Abstract
This report is the outcome from a series of inspections carried out by HMIP between April and September 2014 and is focused on the operational impacts of early Transforming Rehabilitation implementation. The overall approach by the inspectors was based on observing and interviewing both National Probation Service (NPS) and Community Rehabilitation Company (CRC) staff, case inspection and interviewing a small number of offenders (25) of whom only two were supervised by the NPS. The recommendations are outlined in four distinct sections in order to replicate the overall Inspection methodology: Court Work, Assessment and Allocation Interface between NPS and CRC CRC Start of Order NPS Start of Order
There is a brief but helpful ‘Contextual information’ section (p. 6) which outlines the key dates in the transition to the new arrangements under Transforming Rehabilitation reforms and highlights the changes and additions to the work of the probation service pre-dating the latest changes and particularly in relation to the timeliness of court-based assessments. In this context, the foreword comments pointedly: It is important to note that a number of the findings set out in this report already existed before the changes on 1 June 2014. We found that the process of implementing change had exposed existing shortfalls in systems, processes, practice quality, consistency, leadership and management. (p. 4) Reports for the court were of a good quality but few were based on a full written assessment of the risks of reoffending or of causing serious harm. It was unusual for a full discussion about diversity issues to take place at any point in the court process, and often this was only undertaken in the first appointment with an offender manager. A small number of cases should have been allocated to the NPS rather than the CRC. These were mostly cases that should have been subject to Multi-Agency Public Protection arrangements and this had been overlooked. These cases had to be reallocated with all the attendant work and disruption. In a significant number of cases, a full Risk of Serious Harm analysis had not been completed by the NPS or if it had been done the CRC had not received it. This created obvious problems for the allocation to appropriate staff and the appropriate level of ensuing supervision. The fragmentation of contact with offenders going through the court process and the increasing use of group induction meant that many offenders had contact with numerous probation staff before meeting the offender manager who would be working with them. The HMIP report reflects that delays in starting to form the crucial working relationship with their supervisor might well reduce the likelihood of effective work being undertaken.
This Inspection catches the transition arrangements for deconstructing local probation areas into the new arrangements of public National Probation Service and privatized community rehabilitation companies. The detail contained in this 63-page report may be of interest to those practitioners and managers who have lived through one of the most significant changes to probation in its entire history
Transforming Rehabilitation –Early Implementation, HM Inspectorate of Probation (December 2014) is available online at: www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprobation