Response to the Ministry of Justice’s consultation on the independent statutory regulation of probation practitioners

Do you have views on how the functions of the independent regulator are designed and exercised? Please explain.

We have used the consultation questions as an opportunity to share our experiences of independently regulating the social work profession. We offer comment on learnings from our own functions to inform the Department’s thinking, should the decision be made to move from His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) internal register to independent statutory regulation of probation practitioners. We are happy to offer further meetings to discuss our regulatory model in more detail and expand upon our responses if that would be helpful.

Social Work England is a non-departmental public body, operating at arm’s length from government. We were established by the Children and Social Work Act 2017 and took over from the Health and Care Professions Council (HCPC) as the social work regulator in 2019.

Social Work England was created to focus on the unique needs of social work regulation, set up with legislative powers that drew on evidence and recommendations for effective professional regulation. The Children and Social Work Act 2017 sets out our objectives and describes the functions the regulator should carry out to meet these over-arching objectives. Our secondary legislation, the Social Workers Regulations 2018 (as amended), sets out in more detail how our functions should be performed, and requires Rules to outline the steps taken to operate the Regulations.

Our purpose is to regulate social workers in England so that people receive the best possible support whenever they might need it in life. Our central focus is to protect the public. We achieve this through the following statutory objectives: 

• to protect, promote and maintain the health, safety and wellbeing of the public

• to promote and maintain public confidence in social workers in England

• to promote and maintain proper professional standards for social workers in England

We carry out these functions by setting standards of practice and conduct in social work, assuring the quality of social work education, holding a register of all those able to practise using the protected title of social worker, ensuring social workers keep their skills and knowledge up to date, investigating concerns when raised to us about a social worker’s fitness to practise and taking action where required. We are overseen by the Professional Standards Authority (PSA) and our approach is guided by their standards of good regulation.

We are committed to our approach to regulation being rooted in the values and principles that underpin the social work profession; we believe in the power of collaboration and share a common goal with those we regulate - to protect the public, enable positive change and, ultimately, improve people’s lives. Our experience has shown us the value of a regulatory approach focused on prevention and impact. As a learning organisation, our continued development is underpinned by insight; data and research informs our approach. Should independent statutory regulation of probation practitioners be introduced, we would encourage a similar emphasis on research, policy, data and insight, and continuous learning within any future regulatory model.

We welcome the opportunity to comment on the Ministry of Justice’s consultation on independent statutory regulation of probation practitioners and have a strong interest in the issues being considered, particularly as Social Work England is referenced within the consultation proposal exploring options.

What principles or areas of practice do you think are most important for professional standards/code of ethics for probation practitioners? Please explain why.

Social Work England's professional standards were developed through extensive engagement with the social work profession, people with lived experience of social work, social work employers and wider stakeholders to ensure they are proportionate and set the threshold standards necessary for safe and effective social work practice. They are intentionally broad and high level, to ensure that they apply to all roles and settings in social work.

If the development of professional standards or a code of ethics is understood as a necessary and proportionate mechanism to ensure safe and effective practice across the probation practitioner workforce, we consider probation practitioners themselves, sector experts, and people with lived experience best placed to determine their specific content. We therefore do not seek to comment on these in detail.

More broadly, we would anticipate that as a minimum, professional standards for a regulated profession would need to consider suitable requirements regarding competence and professional behaviour such as maintaining up to date professional knowledge and skills; promoting and protecting public safety; maintaining professional boundaries; and demonstrating accountability, honesty, openness, integrity, and the principles of the professional Duty of Candour.

If independent statutory regulation is introduced, it will be important that any new standards framework/code of ethics does not create conflicting professional expectations in relation to existing social work standards across England and Wales. Clear arrangements will need to be established where professional roles, qualifications and registrations may overlap.

What do you think would be the most appropriate way for probation practitioners to demonstrate ongoing professional competence?

Like most professional regulators, Social Work England seeks assurance of registrants’ ongoing capacity for safe and effective practice through the setting of mandatory continuing professional development (CPD) requirements. In our case, we require social workers to submit, to us, reflections on 2 pieces of CPD they have undertaken in the past 12 months. These must be completed at the point of renewing their annual registration. One of these 2 pieces must incorporate an element of peer-reflection with a fellow professional with knowledge of their practice.

However, the relationship between learning and professional competence will vary from profession to profession, and each regulator will need to assess its own risk appetite in discharging its public protection duty. We are currently reviewing our approach, and several other regulators have reviewed or amended their CPD models in different ways in the last few years, demonstrating that there is no one ‘right way’ to assure ongoing competence. Fundamentally, a regulator of probation practitioners would need a firm grasp of the specific ‘problem’ it is looking to solve with a CPD model, and refine its approach, including the requirements and any consequences for non-compliance, in conjunction with subject-matter experts.

What do you think the frequency of demonstrating competence/registration renewal should be? Please explain why.

This is closely linked to the answer to the previous question. An assessment of the risk presented by diminished professional competence should help determine how regularly a regulator will wish to assure itself of a practitioner’s ongoing fitness to practise. It will need to balance issues of practicality, proportionality (in line with the principles of right-touch regulation), and public assurance when setting the length of its registration and/or revalidation cycle. While many regulators nominally link renewal and CPD revalidation cycles, most of these still operate de facto renewal each year, with annual declarations and registration fees, while maintaining a longer period (perhaps 2 to 3 years) for CPD portfolio submission.

Social Work England chose an annual model for registration renewal and CPD when we were set up in 2019, in contrast to the 2-year cycle of the HCPC which had regulated the social work profession for the 7 years prior to that. We deemed this would ensure regular and ongoing engagement with registrants and would assure the public that CPD is being undertaken by all social workers regularly. As a new regulator we felt this more frequent engagement was critical to help improve understanding of the nature and role of regulation within the profession. However, now after seven years in operation and reflecting on the recent independent review of social work regulation in England which recommended the shift to a longer CPD review cycle, we are preparing to undertake extensive sectoral engagement and consultation as part of a broader review of our CPD model. A key part of this will include ensuring a clearer system of CPD compliance review going forward.

Generally speaking, however, the more detailed or extensive the ask in terms of evidencing ongoing professional competence, the longer the revalidation cycle will be.

Are there any features you believe are particularly important in the design of a fitness to practise system for probation practitioners? Please explain what they are and why.

A fitness to practise system, akin to Social Work England’s and the other health and social care regulators overseen by the PSA, should consist of a robust triage function to screen for suitable concerns, a case investigation function to gather evidence, an adjudication function for resolving concerns, and functions to address the ongoing management of registrants with restrictions placed on their practice as a result of a fitness to practise outcome.

Within these stages, the following features are important aspects of our own fitness to practise model:

• A risk-based approach.

• Independent decision makers.

• A clear framework for independent decision makers to work within.

• A mechanism for interim practice restrictions.

• Opportunities throughout the process for early disposal should concerns not be contested or disputed.

• A mechanism for the regulator to review/correct poor decisions at key stages

• Regular reviews of what constitutes ‘serious’ in terms of professional misconduct or competence.

• An appropriate set of primary, secondary and tertiary legislation to facilitate the above.

However, it must be noted that fitness to practise is a complex, costly and time-consuming process that can often see cases ongoing for years. Before the establishment of such a system, a careful assessment of the public protection need and risk posed by probation practitioners is required to determine if a fitness to practise model is proportionate and more appropriate than the kind of models run by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), Teaching Regulation Agency (TRA) and indeed the existing Probation Professional Register (PPR).

Do you think that restricting use of probation titles through law is necessary and proportionate for public safety? Please explain why.

A professional regulator needs a mechanism by which they can restrict the practice of individual practitioners. Protected title is a common legislative solution, as used by many health and social care regulators such as the General Medical Council (GMC), the Health and Care Professions Council (HCPC), the Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) and Social Work England, as well as other regulators such as the SRA and the Architects Registration Board (ARB), for example. Protected title also serves to help prevent unqualified or unregistered people from unlawfully taking up roles that require that title. However, alternative solutions exist, such as practice licencing (that can be revoked or restricted as part of a fitness to practise outcome), or barring models like that of the TRA & PPR.

A decision as to which of these options is most appropriate for probation officers needs to be made with regards to the scale and nature of the risk currently posed to the public and service users, with consideration given to proportionality and practical efficacy, in line with the principles of right-touch regulation.

If so, do you think that both probation officers and probation services officers should have titles protected in legislation? Please explain why.

As per our previous answer, this very much depends on the assessment of the risk posed by both sets of practitioners, whether separate professional regulation of both groups is warranted, and whether protected title is the, or one of the, mechanisms determined to be most appropriate to help mitigate that risk. Social Work England is not in a position to comment on these specifics.

However, in line with the principles of right-touch regulation, considerations of scope need to consider proportionality, cost and practical efficacy. It will be important to consider the implications of introducing separate protected titles for both probation officers and probation services officers in terms of distinct professional and educational standards for these groups, and the potential confusion this could cause.

Do you agree that the best model of regulation is one that builds on a basic model to provide a framework for accrediting and sharing resources for continuous professional development? Please explain why.

The best model of regulation is one that is tailored to, and meets, the specific risks to the public posed by the profession it seeks to regulate. There is no one-size-fits-all approach, and what works well for one regulator might be disproportionate for another.

Consideration should be given to the existing ecosystem of the sector in question and the function of organisations working therein. Where effective mechanisms for professional development and sharing resources are already in place, any regulatory model should seek to add value to that infrastructure and work alongside it.

For example, the Probation Institute currently performs a function similar to that of a royal college, developing standards, research and professional development resources. It is important to consider if there is anything to be gained from duplicating or displacing that function into a professional regulator. Consideration also needs to be given to proportionality and practical efficacy of such a model for probation practitioners, in line with the principles of right-touch regulation.

In the case of social workers in England, Social Work England’s legislation and powers do not explicitly include provision to provide a formal framework for accrediting and sharing resources for continuing professional development. Despite this, the lack of a Royal College of Social Work or equivalent continues to prove problematic within the sector, and often sees pressure for us to engage in what might be perceived as sectoral improvement work. As such, we believe that a prospective regulator should consider carefully any decision to implement a framework for accrediting and sharing resources for continuing professional development. The rationale should be well described, and the levers to do so clearly articulated in the legislative framework establishing said regulator.

Are there any other probation roles that you believe should, or should not, be included in the scope of professional regulation? Please explain why.

As already stated, any decision regarding the scope of independent statutory regulation should be proportionate to the risks that regulation seeks to address. We consider probation practitioners, sector experts and people with lived experience best placed to comment on the specific risks associated with the various probation roles, and therefore whether individuals in these positions should fall within the scope of any future framework.

We note that the consultation considers how independent regulation of probation practitioners could provide an opportunity to consider “reciprocal arrangements for employers”, such as employer standards. The NISCC are provided as an example of a regulator who sets standards for employers considered by the Regulation and Quality Improvement Authority as part of their registration and inspection processes.

It is important to consider differences in scale, organisational structure and service delivery when using the NISCC's employer standards as a comparator. Depending on whether any employer standards were intended to apply solely to HMPPS as the principal employer of probation practitioners, or more broadly to organisations delivering probation services, careful consideration would be needed regarding how such standards would operate alongside existing assurance and inspection arrangements, including those of HM Inspectorate of Probation, HM Inspectorate of Prisons and other relevant oversight bodies.

Do you agree that registration of practitioners in training should be included within the scope of regulation? Please explain why.

As the risk to the public from student or trainee practise varies across profession and approach to training, consideration of proportionality and practical efficacy should be central to determining whether registration of practitioners in training should be included within the scope of any future statutory regulation of probation practitioners. The practicality of holding a student register is also tied to the nature and oversight of professional training routes. Approved education and training providers would be key stakeholders in supporting the feasibility of registering students and trainees if this group were included within the scope of regulation.

As above, we consider probation practitioners, sector experts and people with lived experience best placed to assess the specific risks associated with probation practitioners in training, and therefore whether registration of these individuals should fall within the scope of any future framework.

Social Work England does not currently hold a student register and considers this consistent with the PSA’s principle of proportionality. The recent Independent Review of Social Work Professional Regulation in England similarly concluded that full student registration “would not strike the optimum balance between risk and burden”. Although we don’t regulate students, we do expect them to understand and work towards the professional standards. We engage with students through our strategic engagement function and approve social work courses against our education and training standards to ensure that students who successfully complete a course can meet our professional standards in preparation for when they apply for registration. Quality assurance of qualifying education and training courses is a key regulatory function, and clear consideration should be given to how this function would sit within any future regulatory model for the probation workforce given the “previously fragmented qualification and training” landscape.

Our education and training standards and guidance provide clarity that providers must have a thorough and effective process for ensuring the ongoing suitability of students’ conduct, character and health. Where there are concerns around a student’s fitness to practise, each education provider will have their own procedure; we are clear that higher education institutions must not permit a social work student to graduate where fitness to practise concerns are under consideration, or where concerns have been raised but they have not yet been considered.

Do you agree that a probation specialist regulator should be the preferred option? Please explain why.

As noted in the consultation, probation in England and Wales has its roots in social work and the qualifying framework for probation practitioners has been historically linked to social work education and training, reflecting the shared values and approaches of these related workforces.

If independent statutory regulation of probation practitioners is concluded to be proportionate and necessary, we consider there to be a strong case that a specialist regulator would be the more appropriate model. However, any decision should be informed by considerations of cost and practical efficacy, taking into account the relatively small scale of the proposed register.

While probation officers continue to be regulated as social workers in some jurisdictions, we recognise that in England and Wales the probation workforce and the social work profession have diverged since the 2000s. If a specialist regulator for the probation workforce was not taken forward, there may be scope to reflect on alternative options more akin to other jurisdictions or historical arrangements but it should be acknowledged that Social Work England does not currently possess the specialist expertise, systems, resource or governance arrangements necessary to regulate probation practitioners.

Do you think that a non-departmental public body is the best option? Please explain why.

Should a new public body be introduced to undertake independent statutory regulation of probation practitioners, the most appropriate classification will be determined by the degree of freedom required from ministerial control to perform its functions credibly and effectively. The PSA's principles of right-touch regulation, together with cost considerations, will be relevant to this assessment.

Social Work England operates as an independent non-departmental public body overseen by the PSA. We value the balance this model provides between accountability to government and operational independence as a specialist regulator, as well as the collective expertise and oversight provided by our board.

Funding arrangements will also be a primary consideration when reviewing the appropriate classification of a new public body. In particular, the extent to which government funding contributes to the regulator's operating costs will have implications for registrant fees. As such, registration fees should not be assumed to be directly proportional to either the size of the register, or the overall cost of the regulatory model.

As an arm’s length body of government, Social Work England is funded by a mixture of grant in aid provided by the Department for Education (DfE) and fees paid by social workers. Our budget is overseen by the DfE, and typically agreed annually, with no capacity to hold funds in reserves over multiple years. Some regulators, like the General Medical Council, General Chiropractic Council and General Optical Council, are financially independent from government and so do not receive grant in aid. They therefore charge higher fees, as they largely self-fund their activities from fee income. During the year 1 April 2025 to 31 March 2026, 41% (£11.42m) of our income was drawn from fees, while 59% (£16.53m) came from the Department for Education in the form of grant-in-aid.

What potential positive or negative impacts do you think the proposals in this consultation may have on probation practitioners with protected characteristics (for example by race, sex, disability, age)?

Please identify which elements of the proposals (such as registration requirements, CPD expectations, fitness to practise processes, protected titles or fees) may give rise to these impacts and any mitigations you think should be considered.

The introduction of independent statutory regulation for probation practitioners, particularly if it incorporates several of the functions proposed in this consultation, would carry significant costs. Consideration should be given foremost to the potential impact of this on the workforce, including whether the regulatory requirements and fees could create a disproportionate barrier to entry for probation practitioners with protected characteristics.

Should independent statutory regulation be introduced, we share several insights from our experience which may help to inform how a future body may approach and evaluate the impact of its work.

Engagement, EDI, and co-production are guiding principles of our regulatory approach. We regularly review our culture, structure, and the way we regulate to ensure that we have the knowledge to identify the impacts of our work. We have a particular focus on seeking to understand where there are differential impacts to identify underlying causes and drive improvement.

As part of this commitment, over recent years we have examined and shared insights from diversity data in our fitness to practise processes. In September 2023, our initial analysis found that some groups were overrepresented in the referrals we received and at key stages of our fitness to practise process. Overrepresented groups included those aged 40 and over, males, and people of Black/African/Caribbean/Black British ethnicity. In September 2026 we published a more sophisticated statistical analysis of 7,000 fitness to practise referrals between December 2019 and March 2024. This analysis found that social workers’ personal characteristics were still associated with progression through the fitness to practise process but with some variation across the different stages and different characteristics.

At this stage, we cannot determine whether the differences identified are the result of inequality, bias, broader workforce factors, or other drivers within the social work system. We are committed to invest in further research, data analysis and stakeholder engagement to build this understanding and our approach will be iterative and evolving as new evidence emerges. However, where the current evidence highlights areas of potential concern, we have taken proportionate action. This has included, but is not limited to, reviewing our processes, introducing ‘fair referral principles’ to support more consistent referral decision making across the sector, and anti-racism training for decision makers in our fitness to practise process.

We share these insights as a point of comparison rather than to suggest that the same trends would necessarily be replicated within a probation context; however, several other regulators have noted similar trends in their fitness to practise data, including the Nursing and Midwifery Council, and Health and Care Professions Council. Our experience has highlighted the importance of embedding equality, diversity and inclusion principles across our regulatory approach, and critically examining the impacts of our work as evidence emerges. Ongoing engagement and co-production with stakeholders is essential to this process. Forums such as our National Advisory Forum and Education and Training Advisory Forum provide constructive challenge and feedback that helps shape our work, and we would recommend that similar mechanisms are considered as part of any future regulatory model for probation practitioners.

Do you have information or data relating to the protected characteristics of probation practitioners who are not employed, directly or otherwise, by HMPPS? If so, please provide this.

No