An inspection of probation services in Newcastle Upon Tyne PDU

Foreword (Back to top)

This was the first inspection of Newcastle upon Tyne Probation Delivery Unit (PDU) since it was established, after the unification of probation services in 2021. Encouragingly, our inspection identified clear strengths in the engagement with people on probation, the strategic direction implemented by leaders, and a culture based on psychological safety, innovation, and relational practice. Despite these strengths, the quality of work to manage people on probation was insufficient in all four of our standards.

As a result of the poor case scores, overall, the PDU is rated ‘Inadequate’.

In principle, the PDU was fully staffed at middle management grade, but the high workloads experienced by managers did not support the delivery of a high-quality service to staff, people on probation, and the communities of Newcastle. Leaders need to prioritise the quality of management oversight as well as the support and development of practitioner skills.

The PDU was not fully resourced at probation officer (PO) or probation service officer (PSO) grades, although recruitment was gradually leading to an improving picture. However, vacancy rates, high sickness levels, and an inexperienced workforce placed additional pressures on staff. Professional Qualification in Probation (PQiPs) practitioners were supported with protected caseloads. However, they were consistently under capacity. This meant that experienced practitioners were carrying a disproportionate share of the workload. Undoubtedly, these resourcing challenges were hindering the PDU’s ability to deliver high-quality casework.

Practitioners were often building positive relationships with people on probation, which was promising. However, consistent with findings from our recent reports, there remained a need to improve the quality of risk assessment and management of people on probation. Significant deficits were identified across all aspects of casework. Urgent improvements are required in the nature and quality in the exchange of information with children’s services and police partners. Prioritisation of these processes is essential to improving the analysis and management of risks posed to vulnerable children and adults by people on probation. This needs to be a cross-agency priority.

Despite the disappointing outcomes in our casework inspection, the PDU head was impressive, and had a clear and well-developed understanding of the deficits and work required for improvement. A notable strength lay in the high visibility and influence of the PDU head, who had enabled and facilitated middle managers to cultivate, promote, and expand strategic partnerships. The range, variety, and availability of services within Newcastle was impressive. However practitioners must be supported to make better use of these resources. Similarly, practitioners required further support to improve confidence in holding challenging conversations with people on probation and delivering structured interventions to reduce the risk of further offending and serious harm.

Newcastle upon Tyne PDU will undoubtedly be disappointed with the overall outcome of this inspection. However, there were reasons to be optimistic about the potential of this PDU. Practitioners, middle managers, and people on probation were motivated and engaged, and there is an improving staffing picture overall. This PDU has worked hard to build a culture of inclusion, engagement, and psychological safety. That is a positive foundation upon which to build. The next step is to ensure that the culture translates into consistently high-quality work that effectively protects people from harm.

Martin Jones CBE 

HM Chief Inspector of Probation

---

Ratings (Back to top)

Fieldwork started April 2025

Score 3/21

Overall rating

Inadequate

1. Organisational arrangements and activity

P 1.1 Leadership	Requires improvement
P 1.2 Staffing	Requires improvement
P 1.3 Services	Requires improvement

2. Service delivery

P 2.1 Assessment	Inadequate
P 2.2 Planning	Inadequate
P 2.3 Implementation and delivery	Inadequate
P 2.4 Reviewing	Inadequate

Recommendations (Back to top)

As a result of our inspection findings, we have made a number of recommendations that we believe, if implemented, will have a positive impact on the quality of probation services.

Newcastle upon Tyne PDU should:

1. ensure that, in all cases, domestic abuse and safeguarding information is complete and analysed sufficiently to inform the quality of assessment, planning, review, and management of people on probation
2. develop practitioners’ confidence and skills in the use of professional curiosity and challenging conversations to identify, analyse, assess, plan, and respond to indicators of risk effectively
3. improve the effectiveness of quality assurance activity and consistent management oversight of all casework
4. ensure that there is a blended offer in place for face-to-face and in-person training, and that delivery of training is prioritised to enhance the skills of the workforce
5. improve contingency planning for risk of harm management to ensure that protection of victims is prioritised.

---

Background (Back to top)

We conducted fieldwork in Newcastle upon Tyne PDU over a period of two weeks, beginning 28 April 2025. We inspected 24 community orders, nine releases on licence from custody, and one case that had both a community order and a period of licence supervision from custody, where sentences and licences had started during two separate weeks, between 23 and 29 September 2024 and 28 October and 03 November 2024. We also conducted 32 interviews with 15 probation practitioners.

The Probation Reset policy was in use during the time of this inspection. Of the cases we inspected, four out of 35 were subject to Probation Reset. This meant that these individuals had their supervision suspended for the final third of their supervision period.

Newcastle upon Tyne is one of seven PDUs in the north-east region. Many of the core services in the PDU were managed regionally, including interventions, Integrated Offender Management, statutory work with victims and administrative support for practitioners. The PDU was operating within a context of significant organisational change, which had taken place over several years. This included the unification of the probation service in July 2021. In 2024, the PDU had moved away from its city centre location to Victoria House on Newcastle Business Park. More recently, there had been a change in the delivery model from one generic team to five specialist teams, managing men aged 18–30, women, community cases, resettlement cases, and a team of people training to be PQiP practitioners. To maintain ease of access for people on probation, reporting arrangements had been facilitated at a number of community hubs across the city centre.

Staff employed within the PDU provided a service to Newcastle Combined Court Centre, comprising of crown and magistrates’ courts. There were two independent approved premises within the city, which were not managed by the PDU.

The overall number of staff in post was 98 per cent of the target. Vacancies across practitioner and administration grades indicated the shortages against the staffing target, with POs at 86 per cent below, and PSOs (excluding PQiP) at 91 per cent. In addition, the annual staff sickness rate was 15 days. This was above the national average.

At the point the inspection was announced, Newcastle upon Tyne PDU’s caseload comprised of approximately 1,334 people on probation. Of these, 651 people were subject to community sentences and 313 people were being supervised on licence from prison. In total, 370 individuals were being managed in custody before release. Black, Asian and minority ethnic people made up 13 per cent of the caseload, which is slightly higher than the regional average.

Thirteen Group provided commissioned rehabilitative services (CRS) for accommodation support. Ingeus delivered personal wellbeing and drug and alcohol recovery services. St Giles Wise provided finance, benefit, and debt support. Changing Lives provided women’s services. Newcastle upon Tyne PDU had also developed arrangements with local services based in the city to supplement regionally commissioned services. These included West End Women and Girls Centre, CFO Evolution, and Tyne Housing providing holistic offers in key areas of the city which also facilitated alternative reporting arrangements.

---

1. Organisational arrangements and activity (Back to top)

P 1.1. Leadership	Rating
The leadership of the PDU enables delivery of a high quality, personalised, and responsive service for all people on probation.	Requires improvement

As a result of the domain two ratings, the Inspectorate’s rating decision guidance would normally indicate a leadership rating of ‘Inadequate’. However, given the clear strengths in leadership identified, the rating of ‘Requires improvement’ has been applied.

Strengths:

• The PDU head had forged well-established relationships with key strategic partners, including children’s services, adult safeguarding, and police involved in the management of registered sex offenders and other high-risk offenders. He was highly valued by those partners and consistently ensured representation on all boards and sub-groups.
• There was a positive culture in the PDU that promoted openness, constructive challenge, and ideas. This emanated from the PDU head and the leadership team and was built on the premise that all staff are equally respected and have a valued contribution to make. 
• The PDU head was visible and accessible to staff and those working with the PDU. Staff, strategic partners, service providers, and people on probation consistently expressed appreciation for the Head’s proactive efforts to communicate key areas of business, resourcing, and organisational change.
• Leaders understood and used diversity information, including PDU profiles, to drive improvement. Leaders and staff across the PDU were taking various approaches to meet diverse needs for both staff and people on probation.
• Middle managers were mostly experienced practitioners from within the local area and staff reported that they benefited from this recent practice experience. SPOs had promoted the Offender Personality Disorder Pathway and the Northumbria Stalking Interventions Programme. This was leading practitioners to refer relevant people to those services. 
• PDU leaders in Newcastle recognised and utilised diversity data to inform and drive service improvements. The delivery model had been adapted to better meet the needs of young people and women. Leaders had used a profile and needs analysis to develop strengths-based approaches to working with people on probation. This included collaboration with community hubs, CRS providers and people on probation to engage in activities such as art, creative writing, sport, and cooking. These initiatives were likely to have supported skill development while offering a less formal, more engaging environment for meaningful interaction between people on probation and practitioners.
• An engaging people on probation group in the PDU was well established. Following feedback from people on probation, changes had been made to the way in which the PDU carried out its work. This meant people on the group felt valued and had a sense of hope and purpose.

Areas for improvement:

• The vision and strategy implemented by the PDU were not yet fully leading to sufficient quality of frontline practice, particularly in relation to public protection. Our casework inspection found that practitioners were not being professionally curious about the people they were supervising, and some victims were not being adequately considered.
• Leaders had not done enough to ensure that police domestic abuse checks were providing sufficient information about incidents of concern. Probation practitioners were routinely having go back to the police for more information. This was wasting time and slowing down the flow of information sharing. Consequently, we saw insufficient analysis of risk to actual and potential victims in assessments and work by practitioners to keep people safe. This issue had been escalated both locally and at a strategic level, but limited improvements had been achieved.
• In 80 per cent of the casework we inspected, management oversight was insufficient, ineffective, or absent. This limited practitioners’ ability to work with both accountability and autonomy. Leaders were challenged by resource constraints, while also addressing learning and development needs. Combined with their high workloads, this affected middle managers’ ability to implement effective quality assurance and oversight systems tailored to a developing workforce.
• Leaders had invested a great deal of well-intentioned, and productive, time and energy in developing a culture of engaging with staff and people on probation. However, there was not enough focus on whether that was leading to better quality work to support people to change and protect others from harm.  Not enough work was being carried out by practitioners or partnership agencies to support people to change. Practitioners needed a better understanding of what they were accountable for and how that translated to their responsibility to the public and victims, and the implementation and delivery of the sentence of the court.
• PDU leaders had paid insufficient attention to the quality of work with people on probation. A quality development officer (QDO) role was available to provide support to staff. However, this was met with resistance by practitioners who did not see the value and purpose of this function, and consequently it was having limited impact on the quality of casework. The floating SPO role had a remit for performance but it was not being utilised to focus on quality improvement.

---

P 1.2 Staffing	Rating
The leadership of the PDU enables delivery of a high quality, personalised, and responsive service for all people on probation.	Requires improvement

High workloads had impacted the quality of service delivery. This has resulted in a lack of targeted management oversight and deficits in the work to manage risk of harm. Additionally, practitioners required further support and training to deliver tailored interventions and hold difficult conversations with the people they supervised. Despite this, the PDU had a culture of innovation. There was a clear commitment to upskilling practitioners within specialist areas of work and engaging with bespoke local providers. This resulted in an overall rating for staffing of ‘Requires improvement.’

Strengths:

• The head of service had created a part-time floating SPO role with a specific remit to oversee an improved focus on performance, learning from serious further offence, and transfers. Middle managers experienced significant relief from the redistribution of these tasks and were wholly supportive of the role.
• There was clear evidence that staff were supported in their professional development. Through promotion, several people in the PDU had progressed across grades. Staff were encouraged and supported to attend training in areas of personal interest and to take on responsibilities beyond their usual remit, often through lead roles, to broaden their experience and skills.
• Middle managers were given freedom to innovate around specialist areas, utilising their experience and drawing on enthusiasm and interest which promoted engagement. PDU leaders had been given permission to develop and deliver initiatives aimed at strengthening work with people on probation, including women’s services and the Northumbria Stalking Interventions Programme.
• The PDU actively fostered a culture of openness and transparency. The PDU head maintained a strong presence within the PDU, which most staff found valuable because it enhanced communication and provided a sense of support.

Areas for improvement:

• Experienced POs faced sustained pressure due to high workloads in the PDU.  Although the overall staffing capacity was at 97 per cent, practitioners across all teams continued to manage caseloads between 120 and 150 per cent of expected levels. This was partly because PQiP practitioners were consistently under capacity, meaning they were carrying a disproportionate share of the workload. Staff absences were also affecting workloads. POs and PSOs widely felt that workloads were unmanageable.
• The PDU has experienced a sustained and prolonged period of high caseloads and staffing vacancies. This, combined with a clear emphasis on engagement, has inadvertently resulted in a limited focus on evidencing structured interventions to address desistance factors and risk of harm.
• Practitioners were receiving regular supervision, but this was not having an impact on the quality of casework, particularly in relation to controlling and managing risk. SPOs often had unmanageable workloads and, at times, were prioritising the strategic projects to the detriment of their operational oversight of practitioners. The community supervision team had been without a full time SPO for five months due to recruitment processes and timescales.

---

P 1.3 Services	Rating
A comprehensive range of high-quality services is in place, supporting a tailored and responsive service for all people on probation.	Requires improvement

There was a varied range of services available, supported by a strong collaborative approach with both regionally commissioned and bespoke local partners. While our standard for implementation and delivery was rated ‘Inadequate’, the breadth and quality of the service offer were notable strengths in the PDU. These contributed to an overall rating of ‘Requires improvement’.

Strengths:

• There were appropriate Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA) functioning well at Levels 2 and 3. There was collaborative and effective partnership working between the PDU and Management of Sexual Offenders and Violent Offenders (MOSOVO) police officers.
• The Offender Personality Disorder Pathway and Intensive Intervention and Risk Management Service (IIRMS), run jointly with health partners, provided a positive service for people on probation with multiple complex needs. The project was also helping to support practitioners. This was achieved through the joint working of complex cases, although these were a small number of the whole caseload. 
• Referral routes for CRS providers were clear. Some services, including those for women, were co-located. This meant practitioners were able to seek guidance, build relationships, and share information with partnership staff.
• The PDU was collaborating with some service providers, including West End Women and Girls Centre, The Brunswick Centre, CFO Evolution and the Joseph Cowan Health Centre. This work was enabling the PDU to maintain a presence within local communities effectively. Consequently, people on probation were, in principle, able to benefit from the additional support offered from these providers and engage in a variety of activities within their local communities. 

Areas for improvement:

• The PDU was not working effectively enough with CRS providers.  Not enough referrals were being made for people on probation who would have potentially benefited from working with CRS providers. For those who had been referred, there were high numbers of cancellations. The PDU needed to work more closely with CRS providers to improve referrals and the provision of services for people on probation. This would also provide an opportunity for practitioners overwhelmed with high workloads to implement adequate support for people on probation to desist from further offending.
• Not enough people on probation were receiving sufficient support in relation to alcohol and drug misuse. That was disappointing, because the provision offered by Ingeus was impressive and included lived experienced facilitators and peer mentors who provided a holistic offer with one-to-one and group sessions. An extended offer also included sport and creative activities, and late-night reporting to increase engagement.
• Practitioners lacked confidence in delivering toolkits and structured interventions, and they wanted better training. Our case inspection provided limited evidence that meaningful interventions to keep people safe were being delivered.
• Accredited programme completion rates needed to improve. Only 25 per cent of accredited programmes for individuals convicted of sexual offences had been completed. Only 46 per cent of accredited programmes, other than for individuals convicted of a sexual offence, had been completed.

---

Diversity and inclusion (Back to top)

Strengths:

• In 51 per cent of cases we inspected, practitioners were building on the strengths of the person on probation and enhancing protective factors. This meant practitioners were often being responsive to past trauma, neurodiversity, and other personal characteristics.  
• There was a seconded PO based in the local youth justice service who prepared children before they transitioned to adult services. Once fully transferred at 18 years old, they were supervised by a specialist team for young adults in the PDU. This was led by a SPO who was experienced in youth justice.
• Engaging people on probation was a strength of the PDU, supported by staff across all grades and the regional EPOP lead. Participants had monthly forums. There was also strong engagement from practitioners with people on probation and clear examples of how suggestions were translated into practical solutions.
• Leaders were responding meaningfully to people on probation with neurodivergent conditions, who made up 80 per cent of the caseload. They had engaged with staff and people on probation and used what they learnt to make improvements to the probation office. For example, staff had displayed artwork and plants to create a more welcoming, and less austere, office environment. Grab bags of resources were also being provided to support the engagement of neurodiverse individuals. 
• PDU leaders had actively addressed issues of disproportionality. An evaluation of the people on probation using community hubs demonstrated that women were under-represented in their attendance. The SPO for the women’s team collaborated with hub providers in local communities and ensured that each provider was offering a dedicated women-only reporting day for females on probation within their local area. Furthermore, practitioners were encouraged to hold inductions and appointments there. This provided opportunities for women to see what else is offered within the hub, and operated as a one-stop shop for all needs and services.

Areas for improvement:

• Not all women on probation were being referred to the CRS provider. This was a missed opportunity to engage and support women with services to enhance desistance and reduce risk. Despite the high-quality work taking place between probation staff and providers of women’s services, we saw the same deficiencies in work to address risk of serious harm. Practitioners did not always understand the complexities of women being both victims and perpetrators, often simultaneously.

2. Service delivery (Back to top)

P 2.1 Assessment	Rating
Assessment is well-informed, analytical and personalised, involving actively the person on probation.	Inadequate

Our rating[1] for assessment is based on the percentage of cases we inspected being judged satisfactory against three key questions and is driven by the lowest score:

Key question	Percentage ‘Yes’
Does assessment focus sufficiently on engaging the person on probation?	66%
Does assessment focus sufficiently on the factors linked to offending and desistance?	69%
Does assessment focus sufficiently on keeping other people safe?	29%

• Practitioners were often analysing issues related to people offending. Of the cases we inspected, 66 per cent identified and analysed the strengths and protective factors of the person on probation. Practitioners were drawing on additional sources to identify concerns such as mental health, substance use, and transient lifestyles, and understood how these key factors could influence reoffending and desistance. This was a strong area of work, particularly across community cases, which showed practitioners clearly understood the factors that support positive change for people on probation.
• Most assessments were based on meaningful engagement with the person on probation. Over two-thirds of assessments sufficiently analysed the personal circumstances of the individual and considered the impact of these on their ability to comply and engage with service delivery. Four out of five PQiP cases we inspected were particularly strong in relation to engaging with people on probation during assessments.[2]  People on probation were routinely asked to complete self-assessments, and barriers to engagement were effectively considered.
• Access to good quality domestic abuse and safeguarding information was a significant problem in risk assessments. Established processes were in place to access safeguarding and domestic abuse information, but the level of information provided lacked sufficient detail. This meant that practitioners needed to complete repeated enquiries to fully understand the history and risks in each case. This did not always happen. In 20 out of 35 cases, assessments did not clearly identify or analyse all relevant risk factors. In some assessments, critical information regarding children’s involvement with social care services or incidents categorised as ‘child concern’ or ‘vulnerable adult’ were not explored or used to fully identify the risks posed by people on probation. As a result, not all potential victims were clearly identified. In addition, assessments frequently lacked sufficient insight into the nature and extent of the harm posed by people on probation to those around them.
• Improvements were required to ensure that assessments drew appropriately and sufficiently from all available sources. Practitioners needed to be more professionally curious about the past behaviour of people on probation and analyse this along with information from other agencies. This was judged to have been completed sufficiently in only 37 per cent of cases and was even weaker in cases managed by PSO grade practitioners.[3]

---

P 2.2 Planning	Rating
Planning is well-informed, holistic and personalised, involving actively the person on probation.	Inadequate

Our rating[4] for planning is based on the percentage of cases we inspected being judged satisfactory against three key questions and is driven by the lowest score:

Key question	Percentage ‘Yes’
Does planning focus sufficiently on engaging the person on probation?	74%
Does planning focus sufficiently on reducing reoffending and supporting desistance?	54%
Does planning focus sufficiently on keeping other people safe?	31%

• We found, as a result of effective relationship building, engagement with people on probation during planning stages was particularly strong. Sentence planning mostly considered how the protected characteristics of the individual may impact upon engagement and compliance. Almost three-quarters of the cases we inspected considered how the personal circumstances of the individual may affect engagement and compliance.
• Over half of plans set out the services that were most likely to reduce reoffending. Cases managed by PQiP practitioners were particularly strong. Plans were often sequenced well and identified sources of support. In four out of five of the PQiP cases we inspected, plans included joint working with other agencies and prioritising the most critical offence-related factors.[5]
• Too many plans were insufficient in relation to keeping people safe. Not enough plans made appropriate reference to how other agencies involved in the case, including the police and children’s services, could work with probation to safeguard potential victims from future harm.
• Gaps in information obtained from partner agencies during the early stages of the sentence had an impact on planning for safeguarding. This meant that practitioners missed vital opportunities to plan adequately for the safety of others.
• Less than half of the cases we inspected referenced the necessary constructive or restrictive interventions to manage risk of harm. Only 10 out of 22 PO cases and three out of six PSO cases were assessed as sufficient in relation to keeping people safe.[6] Overall, not enough cases had robust risk management and contingency planning in place. Without the appropriate risk and contingency plans to address identified risks, practitioners were not fully able to mitigate the risks posed by people on probation.
• In contrast to safety planning being carried out by POs and PSOs, more work carried out by PQiP practitioners was assessed as sufficient, with three out of four relevant cases assessed as sufficient[7]. However, workload management tool information indicated that PQiP practitioners were significantly under capacity, and PO and PSO colleagues mostly had more cases than they should have done. In the cases we inspected, this disparity was associated with the quality of work being delivered.
  

---

P 2.3. Implementation and delivery	Rating
High-quality well-focused, personalised, and coordinated services are delivered, engaging the person on probation.	Inadequate

Our rating[8] for implementation and delivery is based on the percentage of cases we inspected being judged satisfactory against three key questions and is driven by the lowest score:

Key question	Percentage ‘Yes’
Is the sentence or post-custody period implemented effectively with a focus on engaging the person on probation?	60%
Does the implementation and delivery of services effectively support desistance?	34%
Does the implementation and delivery of services effectively support the safety of other people?	14%

• Engaging people on probation in work to address their offending was the strongest area of implementation and delivery. Most cases inspected had continuity of supervision with the same practitioner managing the case throughout the licence or order. In 69 per cent of the cases we inspected, practitioners had given sufficient focus to maintaining an effective working relationship, including consideration of diversity needs. This enabled requirements set by the court to start promptly in 71 per cent of the cases we inspected. 
• In 24 out of 30 relevant cases, targeted interventions to address thinking and behaviour were missing. We found too many cases where probation practitioners had used check-in style appointments with people on probation. In the casework we inspected, there was a lack of constructive and challenging discussions between people on probation and their practitioners in the casework. 
• Improvements were needed to engage local services to support and sustain desistance during the sentence and beyond. This was particularly poor in resettlement cases, where two out of ten of the cases we inspected demonstrated the implementation and delivery of services to support desistance effectively.
• Significant concerns were identified in safeguarding practices during sentence delivery. Barriers to obtaining safeguarding and domestic abuse information at the start of sentences impacted on practitioners’ ability to identify actual and potential victims. Practitioners often failed to demonstrate professional curiosity and did not verify or explore information about contact with children or vulnerable adults. This resulted in critical risk information being overlooked. Our inspection found that only 14 per cent of cases sufficiently supported the safety of others. Additionally, only four out of 30 relevant cases demonstrated adequate multi-agency coordination to manage and reduce harm. Targeted improvements were needed to strengthen multi-agency collaboration and ensure that risk factors were appropriately assessed and addressed.

---

P 2.4. Reviewing	Rating
Reviewing of progress is well-informed, analytical and personalised, involving actively the person on probation.	Inadequate

Our rating[9] for reviewing is based on the percentage of cases we inspected being judged satisfactory against three key questions and is driven by the lowest score:

Key question	Percentage ‘Yes’
Does reviewing focus sufficiently on supporting the compliance and engagement of the person on probation?	52%
Does reviewing focus sufficiently on supporting desistance?	32%
Does reviewing focus sufficiently on keeping other people safe?	26%

• Just over a third of the cases we inspected meaningfully involved the person on probation in reviewing their progress and engagement. We found limited evidence that active reviewing was taking place, both in terms of general reviews of progress made and, crucially, in response to new information obtained. Practitioners were not always having the necessary, challenging, and risk-focused discussions in sessions with people on probation.
• Practitioners had not completed written reviews to record progress in 18 out of 25 relevant cases where one was required. Where the person on probation’s circumstances had changed, including where their engagement had deteriorated, practitioners had not always carried out a review. This meant that they were not adapting the delivery of sentences, where it was necessary to do so.
• Reviews were not sufficiently informed by input from other agencies. In 21 out of 27 relevant cases, work to support people to change was insufficient. In 25 out of 28 relevant cases, reviewing of risk management plans was also insufficient. Practitioners were not seeking or receiving input from other agencies often enough to ensure that their reviews accurately reflected the assessment of an individual’s desistance and risk to others.
• Overall, the quality of reviews was poor, and it was worse for resettlement cases compared with community cases. Only one out of 10 relevant cases inspected focused sufficiently on keeping other people safe. Too often, crucial information was missing. In 22 out of 27 relevant cases practitioners had failed to fully identify and address factors related to risk of harm. Again, this was worse for resettlement cases.

Further information (Back to top)

Full data from this inspection and further information about the methodology used to conduct this inspection is available in the data annexe.

A glossary of terms used in this report is available on our website.

This inspection was led by HM Inspector Joy Wilson, supported by a team of inspectors and colleagues from across the Inspectorate. We would like to thank all those who participated in any way in this inspection. Without their help and cooperation, the inspection would not have been possible.

[1] The rating for the standard is driven by the score for the key question, which is placed in a rating band. Full data and further information about inspection methodology is available in the data annexe.

[2] The breakdown of the findings relating to how assessed cases are managed by grade of practitioner, have not been subject to a relative rate index analysis, which is a test used to compare rates of incidence. These findings are from small subsamples. We report our findings with this caveat.

[3] The breakdown of the findings relating to how assessed cases are managed by grade of practitioner have not been subject to a relative rate index analysis, which is a test used to compare rates of incidence. These findings are from small subsamples. We report our findings with this caveat.

[4] The rating for the standard is driven by the score for the key question, which is placed in a rating band. Full data and further information about inspection methodology is available in the data annexe.

[5] The breakdown of the findings relating to how assessed cases are managed by grade of practitioner, have not been subject to a relative rate index analysis, which is a test used to compare rates of incidence. These findings are from small subsamples. We report our findings with this caveat.

[6] The breakdown of the findings relating to how assessed cases are managed by grade of practitioner, have not been subject to a relative rate index analysis, which is a test used to compare rates of incidence. These findings are from small subsamples. We report our findings with this caveat

[7] The breakdown of the findings relating to how assessed cases are managed by grade of practitioner, have not been subject to a relative rate index analysis, which is a test used to compare rates of incidence. These findings are from small subsamples. We report our findings with this caveat

[8] The rating for the standard is driven by the score for the key question, which is placed in a rating band. Full data and further information about inspection methodology is available in the data annexe.

[9] The rating for the standard is driven by the lowest score on each of the key questions, which is placed in a rating band, indicated in bold in the table.