Cutting crime: better community sentences Contents

---

Chapter 5: Challenges faced by the Probation Service

198.Throughout our inquiry, we heard that the Probation Service is facing a range of challenges. It suffers from staff shortages, resulting in unmanageable caseloads, and its mission is being questioned as its focus has shifted from the supervision of low-level offenders to the protection of the public against high-risk criminals. It also comes under criticism for the decline in the number and quality of pre-sentence reports it produces. This affects whether community orders are imposed, as well as their effectiveness. We review these challenges in this chapter.

Staffing issues

199.The Probation Service is understaffed. The National Audit Office told us that “in December 2022, 1,762 out of 6,158 Probation Officer roles were unfilled, a vacancy rate of 29%”.373 Academics from Sheffield Hallam University confirmed that, as of March 2023, there was “a shortfall of 1,771 level 4 Probation Officers against the required staffing level of 6,158”.374 The then Chief Inspector of Probation Justin Russell pointed out that the vacancy rate was “34% in London” and “over 50%” in certain areas of London.375 Vacancy rates for probation officer roles are high in all 12 regions of the Probation Service (see Table 1).

200.Academics at Sheffield Hallam University told us that “The impact of Transforming Rehabilitation (TR) has been disastrous for the retention of staff and experienced staff”. They explained that “the departure of a generation of qualified and experienced staff including Probation Officers and Probation Services Officers … who could not accommodate the changes resulting from TR and chose to exit probation work”.376 (A Probation Services Officer (PSO) supervises low- and medium-risk offenders while a Probation Officer (PO) also supervises higher-risk offenders.)

201.Understaffing results in unsustainable caseloads. The National Audit Office told us that “many probation staff were managing more than 70 cases, against a suggested case load of 30 to 60”. They added that over 90% of the Probation Service’s “sub-regions” on which data is held “were operating at or above 100% of their operational capacity”.377 As Justin Russell put it, “the key challenge with staffing is that, if you do not have enough staff, it translates into big caseloads, and unmanageable caseloads; 70% of the Probation Officers we interview think that their caseloads are unmanageable”.378 NAPO argued that “Chronic staff shortages mean workloads are dangerously high and unmanageable for the majority of staff”.379

Table 1: Staffing levels (Full-Time Equivalent) for probation officers across the 12 regions of the Probation Service as of 30 June 2023

Region	Staff in post	Required staffing	Difference	Vacancy rate	Trainees380
London	521	913	-392	43%	273
South Central	228	379	-151	40%	106
East of England	431	704	-273	39%	199
Kent, Surrey and Sussex	249	400	-151	38%	113
East Midlands	294	463	-169	37%	214
Yorkshire and the Humber	497	771	-273	35%	271
North West	431	667	-236	35%	235
Greater Manchester	261	401	-140	35%	156
Probation Service Total	4,390	6,780	-2,390	35%	2,385
South West	326	481	-155	32%	177
West Midlands	479	688	-209	30%	309
North East	318	433	-115	27%	128
Wales	346	470	-125	26%	205

Source: Ministry of Justice, ‘HMPPS workforce quarterly: Probation Officer Recruitment annex—June 2023’: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/hm-prison-and-probation-service-workforce-quarterly-june-2023 [accessed 20 September 2023]

202.Unsustainable caseloads make the profession unattractive. Several witnesses mentioned “very high sickness rates”—in the 12 months to 30 June 2023, an average of 12.1 days of work were lost to sick leave among all Probation staff, or 15.1 days among probation officers specifically.381 Others mentioned “low morale”.382 The National Audit Office also flagged “high turnover” and NAPO wrote about “poor retention of experienced staff”383 (see Box 7).

203.Unsustainable caseloads also result in poor performance. Justin Russell told us that—of the 23 local probation areas HMIP had, at that point, inspected since the unification of the service in 2021—13 of them were rated as “inadequate”.384 NAPO shared anecdotal evidence from probation staff that “they only spend about 10–15 minutes with a client”.385 Revolving Doors explained that many people on probation have the “strong belief” that “probation practitioners simply did not have the time to spend getting to know them, their goals, aspirations, and the kinds of support needed to address the root causes of their offending”.386 The charity User Voice finds that people on probation in London are less satisfied with the performance of the Probation Service than people on Probation elsewhere in the country, perhaps because vacancy rates and caseloads are higher in London.387 Women in Prison pointed out that some women do not have an “allocated Probation Officer at all”, do not get an appointment with the Probation Service “unless they ring to arrange it”, and may have to report “to a duty officer rather than a familiar individual officer with whom they can develop a relationship”.388 This all tallies with the finding by HMIP that “the needs of the person are not being met”:

“To give you some data, employment and education needs are being met in only 46% of the cases we inspect; alcohol misuse in only 26% of cases, and drug misuse in only 28% of cases. A lot of needs are not being addressed by the services in place.”389

204.We heard that poor performance disproportionately affects people serving community sentences. “When caseloads are stretched, this may hamper the ability [to] provide detailed support”, the Prison Reform Trust told us, explaining that “this is particularly the case for ‘lower risk’ individuals, who may not be receiving the coverage needed, so drift more towards a higher severity of offending, and are caught up in the cycle of imprisonment.”390 Revolving Doors also said that, because of staff shortages and high caseloads, “probation staff face significant barriers in providing rehabilitative support to people under probation supervision in the community”.391 One of our witnesses who had served a community order told us that she had had 15 probation officers over the years, and that only one had stood out as helpful.392 Another of these witnesses explained that “there were no consistent relationships with Probation”, adding that she “always felt it was just for a tick in the box that they had seen me”.393

205.The Probation Service has been recruiting “a record-breaking number of trainee Probation Officers” in recent years.394 Chief Probation Officer Kim Thornden-Edwards told us that HMPPS has “done brilliantly well” during its recruitment campaign, despite the challenges induced by the unification of the Service and by the pandemic.395 Damian Hinds MP explained that “the Government have put £155 million of extra funding annually into the Probation Service” and told us that the recruitment campaign “will help to bring caseloads down”.396

206.Specifically, HMPPS told us about the recruitment of “1,007 (against a target of 1,000), 1,518 (against a target of 1,500) and 1,514 (against a target of 1,500) trainee [probation officers] in 2020/21, 2021/22 and 2022/23 financial years respectively.” HMPPS added that the capacity increase affected all grades and all regions, explaining that “across Probation Service regions (excluding Approved Premises in England), Staff in Post increased from 16,331 full-time equivalent posts (FTE) as of 30 September 2021 to 18,953 FTE as of 30 June 2023”, which “represents a net increase of 2,622 FTE.”397

207.Recruitment has been slower in certain areas. Kim Thornden-Edwards told us about “a north/south divide”: while “target staffing levels for Probation Service Officers” have been reached in the north, “in the south, particularly London, there is a slower growth trajectory” (see Table 1), which begs questions about the attractiveness of the job.398 Justin Russell explained that “the issue now is not necessarily the lack of money; it is the inability to recruit to fill the vacancies that are being funded.”399

208.Talking about new recruits, Damian Hinds MP told us that “the single most important thing over the next few years will be them developing and becoming full Probation Officers”.400 Justin Russell explained that “there are now many inexperienced trainee Probation Officers who are sometimes not doing the basics”, which means that the recent recruitment campaign “is not yet sufficient to push up the quality”.401 We also heard that “the workforce is skewed towards less experienced staff”, in the early years of their career.402 Statistics show that over 55% of new recruits in non-managerial positions from 2021–22 were aged under 30.403 Kim Thornden-Edwards pointed out that “Probation Officer training takes somewhere between 15 and 21 months, so there is a lag in the system before trainee Probation Officers actually qualify and become competent and confident in role”.404

209.The focus seems to be progressively shifting from recruitment to retention. The Lord Chancellor told us that the Probation Service is recruiting “an additional 500” members of staff during the 2023/24 financial year, down from previous recruitment targets (he explained this was out of concerns that the Probation Service would not have the capacity to onboard a greater number of recruits), adding that “over the coming years, there will be a strong effort to retain” staff.405 We were also told that “an updated Recruitment and Retention Strategy was published internally in May 2023”, which “champions recruitment and retention equally”.406 HMPPS explained that they “aim to increase retention by boosting career progression, improving the overall pay and reward package, prioritising employee health and wellbeing, and improving ways of working for staff”. They also told us about a “Retention Research Team”, said to be researching “the drivers of attrition with the aim of identifying potential causes of resignations” and to be supporting the subsequent “design and implementation of interventions to address the issues”.407 Thanks to these efforts, Kim Thornden-Edwards told us that “retention rates have improved” (see Box 7) such that “we now have a net gain in staff, month on month, for every region across the country”.408

Box 7: Attrition rates among probation staff

HMPPS detailed that attrition rate for all grades (calculated on 12-month rolling averages) had “peaked” in September 2022 at 10.7% and had fallen to 9.9% in the 12 months to 30 June 2023. In relation to qualified probation officers specifically, HMPPS also flagged that: The attrition rate was lower than among all probation staff, at “7.4% for the 12 months ending 30 June 2023.” Attrition rates “vary considerably by Probation Service Region, varying from 4.9% for Wales to 12.2% for London for the 12 months ending 30 June 2023.”

Source: Written evidence from HM Prison and Probation Service (JCS0045)

210.Probation officers can exert a positive influence over people on probation. Justin Russell told us that “there is very strong research evidence that one of the best predictors of reoffending is whether you have a strong relationship with your Probation Officer.”409 Andrew Neilson said that “there is plenty of academic literature in the field of desistance which shows that key to helping people to turn their lives around and not commit crime is having a good relationship with a Probation Officer who understands your particular problems and is trying to do something to help you.”410 Chief Probation Officer Kim Thornden-Edwards said: “We know from theories of change—desistance theory—that the power of the personal relationship, having somebody who is in your corner, who is championing you and who believes in you is very important to the creation of self-efficacy and the ability to believe in your agency to make change.”411

211.We heard from witnesses with lived experience of being on probation about the qualities of a good probation officer. Ayesha described “someone who is compassionate, understanding, with a willingness to … listen”, and argued that “making those connections with somebody out there struggling with drug addiction can mean a great deal to that individual.”412 Caroline said that “they need to be non-judgmental and have a real willingness to help the person.”413 DeQeon considers a good probation officer “someone who has been on the street—someone who has been there and understands what it is like.”414 DeQeon told us about one particular probation officer who had been instrumental to his rehabilitation: “she made me see the light in probation”.415

212.Ayesha told us that she “looked at the job role for a Probation Officer” with a view to qualifying. She also said that she was studying “so I can have the knowledge, not just the experience, and maybe give something back and do something within the criminal justice system.”416 Caroline added that, in her case, “due to my criminal record I have been pushed back quite a few times” from jobs.417 Pavan Dhaliwal pointed out that “clearance and vetting” may take “seven, eight months” when someone with a criminal record applies to join the Probation Service.418

213.The Probation Service found itself understaffed when it unified in 2021. This results in unmanageable caseloads and the profession being unattractive. Despite impressive recruitment campaigns in recent years, vacancy rates remain high. New recruits are inexperienced.

214.An offender’s relationship with their probation officer can be instrumental to their path away from criminal activity. It is recognised as one of the most important factors, and people who have previously been on probation told us about the influence that good probation officers have had on their lives. Probation staff can only build constructive relationships with offenders if they are appropriately trained and have manageable caseloads; this in turn requires adequate staffing levels and minimal vacancy rates.

215.Recent recruitment and training waves should be sustained until vacancies are filled and the service effective. Efforts should be targeted at those areas where recent recruitment waves have been least successful.

An identity crisis

216.We heard that “there is lack of clarity about the fundamentals of what a Probation Officer is”.419 The role has evolved in recent years, giving more prominence to supervision, administrative tasks, and IT systems. Recent reorganisations have also left the Probation Service with “a sense of crisis”.420

Tension between ‘befriending’ and ‘supervising’

217.Justin Russell reminded us that “the roots of the Probation Service lie in the voluntary sector”. He referenced “Salvation Army volunteers” and “people from Church of England temperance societies” to argue that the Probation Service “is firmly rooted in the voluntary sector ethos and commitment.”421 This early form of the Probation Service was put on a statutory basis by the Probation of Offenders Act 1907, section 4(d) of which made it the duty of probation officers to “advise, assist, and befriend” offenders.422 However, Gavin Dingwall explained: “As community sentences have become more punitive, one issue is that the role of a Probation Officer has changed and their supervisory role has increased”.423 The Probation Service’s tagline is now to “assess, protect, and change”.424

218.Chief Probation Officer Kim Thornden-Edwards told us that “there is still a role for advising, assisting and befriending.”425 The Minister for Prisons and Probation told us that “advise, assist and befriend” is “how” probation officers can “assess, protect and change”. He added that “there are studies that illustrate that forming strong, trusting relationships is crucial to achieving those aims.”426 While questioning the appropriateness of “befriending”, Chris Jennings agreed that “building really positive relationships with the people we supervise is key to keeping them on the right path”.427

219.Kim Thornden-Edwards emphasised, however, that the role of probation officers lies “very much in the realms of assessing, protecting and changing”. To illustrate her point, she mentioned “the role we have on public protection” and, specifically, “managing critical cases of concern” and “managing terrorist cases”.428 Chris Jennings agreed that what the Probation Service is “really responsible for is keeping members of the public safe”.429

220.The tension between ‘befriending’ and ‘supervising’ means that “the role of the Probation Officer is extraordinarily complex”.430 Phil Bowen explained that “we are asking them to enforce an order as well as promote healthy relationships and form a trusting relationship with that person”.431 This also leads the Ministry of Justice to describe the task of “supervising offenders serving community orders” as “a skilled and difficult job, requiring the assessment and management of risk with the skill to engage and motivate offenders to make positive change and engage with rehabilitative interventions.”432 Damian Hinds MP pointed out that probation officers “deal with people who are on community sentences but also with those who are leaving prison on licence” and that “they must make what are sometimes very difficult judgments”.433 Justin Russell explained that probation staff are expected to perform a “very difficult balancing act” between building a “strong and trusting relationship” with people on probation and showing “professional curiosity” to ensure public protection. He argued that “that balance is a difficult thing to get right and our inspections have shown that they do not always get it right”.434

A “desiccated” role?435

221.The then Chief Inspector of Probation Justin Russell posed this question about the role of probation officer: “Is it directly to provide interventions to people on probation, or is it merely to manage the interventions and inputs of a range of other people they are referring on to”? While he acknowledged that “there are certainly things that specialist staff can do better than a generic Probation Officer”, he also thought that “if all that probation work is just about referring people on and filling in assessment forms, it is a desiccated and not particularly satisfying role”.436

222.Damian Hinds MP responded: “I do not want that to be how it seems to them or to anyone else.” He added that he wished “there were ways for more people to really understand the contribution that our Probation Service makes”.437 Chris Jennings acknowledged that “one of the challenges for our service is how a Probation Officer can be an expert in young people, female offenders, neurodiversity, drug issues and accommodation issues”, calling probation officers “superhuman”.438 Carrie Peters, representing a company commissioned to deliver services on behalf of the Probation Service, agreed that “you cannot provide all services as the Probation Officer”, such that “you need specialist services”.439

What role for court teams?

223.Questions were also raised about the performance of the court teams of the Probation Service. DeQeon, who was sentenced to a community order, told us that he felt that “Probation is the judge”.440 He had observed in court: “If Probation says, ‘Do this’, the magistrates do what Probation says”.441 Ayesha, who has been through the same process, agreed: “In my opinion, the judge is only there to deliver what Probation has said.”442

224.In fact, “there is a lack of congruence in whether sentencers always follow the recommendations of Probation Officers” in Pre-Sentence Reports.443 In a sample of cases inspected by HM Inspectorate of Probation, “sentencers were more likely to give immediate custody than was recommended in the court reports” and “if sentencers gave a community-based order, it was much more likely to be a suspended sentence order” than suggested by the Probation Service.444 There is, however, “a very close congruence” between the proportion of cases in which Drug Rehabilitation Requirements were recommended and in which “a judge has gone along with them”, Justin Russell told us—probably because treatment requirements can only be imposed if the consent of the offender has been sought by the Probation Service prior to the hearing (consent being required because they are medical treatments).445

Flawed IT systems

225.IT systems are central to the work of the Probation Service and its partners, and problems associated with these systems have an impact on efficiency and staff morale. As Damian Hinds MP put it, “better and faster services save practitioners time, and ultimately help them make better decisions.”446

Box 8: The specialised IT systems used in Probation casework

HMPPS told us about the eight specialised IT systems used in Probation casework. Three of them are of particular interest to this inquiry and were mentioned by other witnesses: The National Delius (nDelius), which “records details including relevant sentences and personal information of persons of interest to the Probation Service and the interactions Probation has with them”, such as who is supervising them and information on appointments and their outcomes. The Offender Assessment System (OASys), which “provides evidence-based assessment of the risks posed by offenders and the needs associated with their offending behaviour” and includes a “Risk of Serious Recidivism tool” underpinned by machine learning. The Workload Measurement Tool, which “shows how much work is assigned to all Offender Management Staff (Probation Officers and Probation Service Officers) in the Probation Service.”447 Another IT system, not mentioned by HMPPS, was mentioned by other witnesses: Refer and Monitor, a platform used by the Probation Service to communicate about individual cases with its partners delivering commissioned services.448

226.We heard that “there are eight specialised IT systems used in Probation casework” (see Box 8).449 Senior leaders of the Service recognised longstanding criticisms of IT systems, with many problems identified in a 2016 report by the National Audit Office.450 Kim Thornden-Edwards explained that “there was lots of double keying and lots of systems that did not talk to each other”, meaning that “it was very frustrating for practitioners who actually want to spend time with their people on probation, doing face-to-face engagement and spending less time sat behind their computer.”451 Chris Jennings acknowledged that “we are still definitely hamstrung by some of the legacy systems”.452 He spoke of ongoing issues with OASys, the risk management tool:

“It is out of date, and probation practitioners regularly feed back that it takes too long and is not efficient. It does not enable them to spend their time supervising offenders, which is what they want to do, because they are stuck with that old system.”453

227.Chris Jennings nevertheless said there had been “vast improvements” in recent years.454 Kim Thornden-Edwards argued that “there has certainly been a significant improvement since 2016”. She said there was “better integration” across systems and that the Probation Service now had “full control” over the IT systems it uses, and mentioned that HMPPS “have certainly looked to create much more automation” to save time.455 Damian Hinds MP told us about a “new ‘Allocate a Person on Probation’ pilot” that had “shown promising results, significantly reducing the time to allocate a Probation Officer to a person on probation.”456 Chris Jennings also told us that there are innovative IT systems being piloted in Wales.457 HMPPS told us that they “participated in hackathons”, which are “used alongside a multidisciplinary and user-centric approach to test assumptions and prove value early, thereby reducing the risk of making improvements that do not meet the needs of users.”458

228.Looking forward, Damian Hinds MP told us that “OASys will be replaced as part of the Assess Risks, Needs and Strengths (ARNS) Programme”, which he described as a “quicker, dynamic assessment that will drive improved sentence and risk management planning” that would result in “a reduction in the time spent on current assessment tools that can be utilised for higher impact activities and interventions”. The new system, he said, “will reduce the dependency on OASys over the next three years and will eventually lead to it being decommissioned.” He also told us about improvements to the Refer and Monitor platform that would allow HMPPS “to switch off the part of nDelius that currently handles assigning interventions to people”, as well as other aspects of that tool (see Box 8).459

“A sense of crisis”460

229.Andrew Neilson told us that “Probation literally became part of the Prison Service and has suffered for that merger and lost its identity and a lot of its confidence”, referring to a process that started in 2004 with the merger of the Probation Service and of the Prison Service into HM Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS).461 Then came “the disastrous ‘Transforming Rehabilitation’ reforms that saw the service part-privatised” (see Box 4).462 A group of academics carried out interviews with frontline probation staff one year after the unification of the Probation Service in 2021 and told us that “there was an inescapable sense of crisis all participants identified as confronting all working in probation”. This was partly due to “prevailing uncertainty as new structures are being established”. They spoke of “organisational trauma”.463

230.The Probation Service is currently undergoing some further reorganisation. “We are looking to create a new structure to move into a new era of probation and prison delivery, and we term this ‘One HMPPS’”, Kim Thornden-Edwards told us. She explained that the reorganisation of the headquarters was “about making sure that we balance resources so that we have all the right resources and capacity at the front line”. It involves having “two directors-general” (the second-most senior grade of the civil service) who both “have a role across the whole agency” and can, therefore, ensure “greater alignment” between prisons and probation.464 HMPPS wrote that “this will drive improved relationships between these two delivery arms of our agency, leading to greater understanding, closer working and innovation that will ultimately benefit people in prison and on probation, protect the public and reduce reoffending”.465 Kim Thornden-Edwards cited further advantages to the new approach, including “being able to ensure the requisite join-up and linkages to maximise our ability to effectively supervise, exchange information and manage risks across our prison and release population.”466

231.Justin Russell criticised this new approach as he “raised concerns that there is no longer a specific Director-General for probation now” and identified “a danger, particularly at a time when there is a prison places crisis that is occupying a lot of headspace in the department, that you lose the necessary focus on probation improvement”.467

232.HMPPS responded that “encouraging collaboration and strategic cohesion within the same organisation does not equate to attempting to create a homogenous culture that ignores different histories and operational environments”.468 Chris Jennings, whose portfolio in Wales already cuts across prisons and probation, told us that the new approach “does not dilute my attention away from any particular cohort” and that “I care equally about anyone who is in our system”.469 Chief Probation Officer Kim Thornden-Edwards also responded to these concerns. She explained:

“One of the concerns that has been raised about the structure … relates to probation influence and probation voice, and whether the new structure actually dilutes that. As the Chief Probation Officer, I have a significant role, and I am built in structurally to ensure that my influence and my voice is at all the tables at the highest levels of decision-making in HMPPS … We think that we have actually amplified the voice of probation in the new system because there are more senior leaders now who have responsibility for probation, and that that voice will be well and truly influential in the way we move forward.”470

233.Pavan Dhaliwal thought that the Probation Service needed time to “find its feet again” after various reorganisations.471 Kim Thornden-Edwards told us that “we have had a lot of change in the Probation Service and I want us to have the time to embed, to consolidate and to move forward with real practice expertise and improvement”. She referred to the Probation Service as an “organisation that still feels quite young and quite new” and cited “a high proportion of relatively inexperienced staff” as a reason for her preference for stability.472 Dr Cracknell also said that the Probation Service would need “a period of stability as it adjusts to reformation.”473

234.The Probation Service is going through an identity crisis. The role of a probation officer has changed in recent years—the increased focus on public protection distracts the attention of probation staff away from least-serious offenders. Moreover, the expectation that they refer offenders to services provided by others, and the quantity of administrative tasks they are expected to perform, often on flawed IT systems, transforms their mission into an unfulfilling job and means that they have reduced capacity to support low-level offenders on community sentences.

235.The Probation Service’s court teams are highly regarded by sentencers, but there are concerns about how their role is perceived by offenders. Due in part to the regularity with which sentencers accept the recommendations in the PSR, court teams themselves are sometimes seen by offenders as sentencing or even as prosecuting, which can undermine the trust of offenders in the Probation Service and lead to proceedings being perceived as unfair. Sentencers might consider being more explicit in the way they take ownership of their sentencing decisions when it aligns with a recommendation made by the Probation Service. Demonstrating that sentences are determined by the judiciary alone could reduce misconceptions.

236.Our impression throughout our inquiry was that Government and senior management seems to have lost sight of low-level offenders and to be preoccupied with the size of the prison population and post-release supervision, perhaps because of recent institutional reorganisations. Supervising low-level offenders on community sentences is central to the mission of the Probation Service.

237.The Probation Service should not undergo any further large-scale restructuring in the coming few years, to allow time for recent reorganisations to settle down, for more staff to be recruited, and for new recruits to gain experience, enabling them to supervise further recruits.

238.HMPPS should continue investing in its IT systems, such that Probation staff can dedicate more time to people on probation (see also section starting at paragraph 166 on “making the most out of partnerships” on the partners of the Probation Service being able to access IT systems).

Pre-Sentence Reports

239.A Pre-Sentence Report (PSR) is a report requested by the Judiciary (at their discretion) and produced by the Probation Service, typically after a guilty plea or guilty verdict but prior to a sentence being served. Its purpose is to assist the court “by providing an expert assessment of the nature and causes of the offender’s behaviour, the risk they pose and to whom, as well as an independent recommendation of the option(s) available to the court when making a sentencing determination for the offender”. For some requirements, “the court can only impose them based on an assessment of suitability by those responsible for supervising compliance and/or delivery of those requirements.”474 PSRs are necessary for offenders with multiple or complex requirements. They are prepared using “a digital tool called the Effective Proposal Framework”, which “draws on regularly updated information provided by regions and HMPPS headquarter teams to shortlist every requirement, licence condition or intervention that is available in the area and which the person on probation meets the eligibility criteria for, based on the nature of the offending and the individual’s risk and need profile”.475

240.There are two types of Pre-Sentence Report. “Standard PSRs” usually require Courts to adjourn for three weeks, giving the Probation Service time to engage with the individual offender and seek advice from health providers, social services, and the police.476 NAPO told us that standard PSRs are “much more detailed” and “provide sentencers with all the information they may need to pass sentence and highlight any discrimination or other underlying factors to offending behaviour in a way that short format reports simply cannot”.477 The second type enables sentencers to request a “fast delivery PSR”, produced on the day of a hearing, either orally or in writing.

241.Dr Cracknell argued that PSRs “can play an important role in promoting the use of community sentences”.478 One Small Thing and the Prison Reform Trust both mentioned that “the Centre for Justice Innovation has found that courts are over 10 times more likely to impose a community sentence if a pre-sentence report (PSR) is conducted”.479 The Centre itself notes that the relationship between PSRs and the decline in the use of community sentences, while clearly significant, is not necessarily a causal relationship.480

242.The PSR stage also provides an opportunity for the offender to consent to treatment. Community Sentence Treatment Requirements (CSTRs, see section starting at paragraph 71 on “scaling up the use of treatment requirements”) “can only be imposed by the court if it is satisfied that the offender has consented to the treatment” and “a treatment requirement should only be recommended to a court if the offender has consented”.481 While courts may impose a Mental Health Treatment Requirement (MHTR) or an Alcohol Treatment Requirement (ATR) “by seeking the consent of the offender directly”, Drug Rehabilitation Requirements (DRRs) are also subject to “a statutory suitability condition which can only be met by probation making a recommendation to the court” in a Pre-Sentence Report.482 This led Tom Franklin to tell us that “the more probation recommendations there are for treatment requirements, the more frequent their use is likely to be.”483

243.One Small Thing told us that “for women, PSRs are especially vital”.484 The charity Women in Prison would like full written PSRs in respect of female offenders to include “caring responsibilities, cultural background, learning and physical disabilities, and health needs, including mental ill health and anxiety”, as well as “information on protective factors in women’s lives, such as positive relationships and employment to ensure any requirements attached to community sentences avoid conflicting and disrupting these areas”.485 Revolving Doors cited the example of a case in which “a person spoke to a probation practitioner as part of their PSR, which was the first opportunity where the person felt comfortable disclosing their experience of domestic violence to a professional”, paving the way for a sentence tailored to the person’s situation.486

244.Witnesses were concerned that the number of PSRs (both standard and fast-delivery) produced by the Probation Service has declined dramatically in recent years (see Box 9 and Figure 3).

Box 9: Statistics on Pre-Sentence Reports (PSRs)

The number of standard PSRs produced by the Probation Service fell by 92.7% between the second quarter of 2012 and the first quarter of 2023. They represented 5% of pre-sentence reports in the first quarter of 2023. The number of written fast-delivery PSRs produced by the Probation Service fell by 8.3% between the second quarter of 2012 and the first quarter of 2023. They represented 71.4% of pre-sentence reports in the first quarter of 2023. The number of oral fast-delivery PSRs produced by the Probation Service fell by 23.5% between the second quarter of 2012 and the first quarter of 2023. They represented 23.6% of pre-sentence reports in the first quarter of 2023.

Source: Ministry of Justice, Probation tables, ‘Offender management statistics quarterly—Table 4.12 (2012–2018), Table 4.10 (2019–2022) and Table 6.10 (2023)’: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/offender-management-statistics-quarterly [accessed 19 September 2023].

Figure 3: Pre-sentence reports

Source: Ministry of Justice, Probation tables, ‘Offender management statistics quarterly—Table 4.12 (2012–2018), Table 4.10 (2019–2022) and Table 6.10 (2023)’: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/offender-management-statistics-quarterly [accessed 19 September 2023].

245.We heard that the decline in the use of pre-sentence reports may have been motivated by the need to save court time to tackle backlogs. Phil Bowen explained that HM Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) “wanted to speed cases through the system, and Probation’s response to that was that it would not do as many three-week adjournments” to produce standard PSRs, because “adjournments were persona non grata”.487 Chris Jennings argued that “there will always be a bit of tension between a Bench or a judge being prepared to wait for in-depth reports when we might think it would be a good idea if they waited for them, and their eagerness to get on and progress the case to give speedy justice to victims and witnesses”.488

246.Witnesses also raised concerns about the quality of reports produced. NAPO explained that the “target of delivering the majority of court reports as same day or short format also significantly limits the amount of information given to the court regarding the case and individual.”489 Women in Prison told us that “a significant obstacle to individual circumstances being considered during sentencing is the quality of pre-sentence reports”.490 Justin Russell said that 52% of the 400 PSRs HMIP inspected since unification had been rated “insufficient”, often because inspectors “did not feel that [PSRs] were properly assessing the risks of harm presented by the person who was being sentenced”.491 Tom Franklin also told us that that “there is a great deal of inconsistency” in the quality of PSRs “across the country as a whole”.492 This may go some way to explaining why sentencers may lack, or may have lacked, confidence in the Probation Service (see section starting at paragraph 57 on “a matter of confidence”).

247.Our three witnesses with lived experience of the criminal justice system reported that they had “felt alienated” from the PSR process, casting doubts on the concept of PSRs being tailored to individual circumstances.493 Ayesha felt that her views were “not taken into account” in the preparation of her PSR: “I remember signing it and reading through it, but what was required on the pre-sentence report did not include any of my input.”494 Caroline remembered having undergone an assessment with probation and receiving the pre-sentence report, but having “no idea” of what was going to be proposed to her.495 She was “quite surprised” that no alcohol treatment requirement was recommended for her, even though “every time [she] was in trouble it was alcohol-related”.496 Had her input been sought, she “would have asked to attend regular recovery meetings and relapse prevention groups”.497 While DeQeon found that “the pre-sentence report went really well because I am a person who can … articulate myself”, he thought that others might struggle to be heard during the PSR process.498

248.Revolving Doors argued that these experiences are representative of the wider cohort of offenders the charity is working with: “The majority of people on probation supervision that we spoke to did not understand what a PSR entailed, and did not recall having an in-depth conversation with a probation practitioner to inform a PSR.” They added that “only a couple of people we spoke to recalled having a positive experience with a PSR, and many recalled inadequate and rushed PSRs.”499 Pavan Dhaliwal elaborated further:

“A lack of quality in pre-sentence reports is one of the biggest issues to come out of our forums when speaking to lived experience members … We have members [of Revolving Doors] who have pre-sentence reports based upon what was happening in their lives eight or nine months prior, and not taking into account all of the steps that they will have taken in that time. The consensus view among our members is that, if the reports are done at all, they are just a tick-box exercise as opposed to being done in a meaningful, person-centred way.”500

249.We asked our three witnesses with direct experience of the PSR process whether their consent was sought before the Probation Service recommended that they were subjected to a treatment requirement (we were aware that two of our witnesses had been sentenced to a treatment requirement, and that the consent of the offender is required for treatment requirements to be available to sentencers).501 Ayesha, who was subjected to a Drug Rehabilitation Requirement, told us that “there was no personal input from me for any requirement.”502 Caroline also told us that she “did not have any input” despite being sentenced to a Mental Health Treatment Requirement.503

250.The Probation Service is said to be aware that the decline in the use of pre-sentence reports is causing problems. Justin Russell explained that “the Probation Service itself recognises that the pendulum has swung too far against longer-form standard reports, particularly for people who have serious and complex mental health needs or something else, when you need time to go away and work out whether there is a potential option for treating someone.”504 Phil Bowen also said that “the Probation Service reduced the number of written pre-sentence reports to a really low level, and I think it has realised that is a mistake and is trying to ramp that up.”505 When they appeared before us, Kim Thornden-Edwards and Chris Jennings did not dispute the assessment that the decline in the use of pre-sentence reports is causing problems.506

251.Having acknowledged these issues, “the Probation Service is working to increase both the volume and quality of PSRs and to target their use for cohorts where they can be of most benefit to sentencers”.507 HMPPS mentioned a pilot, run from March 2021 until March 2023, which aimed “to improve the quality of PSRs and judicial confidence in them”. HMPPS assessed that the pilot had “demonstrated that changes to ways of working can help to increase the quality and quantity of PSRs, but it also highlighted that there could be further improvements to be gained from more significant changes to probation’s approach”.508

252.Therefore, “the Probation Service is developing a ‘Pathfinder to Improved Pre-Sentence Advice’ (PIPA) project which will look to design and test new ways of working to produce quality PSRs for the Judiciary in a dedicated timeframe”.509 HMPPS explained that the pilot would launch “in Autumn 2023” in the South Central Probation Service region. Admitting that “there is confusion in the system” with “fast delivery reports, on-the-day reports, short format reports and standard reports”, Kim Thornden-Edwards told us that the aim is “to cut through all of that and create something that is clean, simple and gives the best possible advice”.510 HMPPS told us that the pilot would notably involve:

• An “improved PSR assessment template” replacing the current templates for short and standard reports, and being agreed in conjunction with the Sentencing Council.511 These new PSRs are meant to be prepared by probation officers and “in advance of first hearing where possible”, to avoid the matter being adjourned.512 Chris Jennings was supportive of spending “a bit more time up front” assessing individual situations because “everything that follows thereafter might be better and we have a better chance of reducing reoffending if we can get the right order”.513
• An “Effective Proposal Framework (EPF) digital tool, which supports probation staff to identify appropriate requirements and interventions”. The tool “will shortlist treatment requirements including Drug Rehabilitation Requirements and Alcohol Treatment Requirements when eligible”, leaving it to the probation officer authoring the report to assess suitability.514
• A “concise ‘Verification’ report (VR), prepared by a Probation Support Officer, providing factual information on-the-day” designed “to support swift sentencing for offenders with low rehabilitative needs who would be suitable for a purely punitive sentence.”515
• And “the introduction of a two-week optimal delivery period for the completion of adjourned PSRs” to “align delivery times with HMCTS timelines and demonstrate that shorter and set delivery periods for PSRs will facilitate more effective case progression.”516

253.Speaking on behalf of the Magistrates’ Association, Tom Franklin told us that “across the board, we think there needs to be a greater consistency in the quality of the reports.”517 Chris Jennings responded that the Probation Service has “already provided a lot of guidance and advice to Probation Officers on what a good-quality pre-sentence report looks like” and that “to a certain extent, it is quite hard to imagine that there will not be some inconsistencies, on the basis that they are individual reports about individual people.” Referring to recent recruitment campaigns (see section starting at paragraph 199 on “staffing issues”), he also argued that “the increased resource will absolutely help” with ensuring greater consistency in the production of PSRs.518

254.Witnesses shared various thoughts about what could be done to improve PSRs. Tom Franklin asked for evidence-based PSRs as he explained that “if everything in the court report could be backed up by data and information about the effectiveness of these approaches, that would give magistrates the confidence to know that, for this type of offender, this is the sort of success rate that happens with this sort of intervention.”519 Chris Jennings also offered to consider whether the question “would you recommend a treatment pathway?” could be built into PSR templates.520

255.Pre-Sentence Reports (PSRs) are an essential part of the sentencing process. They allow courts to tailor sentences to individual circumstances and give sentencers confidence that specific requirements are suitable and available in their area (see paragraph 67).

256.The number of PSRs prepared by the Probation Service, and the quality of these PSRs, have been declining dramatically in recent years. This is the outcome of an effort to save court time but comes at the expense of the quality of sentencing. It also means that offenders are unable to give consent in an informed and systematic way to treatment requirements for which consent is necessary.

257.We support ongoing efforts that should result in more PSRs being prepared, of a higher standard, avoiding wasting court time. New PSR templates should include a prompt for probation officers to consider whether a treatment requirement would be appropriate, to encourage increased use of such requirements.

258.The Probation Service, offenders, and their representatives should be given more opportunity to request Pre-Sentence Reports. Pre-Sentence Reports should be conducted in a way that makes offenders feel that they are being heard.

259.The imposition of rehabilitative requirements should be guided by the individual circumstances of the case so as to ensure maximum efficiency of sentences. PSRs should provide the opportunity for rehabilitative needs to be assessed and for consent to be sought, in an informed and systematic way.

---

• A-Z index
• Glossary
• Contact us
• Freedom of Information
• Jobs
• Using this website
• Copyright