This research sought to understand the impact of probation inspection on probation policy, practice and practitioners. This important but neglected area of study has significant ramifications because the Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Probation has considerable power to influence policy through its inspection regime and research activities. The study utilised a mixed methodological approach comprising observations of inspections and interviews with people who work in probation, the Inspectorate and external stakeholders. In total, 77 people were interviewed or took part in focus groups. Probation practitioners, managers and leaders were interviewed in the weeks after an inspection to find out how they experienced the process of inspection. Staff at HMI Probation were interviewed to understand what inspection is for and how it works. External stakeholders representing people from the voluntary sector, politics and other non-departmental bodies were interviewed to find out how they used the work of inspection in their own roles. Finally, leaders within the National Probation Service and Her Majesty’s Prisons and Probation Service were interviewed to see how inspection impacts on policy more broadly. The data were analysed thematically with five key themes being identified. Overall, participants were positive about the way inspection is carried out in the field of probation. The main findings are: 1. Inspection places a burden on practitioners and organisations. Practitioners talked about the anxiety that a looming inspection created and how management teams created additional pressures which were hard to cope with on top of already high workloads. Staff responsible for managing the inspection and with leadership positions talked about the amount of time the process of inspection took up. Importantly, inspection was seen to take people away from their day jobs and meant other priorities were side-lined, even if temporarily. However, the case interviews that practitioners take part in were seen as incredibly valuable exercises which gave staff the opportunity to reflect on their practice and receive positive feedback and validation for their work. 2. Providers said that the findings and conclusions from inspections were often accurate and, to some extent, unsurprising. However, they sometimes find it difficult to implement recommendations due to reports failing to take context into account. Negative reports have a serious impact on staff morale, especially for CRCs and there was concern about the impact of negative findings on a provider’s reputation. 3. External stakeholders value the work of the Inspectorate. The Inspectorate is seen to generate highly valid and meaningful data which stakeholders can use in their own roles. This can include pushing for policy reform or holding government to account from different perspectives. In particular, thematic inspections were seen to be useful here. 4. The regulatory landscape in probation is complex with an array of actors working to hold providers to account. When compared to other forms of regulation such as audit or contract management the Inspectorate was perceived positively due to its methodological approach as well as the way it reflects the values of probation itself. 5. Overall, the inspectorate appears to garner considerable legitimacy from those it inspects. This should, in theory, support the way it can impact on policy and practice. There are some areas for development here though such as more engagement with service users. While recognising that the Inspectorate has made a concerted effort to do this in the last two years participants all felt that more needs to be done to increase that trust between the inspectorate and service users. Overall, the Inspectorate was seen to be independent and 3 impartial although this belief was less prevalent amongst people in CRCs who argued that the Inspectorate has been biased towards supporting its own arguments around reversing the now failed policy of Transforming Rehabilitation. There was some debate amongst participants about how the Inspectorate could, or should, enforce compliance with its recommendations although most people were happy with the primarily relational way of encouraging compliance with sanctions for non-compliance being considered relatively unnecessary. To conclude, the work of the Inspectorate has a significant impact on probation policy, practice and practitioners. The majority of participants were positive about the process of inspection and the Inspectorate more broadly, notwithstanding some of the issues raised in the findings. There are some developments which the Inspectorate could consider to reduce the burden inspection places on providers and practitioners and enhance its impact such as amending the frequency of inspection, improving the feedback given to practitioners and providing more localised feedback, and working to reduce or limit perceptions of bias amongst people in CRCs. The Inspectorate could also do more to capture the impact it has on providers and practitioners – both positive and negative - through existing procedures that are in place such as post-case interview surveys and tracking the implementation of recommendations.
From clients as fellow citizens to service users as co-producers of social work
