• Unpaid work at 50 per cent of pre-pandemic levels.
• Accredited programme delivery improving.
• Probation staff now at risk of ‘Covid-19 fatigue’.

HM Inspectorate of Probation has found probation services made significant progress in restoring delivery of key functions by the end of November last year, but backlogs have built up and Covid-19 restrictions continue to prevent business as usual delivery. These challenges are likely to have increased further with the latest national lockdown.

The Inspectorate carried out a review of the quality and effectiveness of probation services in 2020 both before and following the initial national lockdown in March. Inspectors reviewed six Local Delivery Units (Bristol and South Gloucestershire; Buckinghamshire and Oxford; Derbyshire; Essex; Tameside and Stockport; and West Mercia) made up of six National Probation Service divisions and six Community Rehabilitation Centres. For comparison, inspectors looked at work starting before the pandemic (January and February 2020) and after the switch to exceptional delivery arrangements (July to September) – amounting to 240 individual cases.

Chief Inspector of Probation Justin Russell: “We found probation services deployed Exceptional Delivery Models successfully last year. We saw good progress towards recovery being made between July and November 2020, but this has been hampered by further restrictions as the pandemic continues. Services are now blending and adapting their approach between face-to-face and telephone contact to remain as flexible as possible.”

The review found specific areas of probation work – such as assessments of risk of harm – actually improved following the first national lockdown. This is because probation practitioners were able to focus on those who posed the higher risks of harm to the public, adapting their requirements quickly and effectively.

Mr Russell explains further: “We knew that services would do their upmost to maintain provision following the onset of Covid-19, and we know they have shown resilience. We were impressed with what we saw in terms of good communication, partnership working and monitoring of those posing a higher risk of harm to others.

“For some aspects of the management of risk of harm, there was a 20 per cent improvement between CRC cases starting supervision before the pandemic and those starting from July onwards. Increased frequency of contact with service users and re-introduction of face-to-face meetings have helped here.”

However, we saw expected levels of attendance at accredited programmes and unpaid work drop dramatically during the first national lockdown. Only around 10 per cent of accredited programmes and 5 per cent of unpaid work was delivered during April and May compared to pre-Covid-19 levels – due to these services being temporarily shut down or the impact of social distancing rules on  attendance numbers for group activities. The result has been a significant increase in backlogs of uncompleted work which will take time to clear.  Once recovery began in July, we saw levels of accredited programme delivery improve to 62 per cent of pre-Covid-19 delivery and unpaid work to 50 per cent by the end of November.

Inspectors found that some services had sought alternative ways for unpaid work to be completed. For example, in Essex, the CRC created ‘Project in a box’ (in conjunction with their partner CRCs) in which selected service users could work from home, making face coverings and greetings cards to strict industry standards with the proceeds going to charity. The CRC in Cheshire and Greater Manchester focused on finding smaller, local projects for their service users – 75 per cent of their current projects were new since March 2020.

Mr Russell said: “It was always going to be tough for services to meet targets for accredited programme attendance and unpaid work given Covid-19 restrictions on group activity and on individual placements in charity shops. Probation services are doing what they can to ensure unpaid work is completed but real challenges remain with restoring delivery to normal levels and in dealing with backlogs.”

From fieldwork conducted toward the end of the review period, in November, inspectors found probation staff had made determined efforts to keep services running, but many are now suffering from the psychological impact of the pandemic.

Mr Russell concluded: “A survey of probation practitioners showed 72 per cent felt their wellbeing was being addressed. However, we also know that there are reasonable concerns around the resumption of face-to-face working and the inevitable stresses this has brought – our report details this as ‘Covid-19 fatigue’.

“There is a long road ahead, and services are meeting the challenge of maintaining a balance between pushing forward with recovery and staff welfare. However, it appears increasingly likely that there will be no full recovery before services are asked to change again and adapt to the unification of the probation service in just a few months’ time.”

Due to the impact of Covid-19, this review was conducted remotely via telephone and video interview technology.

ENDS

Notes to editor

• The report is available at justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprobation on 25 February 2021 00.01.
• HM Inspectorate of Probation is the independent inspector of youth offending and probation services across England and Wales.
• Fieldwork for this inspection took place between September and November 2020.
• For media enquiries, please contact Corporate Communications Manager, Diane Bramall: 07929 790 564 media@hmiprobation.gov.uk (E-mail address)
• HM Inspectorate of Probation has made a number of recommendations following this review:

Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service, together with Community Rehabilitation Companies, should:

1 – ensure that the digital technology used by probation services is compatible with that used by key partners to facilitate effective liaison and remote service provision.

2 – establish the extent to which service user digital exclusion impacts upon access to available service support and provision and resolve shortfalls.

3 – resolve the backlog of unpaid work to ensure fair justice for perpetrators and victims of crime.

4 – resolve the backlog of accredited programmes to ensure rehabilitation for perpetrators and protection for victims of crime.

5 – urgently conduct a large-scale, robust outcome evaluation of the effectiveness of remote (telephone-based) supervision for different types of service user if this is to become a standard part of a ‘blended’ approach to supervision in the future.

6 – evaluate the effectiveness of alternative delivery arrangements for accredited programmes and rehabilitation activity requirements (RARs), including that delivered on a one-to-one basis if this, as well as group delivery, is to become a routine form of future provision.

Community Rehabilitation Companies should:

7 – ensure that assessments of those due to complete unpaid work are comprehensive, focus on diversity and personal circumstances, and consider the risk of harm the individual may pose to others.