By Noreen Wallace, et al.
The implementation of the standard determinate sentence 40 (SDS40) scheme in July 2024 and the subsequent announcement of the Government’s sentencing review have placed at centre stage the ability of the Probation Service to supervise and manage people effectively in the community. To achieve the best results, the Probation Service needs sufficient, well-trained staff to meet those demands. This thematic inspection therefore comes at a timely moment. Since probation services unified in 2021, our inspection reports have routinely described significant shortfalls in the number of probation practitioners, resulting in excessive workloads for many, which have had a negative impact on the quality of work undertaken. Strategic plans have acknowledged the need to recruit practitioners, and this has been undertaken at pace; from the start of the 2021 financial year to the end of the 2023/2024 financial year, over 3,500 trainee probation officers have started training. While wholly commendable and necessary, recruitment at this scale places considerable demands on existing resources and has further depleted the number of practitioners, as staff have been recruited into the management and support roles required for the new recruits. Despite successful recruitment campaigns that have attracted many trainee probation officers and probation services officers, there are still shortages at the frontline, exacerbated by increased attrition rates. The staff group is also not sufficiently diverse, and further work is needed to understand why there are some disproportionate outcomes for certain groups in the recruitment processes. While probation staff can make a huge positive difference to people’s lives, the work is also demanding and, at times, stressful. Probation practitioners have often been operating with high, and in some cases excessively high, workloads, which has undoubtedly had an impact on the quality of work. The success of community supervision depends on skilled practitioners who can build rapport, assess risks, and rehabilitate people on probation. However, we have found that practitioners are not always sufficiently equipped with the necessary skills and knowledge to work with the cases they are allocated. A closer look at the current training arrangements shows that considerable efforts have been made to meet the demands of high new starter numbers. However, there is still room to improve the way that training is delivered, to equip practitioners better with the skills to work effectively with people on probation. The recruitment of trainee probation officers has now rightly moved away from seeking only to attract graduates, and a range of pathways is now available to attract a more diverse workforce. The programme is intense and not all recruits are prepared for the demands it places on them. To maximise the prospect of positive outcomes, it is essential that recruits are tested adequately, to ensure that those who are appointed have the potential and commitment to become competent probation officers. Evaluation of the recruitment and training methods used for each intake is needed to have a better understanding of what produces the most effective outcomes. There is considerable investment in training, and it is vital that this investment is focused on building a stable and committed staff group who want to remain within the Service. Considering the pace of probation training, it is crucial that the support arrangements for newly qualified officers are strengthened to allow them to hone their skills before taking on full caseloads; failing to do this can place pressures on new officers that can be overwhelming and counterproductive to long-term development and retention. HM Prison and Probation Service recognises the reasons why many staff leave; high workloads and the ongoing pressures faced by the Service are common factors. Given the considerable demands of the work, and its impact on public protection, pay is also inevitably an issue. Pay needs to reflect the significant level of risk and responsibility that probation staff hold. Another key issue is the tension between practitioners’ professional priorities and the expectations placed on them by the service. More needs to be done to harmonise these expectations and ensure that practitioners feel proud of the valuable work they do, to change lives and keep communities safe. The sentencing review that is now under way was triggered by the capacity pressures in the prison system. Increased supervision in the community will inevitably be considered and the public needs to feel confident that community supervision is safe and effective. Well-resourced, trained, and supported probation staff make this possible. Overall, while there are initiatives aimed at improving staff experiences, challenges remain in building a capable and stable workforce. We have made recommendations based on our findings which, if followed, should lead to positive improvements in the recruitment, retention, and training of probation staff
Manchester: HM Inspectorate of Probation January 2025 65p.
