‘Significant gap between strategic ambition and frontline delivery’ in public protection inspection of Probation Service’s London region

Martin Jones, Chief Inspector of Probation, said: “Leaders demonstrated a strong commitment to improving the quality of practice which was supported by well-developed systems for performance management and learning. Despite these positive steps, the quality of practice observed during this inspection remained inconsistent, and inspectors did not find enough evidence that these strategic improvements had translated into consistent outcomes in frontline delivery.”

Context

• This report focused specifically on public protection work being delivered across the London region of the Probation Service. London is the largest probation region in England and Wales.
• One hundred and two cases were inspected where the Inspectorate examined assessment, planning, implementation and delivery, and reviewing, all through the lens of public protection work. At the time of the inspection announcement, the region supervised 37,195 people in the community or in custody.
• The London region of the Probation Service covers 18 Probation Delivery Units (PDUs). These are: Barnet; Brent; Enfield; Haringey, Redbridge & Waltham Forest; Camden & Islington; City, Hackney & Tower Hamlets; Hammersmith, Fulham, Kensington, Chelsea & Westminster; Ealing & Hillingdon; Harrow & Hounslow; Kingston, Richmond & Sutton; Croydon & Merton; Lambeth; Wandsworth; Southwark; Lewisham & Bromley; Bexley & Greenwich; Newham; Barking, Dagenham & Havering.
• Staffing numbers were improving in the region, however a significant gap remained with a 33 per cent vacancy rate at probation officer grade.

Findings

• The inspection identified a significant gap between strategic ambition and frontline delivery. Innovative operating models, specialist multi-agency forums and enhanced quality assurance processes demonstrated a region that was actively seeking solutions to persistent challenges. However, weaknesses in assessment, planning, implementation, and reviewing remained evident across casework.
• Inspectors described leadership to be a particular strength of the London region, with regional leaders displaying a strong understanding of public protection. Leaders were able to provide a coherent account of how workforce pressures, recruitment difficulties and organisational change had affected practice.
• Workforce capability was found to be a significant issue affecting the region’s ability to adequately protect the public. Leaders described an inexperienced workforce which was managing increasingly complex caseloads. The loss of experienced practitioners had reduced organisational expertise and confidence.
• Information sharing with the Metropolitan Police remains a longstanding concern. Information-sharing protocols are established and understood by both organisations, however, they are not consistently followed, and limitations relating to the timeliness and scope of information provided can reduce the information’s value in informing assessments and risk management activity.
• There was evidence of positive partnership working with safeguarding services, victim organisations and wider criminal justice partners.

Mr Jones added: “Issues with information-sharing remains a longstanding, and persistent issue in the London region. While leaders have taken positive steps to improve the quality of information requests and reduce rejections, urgent prioritisation is needed to improve the quality of information available to maximise public protection which should be a shared priority.”

This report makes seven recommendations. Four are for the region, including to develop practitioner’s confidence and skills in the use of professional curiosity and challenging conversations to identify, analyse, assess, plan, and respond to indicators of risk effectively. Three are for HM Prison and Probation Service, including to develop a national strategic approach to information-sharing with the police and children’s services to support regions in protecting the public.

Notes to editor

1. Probation Delivery Units (PDUs) replaced Community Rehabilitation Companies (CRCs) and the National Probation Service (NPS), which merged into a unified Probation Service in June 2021.
2. HM Inspectorate’s Dynamic Inspection of Public Protection is a new programme which started in October 2025. The Inspectorate has paused its core adult programme to undertake six months of dynamic inspection activity, focussed solely on the Service’s delivery of public protection. It will inspect all twelve regions, then deliver follow-up activity with strategic leaders and managers to identify what can be done to support and guide regional leaders into improving work, increasing knowledge and confidence and providing a solid foundation for further improvement. 
3. The London region is one of 11 probation regions, with an additional region in Wales.
4. The report is available on our website on 20 August 2026.
5. HM Inspectorate of Probation is the independent inspector of youth justice and probation services across England and Wales. We report on the effectiveness of probation and youth justice service work with adults and children. We highlight good and poor practice and use our data and information to encourage high-quality services. We are independent of government and speak independently.
6. The Inspectorate typically uses a four-point scale: ‘Outstanding’, ‘Good’, ‘Requires improvement’ and ‘Inadequate’ for inspections, however, has opted out of one-word ratings for this inspection programme.
7. For media enquiries, please contact Head of Communications: media@hmiprobation.gov.uk (E-mail address)