23/11/2022
Police Oracle
Inspectors judged just one quarter of the cases they examined as being of a satisfactory standard in relation to their assessment of risk of serious harm.
Probation inspectors have today published their remaining inspections of London probation services, also known as Probation Delivery Units (PDUs), which have resulted in another set of poor ratings for the Capital.
Lewisham and Bromley PDU was rated as ‘Inadequate’ – the lowest rating possible – with inspections of Newham PDU and Barking, Dagenham and Havering PDU both rated as ‘Requires improvement’.
These areas join Hammersmith, Fulham, Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster PDU, Lambeth PDU and Ealing and Hillingdon PDU – which were all rated ‘Inadequate’ in reports published last month, completing inspections of a third of the city’s probation services. These are the first inspections since the probation service was renationalised and reunified in June of last year.
Chief Inspector of Probation Justin Russell did not mince his words:
“These reports conclude a hugely disappointing period for our inspection programme, with all the London probation services we have inspected requiring immediate improvements. We knew that they were struggling to cope with the unification of probation services in 2021, and the lasting impact of Covid-19, but we have been shocked by the level of poor-quality services. The Probation Service must look at these six inspection reports and bring about swift and effective change in the capital.”
Inspectors judged just one quarter of the cases they examined as being of a satisfactory standard in relation to their assessment of risk of serious harm. And domestic abuse checks with the police were not made in almost two thirds (64%) of the cases where they should have been.
Mr Russell highlighted the key cause of this poor performance as long-standing under-staffing. In Lewisham and Bromley for instance, when the inspection started the area was missing:
The obvious consequence was that the remaining staff were consistently working well above their agreed workload. Although efforts are being made to recruit new staff, it is a daunting time to become a probation officer with newly qualified officers on 150% of their workload target from their first day at work. Mr Russell summarised the dismal situation:
“A vicious circle has been created, whereby high vacancy numbers – 500 vacant positions in London remained unfilled at the time of our inspections – and high sickness absences mean higher caseloads for those staff that remain. As a result, cases cannot be managed properly, increasing the chances of a person on probation reoffending. The assessment and management of the risks of serious harm to the public are far from satisfactory in the cases we have inspected. And not enough safeguarding and domestic abuse enquiries are being made to safely manage risks of serious harm. London expects better from its probation services and deserves to be protected from such risks”.
The Chief Inspector made it clear that many staff retained their commitment and motivation to help people on probation and highlighted some areas of positive practice including understanding of diversity, better delivery of unpaid work and improvements in the service provided to victims of crime. However, he stressed that the lack of resources was of such a scale that it simply could not be overcome:
“Officers’ determination, though admirable, cannot be realised without vacancies being filled, better management oversight and better delivery of all the services that people on probation need to turn away from crime. Local services must get significant support from regional and national level, to face the challenges ahead and halt the level of decline.”