meaningful ‘chunks’ for the person on probation. There should be a focus on establishing effective professional relationships with the person on probation from the outset, to maximise the benefit of intervention and support. The probation practitioner should be mindful of the timescales available to work with the person on probation and ensure they use this time effectively.

b) Is attention given to the protection of actual and potential victims in the delivery of services?

In all cases, regardless of whether the statutory victim contact scheme applies, probation practitioners should identify whether there is a previous victim or other identifiable potential victims who could be at risk of harm. This is often the situation in domestic abuse cases. There should be active management of the case that gives priority to victims’ safety. Evidence could include ensuring that the person on probation’s place of residence or employment does not increase the risk to any victims or potential victims; active liaison with police, children’s services or other agencies; discussion with employers or employment agencies about restrictions on employment; use of MAPPA and ViSOR to access and share information; and minimising probation contact through appropriate consideration of unpaid work placements, reporting times or programme allocation. Most of the restrictive requirements and conditions available in orders and licences are intended to protect known or potential victims. These conditions can be varied, if necessary, after the start of the order or licence.

There should be clear and regular communication with a victim worker, or anyone else working with a victim, to ensure victims’ views about their safety are known and taken into consideration. Delivery should include a response to any reasonable wishes of victims.

In cases that are terminated early or where supervision has been suspended, we expect direct work during the active period of supervision. Before suspension of probation contact, we expect to see clear handover or exit planning to ensure other agencies have been made aware of the impact of suspension and cessation of active monitoring by the Probation Service.

We expect to see regular check-in probation contact with people on probation who have no fixed address. That probation contact should be used to check and follow up any factors relevant to protecting actual and potential victims.

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

We expect to see evidence of regular and effective communication between all agencies involved in the case, to manage and reduce risk of harm. Multi-agency forums, such as MAPPA and MARAC, must be proactive and include the right people to allow effective action to be taken. We expect to see evidence of appropriate challenge and escalation, including by senior managers, if difficulties cannot be resolved. In some cases, there will be no need to undertake multi-agency work.

In cases that are terminated early or where contact has been suspended, we expect to see clear coordination of activity during the active period of supervision. Before suspension of probation contact, we expect to see clear handover or exit planning to ensure other agencies have been made aware of the impact of suspension and cessation of active monitoring.

d) Are home visits undertaken where they would support the effective management of risk of harm?

We expect to see home visits used in all cases where there are child or adult safeguarding or domestic abuse issues, unless there is a specific reason for not doing this (for example, the person on probation is resident in approved premises). In other cases, it is good practice to conduct home visits, to understand the circumstances in which the person on probation lives, and to meet partners and other family members.

e) Are the right services delivered to promote safety for the person on probation?

Delivery should build on existing support, protective structures and interventions that are in place to promote the person on probation’s safety. It should also identify new structures and support, where appropriate.

Where there are risks to the person on probation outside the home, probation practitioners should take a contextual safeguarding approach to working with the person on probation. They should follow locally agreed procedures, and, in instances where the person on probation is being exploited, make a referral to the National Referral Mechanism.

Delivery should provide an opportunity for the person on probation to express views about their safety and what is needed from their perspective to achieve safety. The person on probation should be actively involved in delivery to achieve safety in a collaborative manner. Work should be ‘with’ the person on probation, rather than something that is delivered ‘to’ the person on probation.

Delivery should respond to what is happening in a person on probation’s life. We expect practitioners to be alert to any changes that indicate a person on probation is becoming vulnerable or that vulnerabilities are increasing, or that they are at risk of experiencing victimisation or exploitation, particularly if changes suggest the concerns are new or increasing. Probation practitioners should demonstrate ongoing professional curiosity about what is happening in the person on probation’s life, be alert to the range of types of potential exploitation and respond appropriately when there are concerns.

f) Are services delivered collaboratively with other agencies to promote safety for the person on probation?

We expect probation practitioners to engage with key people in the life of the person on probation, to support effective management of risk of harm. In some circumstances, there may be other professional workers with a key role in the life of the person on probation and, with appropriate information-sharing, they may also be engaged to support risk management. Delivery should consider the role of others in keeping the person on probation safe. This might include multi-agency or partnership approaches, work with health, social care agencies and the police, and direct work with the person on probation to identify and implement ways to help them keep safe, such as strengths and relationship-based activities. Delivery could include a range of activities to address victimisation, vulnerability and exploitation.

In cases that are terminated early or where supervision has been suspended, we expect to see clear communication with other agencies to ensure they have been made aware of the impact of early termination or suspension on safeguarding the person on probation.

g) Are the quality and impact of work to safeguard the person on probation reviewed and adapted where necessary?

Reviewing is an ongoing process; it should recognise and respond to any changes in the person on probation’s circumstances. Written reviews may form part of the reviewing process; the timing of written reviews should depend on the needs of the case, and, except for reviewing immediately after release, we do not set any specific timescale for this. Reviewing should consider the person on probation’s engagement to date, their responses to the activities and interventions that have been delivered, and whether they are keeping people safe. Flexibility is important to ensure that a personalised approach is maintained.

The probation practitioner should proactively review the quality of work being delivered and consider whether the work is having a positive impact on achieving safety for the person on probation.

Delivery should remain current and relevant to the person on probation and consider any changes to their context and wider familial and social environment, strengths, protective and structural factors. Further offending or concerning behaviours, changes in medication, engagement, mental health, or accommodation, for example, may impact on what activity is required. The probation practitioner should then review the delivery of services to check it is having the intended impact.

Where probation supervision is coming to an end, there should be clear exit strategies that recognise work that needs to continue in order to safeguard the person on probation.

Summary judgement: Are personalised, coordinated and engaging services delivered to keep people safe?

‘Keeping people safe’ has two elements – one is contributing to community safety and the other is the safety of the person on probation. Inspectors will judge whether the overall delivery of the sentence meets the needs of the case. In post-release cases, this question refers only to work delivered after release.

Inspectors need to consider their answers to all the questions in this section and decide whether the strengths outweigh any deficiencies. We are not looking for perfection, but for sufficient delivery and activity that focuses on how to achieve safety for both the person on probation and the community, given that both elements are essential and often linked. Sufficient delivery is where the right measures are in place to keep the person on probation and the community safe. Where there are shortcomings, inspectors will consider these in the context of the person on probation.

In cases where supervision has been suspended, we expect sufficient delivery during the active period of supervision; sufficient handover to other relevant agencies at the point supervision is suspended; and ongoing active monitoring of and response to new information received, to contribute to community safety and keep the person on probation safe. That might include making a child safeguarding referral or initiating police domestic abuse checks.

Whether the person on probation has engaged or not, inspectors will expect the probation practitioner to recognise their overarching responsibility for the safety of the person on probation and the community, and to ensure risks to the person on probation and community are minimised. In cases where there have been no factors related to risk of harm or safety of the person on probation, inspectors will answer ‘yes’.

Delivery should be bespoke to the person on probation’s characteristics and circumstances. It should depend on the person on probation’s safety needs, characteristics and circumstances, concerns in relation to the safety of others and the community, and the context of the person on probation’s involvement with the probation practitioner.

Sufficient delivery for the person on probation needs to be tailored, well focused and personalised according to the identified needs and concerns. If probation contact is short, delivery may be focused on or give more consideration to referrals, exit arrangements, and handover to mainstream services, to ensure ongoing support is in place for the person on probation.

Where there are no factors related to keeping the person on probation or community safe, this question will be answered ‘not applicable’.

Case summary (Back to top)

Management oversight.

We consider the quality of management oversight in the cases that we inspect.

How would you describe management oversight in the case?

HM Inspectorate of Probation’s position statement on management oversight is published on our website¹.

Effective management oversight is much more than countersigning. It includes elements of quality assurance, staff supervision, dealing with developing areas of concern in probation cases and facilitating improvements in practice. It should focus on ensuring that actual or potential victims and people on probation themselves are sufficiently protected from harm. Management oversight should focus mainly on cases that have been assessed as high or very high risk of harm to others, MAPPA cases or those with active domestic abuse or child safeguarding issues. Oversight is particularly important at the point where any such cases may be terminated early or have probation contact suspended to ensure effective information-sharing and contingency planning for changes that may take place after termination/suspension. We also expect managers to be aware of, and actively monitoring, cases that are not currently assessed at these levels of risk of harm, but where the risk of harm has the potential to increase. It is not solely for managers to make themselves aware of cases requiring oversight. Probation practitioners also have a responsibility to highlight to managers those cases requiring oversight

https://hmiprobation.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/about-us/our-inspections/inspection-documentation/ ↩︎

Cookies on HM Inspectorate of Probation

Table of contents