HM Inspectorate of Probation has published a report inspecting
the work undertaken and progress made, by the Probation Service,
to reduce domestic abuse and protect victims. The Inspectorate
last looked at this area of probation practice in 2018.
Chief Inspector of Probation Justin Russell said: “Very
concerningly, despite some positive developments in policy,
little appears to have improved in practice, and in some
respects, things have deteriorated. This is unacceptable and is
leaving far too many potential victims at risk of domestic
abuse.”
The inspection found:
-
30 per cent of people on probation are current or
previous perpetrators of domestic abuse
-
only 28 per cent of the of people on probation had been
sufficiently assessed for any risks of further domestic
abuse
-
45 per cent of our case sample should have had access
to an intervention but had not.
Only 17 out of the 60 cases we looked at for this report had a
sufficiently clear and thorough analysis of the risk of domestic
abuse the person on probation might pose. We identified failures
to analyse previous domestically abusive behaviours or patterns
of behaviour. In some cases, there was a failure to recognise the
offending as domestic abuse, mainly where the victim was a family
member rather than an intimate partner.
Mr Russell continued: “Almost 75,000 people supervised by the
Probation Service in or out of custody, have been identified as a
current or former domestic abuse perpetrator, so it is essential
that their risk is properly assessed and managed. Over the years,
including in a number of very high-profile cases, we have flagged
our concerns about the urgent need for the Probation Service to
complete domestic abuse enquiries with the police before
sentencing, or when undertaking initial risk assessments”.
“Sadly, we are still finding this is not happening in too many
cases and even enquiries with local councils to ensure child
safeguarding are not being completed. I have made many previous
recommendations on how probation services should develop this
practice, so it’s very disappointing not to see more
improvement.”
A key finding of this report was that we found too many cases (45
per cent) where people on probation were assessed as needing an
intervention related to domestic abuse – such as programmes to
tackle abusive behaviour or attitudes and to encourage healthy
relationships – but these weren’t being delivered. An additional
issue is that there is insufficient national information and data
about how many of these referrals are being made or completed, so
the performance of these programmes cannot be evaluated.
Other factors included probation staff workloads. We found
probation practitioners to be highly committed to improving this
area of their service, but they have too many cases to manage to
complete meaningful work. On too many occasions, we found contact
with a person on probation at risk of further domestic violence
was minimal and done via phone calls rather than by face-to-face
meetings. However, where probation practitioners work with
smaller caseloads, the quality of domestic abuse work is
dramatically improved.
We also found that recent changes in legislation, such as the
recognition of children affected by domestic abuse as victims in
their own right, have not been incorporated into probation
practice. And the sharing of information between services –
probation, police and social services – was inconsistent at best.
Mr Russell concluded: “I had hoped that more progress would have
been made to address the very serious need to improve probation
practice around the risks of domestic abuse. Unfortunately, there
has only been minimal positive change. I recognise that many in
the Probation Service are doing all they can, with limited
resource, to manage cases adequately, but there is a long way
still to go. I call on HMPPS to take heed of our recommendations
and address the vital improvements that are needed to assist
services in their aims, to reduce the risk of further domestic
abuse by people on probation for the protection of victims and
potential victims.”
Ends.
Notes to editor
- Probation Delivery Units (PDUs) replaced Community
Rehabilitation Companies (CRCs) and the National Probation
Service (NPS), which merged into a unified Probation Service in
June 2021.
