I am currently very interested in the political matters associated with prisons and probation and the very real current crisis in both services and I am especially opposed to the Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP) law and I have been following the Justice Committee Inquiry for Transforming Rehabilitation.
I think it is of public interest that upon my reading of the very latest evidence on 17/04/18 in the Justice Committee Inquiry for Transforming Rehabilitation that it has become apparent that Dame Glenys Stacey, the Chief Inspectorate of Probation, earning a £140,000.00 salary as a full time post is undertaking other work for DEFRA (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) which is a commitment for 2 days a week which will undoubtedly infringe on her so called full time post as Chief Inspectorate of Probation. It is scandalous that she can be paid a substantial amount of money for a full time post yet not commit herself to a full time role with a commitment to 2 days work elsewhere.
Thank you for your letter dated 12 September 2017.
At HM Inspectorate of Probation we expect probation services to meet the enduring expectations of probation: to protect the public, reduce reoffending and ensure that the sentence of the court is served. We expect a high quality, individualised and responsive service to be provided to all service users, with a focus on engaging the individual, supporting their desistance and minimising their risk of harm to others. This applies to all service users, including those who have received an IPP sentence.
With regard to IPPs, we contributed inspection data to the IPP thematic report by HM Inspectorate of Prisons, which was published in November 2016. As this report notes, it is widely accepted that the implementation of the sentence was flawed and that this has contributed to the large numbers who remain in prison, often many years post-tariff. Individuals have been denied the opportunity to demonstrate whether they present a continuing risk to the public, or to have this properly assessed, which is clearly unjust. It must also be recognised that some people with IPP sentences do remain dangerous, and need to be held in prison to protect the public. Risks of harm need to be at a level where they can be managed safely in the community.
The 2016 thematic report recommended that the Secretary of State for Justice should take immediate action to ensure adequate resources and timely support are available to work with IPP prisoners to reduce their risk of harm to others and to help them progress through the custodial system towards consideration for release by the Parole Board. Furthermore, IPP prisoners should receive regular, meaningful contact with offender managers and supervisors, and the casework, including key assessments, should be up to date. These recommendations remain sound.
The resources need to be in place in the community to ensure that any risks of harm are managed properly. We have recently reported (July 2017) on the contribution of probation hostels (approved premises) to public protection, rehabilitation and resettlement, highlighting the valuable role that these premises can play in supporting IPP transition from custody to the community. We have recommended to the Ministry of Justice that they should focus on the capacity, type and distribution of the probation hostel estate.
HM Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) are introducing new arrangements for Offender Management in custody, with IPP prisoners being allocated to a probation officer within their prison. We intend to monitor whether this will lead to better assessment and planning, and give more scope for focused one-to-one work.
In your letter, you request various statistics and information not held by HM Inspectorate of Probation. We have thus forwarded your request to HMPPS, who can be contacted at firstname.lastname@example.org.