Foreword

Acknowledgements

1. Introduction, aim and objectives

2. Summary of findings and the way forward

3. Background and context

4. Admissions and completions

5. Management and staffing

6. Delivering an enhanced level of supervision

7. Separate or specialist intake and equal opportunity issues

8. Contacts with the community

9. Assessing and managing risk

10. Hostel buildings

11. Recording and monitoring systems

12. Demonstrating quality, effectiveness and value for money

13. Issues for the future

Appendices : Appendix 1: Inspection schedule
                    Appendix 2: Recommendations from 1993 inspection on hostels
                    Appendix 3: Hostel information/rules - Language translations

Glossary of abbreviations
 
 
FOREWORD

Approved probation and bail hostels, both those managed by probation committees and by voluntary management committees, have continued to play a significant role in the supervision of defendants and offenders in the community since they were placed on a statutory footing 50 years ago. Since then, the numbers of those residing in hostels have increased and, at the time of this inspection, the hostel estate was capable of providing more than 2,200 bed spaces.

This inspection has involved a wide-reaching assessment of the standards of supervision and work being undertaken with residents. Significant progress had been made by approved hostels since they were last inspected in 1993, especially in the extent to which they were providing the enhanced level of supervision of residents as required by National Standards and in the management of risk. In this they were demonstrating their ability to supervise some of the most difficult, damaged and potentially dangerous offenders within the criminal justice system and in a manner which gave due regard to public protection.

The public could be greatly encouraged by many of the findings of this inspection. The report highlights where further work was needed to ensure that approved hostels continue to secure the confidence of the community at large in their important role in providing constructive and challenging offence focused work with residents, whilst giving due attention to assuring public safety.

G W SMITH CBE
HM Chief Inspector of Probation

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Probation is indebted to a number of organisations and individuals, too numerous to mention, who provided invaluable advice and assistance to the planning and undertaking of this inspection. However, appreciation is particularly expressed to Christine Greathead, formerly an assistant chief probation officer with subject responsibility for hostels in the Merseyside Probation Service, Sue Hortop the manager of the Elizabeth Fry Hostel in Reading, as well as to Sebert Cox and Mark Warren from the Probation Unit who offered notable assistance through their contributions to the inspection planning group.

The co-operation of the managers, staff and residents of the Adelaide House, Canning Street and Elizabeth Fry Hostels was invaluable in the piloting of the inspection material before its use in the 17 hostels visited as part of the inspection.

Thanks are also expressed to those representatives of partnership, statutory and community organisations for their willingness to meet with inspectors during the inspection fieldwork and for providing useful evidence and examples of good hostel practice, much of which is quoted in this report.

Finally, appreciation must be recorded for the contributions from all the managers, staff and residents in the hostels visited who, amidst the multitude of "comings and goings" of daily hostel life, engaged so willingly with inspectors on many difficult but significant issues that impact on the quality of the work.

PHILIP LOCKETT

September 1998
 
 

1. Introduction, Aim and Objectives
 
 

Inspection aim and objective
 
1.1 Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Probation wrote to all chief probation officers (CPOs), secretaries to probation committees and to voluntary management committees in February 1997, informing them of his intention to evaluate the response of approved probation and bail hostels to Home Office targets and requirements.

1.2 The inspection was to be undertaken in two phases:
 

• Phase 1 would take the form of an audit of committee policy and practice expectations relating to the requirements of National Standards, key performance indicators (KPIs) and Home Office targets. All probation services who managed approved probation and bail hostels would be included in the audit, as well as approved hostels managed by voluntary organisations by means of management committees

• Phase 2 would primarily consist of visits to a selected number of hostels identified on the basis of the information supplied through the audit and would be representative of hostels as a whole.

"Aim:

To undertake an inspection of the response of probation services and voluntary organisations who manage probation and bail hostels to the requirements of National Standards, KPIs and government expectations.

Objectives:

To examine the extent to which probation services and voluntary organisations who manage probation and bail hostels:

1. are meeting the National Standards for the management of hostels;

2. are performing against KPIs 7 and 8 set for the probation service;

3. have acted upon the findings of HM Inspectorate of Probation’s (HMIP’s) hostels thematic inspection and its report to the Home Secretary in 1993;

4. are ensuring the equity of service provision, particularly for women and residents from ethnic minority groups."
 
 

Inspection process

1.4 A team of four inspectors was established to undertake the inspection: Christine Greathead, assistant chief probation officer (ACPO) Merseyside Probation Service; Sue Hortop, Manager Elizabeth Fry Hostel, Reading; and Sebert Cox and Mark Warren from the Probation Unit. All of whom assisted in the planning of the inspection.

1.5 The specific objectives for the audit to be undertaken as part of Phase 1 were:

To assess the quality and effectiveness of approved probation and bail hostel policies and strategies including:

1. whether policies, procedures and practice arrangements reflected the government’s requirements and met the service’s obligations within National Standards;

2. whether policies, procedures and practice arrangements were consistent with the requirements of the Approved Probation and Bail Hostel Rules¹ and guidance issued by the Home Office²;

3. service arrangements for monitoring and evaluating the implementation of their policies and strategies.

1.6 The audit was undertaken during the summer of 1997 and all 99³ hostels who were operational at that time provided the required information. Hostels were also asked to complete a profile of those resident in the hostel on the nights of 10 June and 18 November. The findings of the audit and profiles are included in the main text of this report.

1.7 Phase 2 included inspection of 17 hostels located in 15 probation areas, 14 of which were managed by probation services and three by voluntary organisations. The selected hostels are listed in table 1. The factors which determined their selection included:
 

• bed capacity and performance against occupancy and completion targets

• mixed and single gender accommodation

• specialist and generic⁴ intake

• location and additional audit information.

Table 1: Hostels included in the fieldwork
 

1.9 Prior to the fieldwork, the selected hostels were requested to provide additional information. The CPO or voluntary management committee was required to organise a common inspection programme which included meetings with:
 

• chief officers with responsibility for hostels, hostel managers, their deputies, assistant wardens (AWs) and other hostel administrative and support staff

• judges, magistrates, court clerks and administrators

• committee members, especially those with particular interests in hostels, and members of voluntary management committees

• local police representatives

• pre-sentence report (PSR) writers, bail officers and other referrers

• those responsible for planning and delivering programmes, including those which addressed offending behaviour

• staff responsible for organising constructive activities for hostel residents

• residents, including former residents still subject to statutory supervision

• relevant statutory or voluntary partner organisations.

• a review of the hostel building (its location, structure, layout, decor, state of repair, etc.)

• observation of individual supervision sessions, selected groups and constructive activities running at the time of the fieldwork

• an inspection of current residents’ case files by way of a records scrutiny⁵.

Foreward