Perhaps the most striking part of the 2025 report:
Concerningly, we found in 91 per cent of the SFO reviews, the risk of serious harm categories assigned to the case by the probation service had been inaccurately assessed. This meant that in most cases the overall risk of serious harm level was incorrect, the relevant categories and those at risk were not adequately identified, and/or the nature of the risk of serious harm posed by the individual was not captured accurately in the assessment.
From 2024:
As already highlighted in this report, HM Inspectorate of Probation quality assured 87 reviews from April 2023 to April 2024. Of those reviews, 62 were identified as having inaccuracies in the risk of serious harm assessment, which equates to 71 per cent.
From 2023:
In 58 per cent of the 86 reviews
quality assured, the SFO reviewing
manager, or our quality assurance
inspector, considered that at some point in the supervision period the
assessment of risk of serious harm
completed by the probation
practitioner was inaccurate or did not fully consider the nature and extent
of the risks presented by the
individual.
2022:
Practitioners are underestimating the nature and level of risk of serious harm that
the person on probation poses, which means they do not always recognise or
respond to emerging risk factors. This is exacerbated by practitioners focusing on
providing support, to the detriment of managing risk and delivering offence-focused
intervention
Of course it's fair to wonder if some of these criminals oughtn't to have been granted parole, or have been given a non-custodial sentence; but it seems that the probation service have been getting worse at assessing risks for years.