An inspection of probation services in Gateshead and South Tyneside PDU

Foreword (Back to top)

Gateshead and South Tyneside Probation Delivery Unit (PDU) was last inspected by HM Inspectorate of Probation in 2022, when it was rated as ‘Good’ overall. The PDU had strengths and had made some progress against previous inspection recommendations. However, we saw a concerning decline in the quality of some of the work undertaken, especially in practice to keep people safe. Reasons for this included staffing challenges, including periods of high staff sickness, workload pressures on middle managers, and a lack of professional curiosity from an inexperienced practitioner group, whose learning needs were not fully understood.

This led to an overall rating of ‘Requires improvement’.

This assessment is wholly consistent with all recent PDU inspection reports and indicates the challenges on the probation frontline.

At the time of this inspection, it was pleasing to see that most practitioners’ workloads were reasonable, and leaders were taking a proactive approach to engaging staff. Leaders were actively managing sickness absence and staff felt managers were invested in supporting their professional development.

Staff were engaged and motivated to do what was best for people on probation. This was driven by meaningful activity to engage people on probation, with staff dedicated to listening to, and acting upon the voices of those being supervised. This translated into our casework, where we saw strong practice to engage people on probation in sentence delivery. At the assessment and planning stages of sentence management, PDU staff generally understood the offending-related needs of the individuals they were supervising and what work they needed to complete with the person. This was supported by strong working relationships with services to help people to change. Some partner agencies were present in probation offices. This facilitated conversations and information-sharing. 

However, work to keep the public safe was the weakest area of practice across all our standards. In several cases, essential information had not been gathered from social services or the police, which weakened attempts to keep women and children in particular safe from abusive behaviour. As we see too often, when PDU staff received information that indicated a risk to actual and potential victims, they did not always follow it up or use it effectively to assess and manage risk.

The PDU will be disappointed with the overall outcome of this inspection; however with the appropriate attention, it can make the necessary improvements needed to deliver high-quality work to keep people safe from harm.

Martin Jones CBE 

HM Chief Inspector of Probation

---

Ratings (Back to top)

Fieldwork started May 2025

Score 4/21

Overall rating

Requires improvement

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	Requires improvement
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.

Gateshead and South Tyneside PDU should:

1. ensure middle managers have enough capacity to provide the appropriate level of oversight according to the needs of staff members and level of casework in the team
2. make arrangements with the police and children’s services to ensure that the information they share is sufficient to enable all actual and potential victims to be identified accurately, and to inform the quality of assessment and management of people on probation
3. conduct a learning analysis to understand the skills and knowledge of the practitioner group and implement a system to ensure gaps in learning are met
4. 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
5. improve contingency planning and the quality of the work to assess, manage, and review risk of harm, ensuring that practitioners access and use all available information
6. improve the processes, quality of recording and oversight of cases managed at Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA) Level 1.

---

Background (Back to top)

We conducted fieldwork in Gateshead and South Tyneside over the period of two weeks, beginning on 12 May 2025. We inspected 24 community orders and eight releases on licence from custody where sentences and licences had commenced during two separate weeks, between 23 September and 29 September 2024 and 28 October and 03 November 2024. We also conducted 24 interviews with probation practitioners.

Gateshead and South Tyneside is one of seven PDUs in the North East probation region. The PDU has two offices, in South Shields and Gateshead, and a magistrates’ court. The PDU manages a caseload of approximately 1,321 people on probation and in prison. It was being led by an interim head of PDU, who had been appointed on a temporary basis in December 2024 to cover for the permanent head, who had been assigned to work on a regional project. 

Gateshead and South Tyneside PDU spans two metropolitan boroughs in Tyne and Wear, and is covered by the North East Combined Authority. Gateshead and South Tyneside has a combined population of 348,409 people. In Gateshead, 6.5 per cent of residents identify as from a Black, Asian and minority ethnic background, compared with 5.6 per cent of residents in South Tyneside.

The PDU’s area is covered by Northumbria Police. Total recorded crime in the area is above the national average but is lower than the regional average. The proven reoffending rate across Gateshead between July 2022 and June 2023 was higher than the national average, at 32 per cent, but slightly lower than the national average across South Tyneside, at 25 per cent. 

Commissioned rehabilitative services (CRS) were provided by Thirteen Group for accommodation support and Ingeus for personal wellbeing and dependency and recovery; Changing Lives provided services for women and St Giles Wise offered finance, benefit and debt support.

The Probation Reset policy was operational at the time of inspection. This meant that individuals had contact with their probation practitioner suspended for the final third of their supervision period. In cases where contact had been suspended after more than eight weeks’ supervision, we applied our core standards and took a proportionate approach in making inspection judgements. We used an adjusted set of standards where contact had been suspended within eight weeks supervision or less. Two of the 32 cases we inspected were subject to Probation Reset, and the adjusted PDU standards applied in one case.

Gateshead and South Tyneside PDU was previously inspected in December 2022, when it was rated ‘Good’. Our inspection of casework identified a clear pattern of probation practitioners focusing on engaging with people on probation. Assessment and planning activity was strong, including to address factors linked to desistance from crime. Work to manage risk of harm needed to be improved. The PDU’s progress against previous recommendations can be found at the end of this report. 

---

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

Strengths:

• The PDU’s business plan was easily accessible and understandable for staff. The plan had an overarching core objective of ‘Continuing to improve the quality of sentence planning and risk management’. There was some evidence that this was being translated into practice: across our casework, planning activity was where we saw the most consistent practice. Most staff were aware of the PDU business plan. The plan had been linked to their work appraisal process, which was called the competency based framework (CBF).
• There were sufficient governance arrangements in place to monitor and manage sickness and track performance. There were monthly sickness meetings with the head of service, senior probation officers (SPOs) and the human resource (HR) business partner. This ensured that formal attendance processes were managed robustly. Staff across all grades told us that reasonable adjustments were made when required, and those who responded to our staff survey confirmed this. Sickness absence was falling. Regular PDU management meetings provided an opportunity to pass on key operational messages and focus on performance. This had improved the PDU’s performance across some key indicators.
• Leaders had been taking a deliberate, strategic and informed approach to meeting diverse needs in relation to some protected characteristics. There were services to support people on probation with mental and physical health needs, through Enhanced Reconnect and Intensive Integrated Risk Management Service. The PDU had developed women’s hubs within Gateshead and South Tyneside and had specialist women’s concentrators. The PDU had recently formed a young adults team in each office, in acknowledgement of the distinctive developmental needs of this group.
• Most staff felt engaged and listened to, which they attributed to the positive influence of the interim head of PDU. The PDU had a range of cross-grade and cross-office groups to engage with staff, explore new ideas and invite constructive challenge. These included the staff engagement chat and wellbeing forum, the reward and recognition panel and all-staff calls. Leaders promoted an open-door policy.
• Leaders had responded swiftly and appropriately to concerns raised in the most recent PDU staff survey, which indicated that the number of staff reporting that they had been discriminated against had more than doubled between 2023 and 2024. All staff were due to complete the unacceptable behaviour change programme, which was reflected in the business plan. The PDU was also waiting for completion of a climate assessment by the Tackling Unacceptable Behaviour Unit.
• Engaging People on Probation (EPoP) was a strength. There was a strong, embedded culture of seeking out, listening and responding to the views of people on probation. Forums for people on probation had been established, and feedback had led to change. For example, the PDU had created a sentence plan delivery leaflet and an information leaflet on local key services. Across all areas of our inspection casework, we saw a focus on engaging the person on probation.

Areas for improvement:

• Efforts to improve the quality of the work to keep people safe, including all-staff events focused on improving risk assessments and risk management plans, had not translated into the delivery of a high-quality service for all people on probation. This was shown in our case inspection findings for keeping people safe, especially across assessment, implementation and delivery and reviewing activity. The business plan did not focus sufficiently on protecting the public and safeguarding victims.
• Not enough progress had been made against some of the previous inspection recommendations. Our case inspection results showed that the quality of contingency planning and domestic abuse and child safeguarding checks remained insufficient.
• The PDU had established processes for completing police and safeguarding checks, which meant that initial requests for information were timely and the information was returned quickly. However, the quality of the information was inconsistent, and this affected the quality of work to keep people safe.
• Representation across some strategic and operational boards and subgroups in Gateshead and South Tyneside was inconsistent. Partners agreed that the contribution from probation was essential to set strategic direction, achieve joint priorities, network with partners and share information about probation changes.
• The PDU risk register did not capture all key issues of concern. For example, it did not include challenges in receiving child safeguarding information and the closure of local community hubs. This meant the impact of these risks was not fully explored or understood, and appropriate mitigations were not in place.

---

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

Strengths:

• At the time the inspection was announced, Gateshead and South Tyneside PDU had 103 per cent staff in post across all grades. It was fully staffed at SPO grade and had 91 per cent of probation officers (POs) in post.
• The workload of the PDU at the time of the inspection fieldwork was reasonable. At the time the inspection was announced, POs were at 93 per cent capacity on average, with probation service officers (PSOs) at 62 per cent and Professional Qualification in Probation (PQiP) staff at 91 per cent. In our staff survey, just under two-thirds of respondents indicated that their workload was manageable. Of the practitioners we interviewed, 88 per cent felt that their workload was manageable. 
• PDU leaders promoted a positive culture of learning. Staff were informed of training opportunities, which were also discussed in supervision. Additional training was also provided for staff in specialist and semi-specialist roles. For example, practitioners in the women’s concentrator model attended specific training on exploitation, minimising harm, sex work and personality disorder. Of those who responded to our staff survey, 26 out of 32 indicated that a culture of learning and continuous improvement was actively promoted in the PDU always or most of the time.
• Staff were supported to progress professionally across all grades. Five PSOs had moved to train to be POs, a PO had moved into a temporary SPO role and an SPO had moved into an interim head of service role. Middle managers spoke positively about attending the ‘Leading and Managing as an SPO’ programme. Of those who responded to the staff survey, 19 out of 32 thought that the potential of staff was identified and developed always or most of the time.
• Protected development days (PDDs) provided space for professional development and learning and were received positively by staff. These were accessible to court and administrative staff. PDDs were used as an opportunity to focus on areas of learning identified from local quality assurance activity (Regional Case Assurance Tool (RCAT)) and themes and trends from serious further offences, and domestic homicide reviews.
• Most staff indicated they were having regular supervision. Twenty-seven out of 31 respondents to our staff survey considered their supervision to be sufficient and frequent. Supervision for probation practitioners included discussions about wellbeing, workload, CBF and case discussions.

Areas for improvement:

• At the time the inspection was announced, the PDU had significant staffing gaps at PSO grade, with only 80 per cent of PSOs, excluding PQiPs, in post. This was because several PSOs had recently moved on to the trainee probation officer programme. This had put extra workload pressure on those remaining in post.
• There were pressures for SPOs with their workload. As well as managing practitioners and having lead roles, middle managers were responsible for coordinating the PDDs and attending partnership meetings on behalf of the head of service. This meant that they could not always focus on providing effective management oversight and supervising cases. Existing supervision and management oversight activity was not consistently enhancing and sustaining the quality of the work with people on probation or keeping people safe. This was reflected in our casework results, where management oversight was effective in only 41 per cent of cases inspected.
• The PDU had a culture of strong support for practitioners, but this needed to be balanced with appropriate challenge about expected standards of practice to help drive up capability. Local quality assurance activity had identified issues with the quality of work to keep people safe, but this had not been acted on in full. Understanding the learning needs of staff and taking action to address areas of improvement were needed to drive performance. This was particularly important as the PDU had a relatively inexperienced workforce, with nearly two-thirds of practitioners having less than five years’ experience. 
• Practice across all aspects of our case inspections was better in South Tyneside than in Gateshead. High levels of staff sickness in Gateshead had resulted in caseloads being reallocated, which put pressure on other staff and increased their workloads. This was evidenced in our case inspections, where over a quarter of the cases managed by Gateshead had been managed by three or more probation practitioners. In addition, the proportion of inexperienced staff to experienced staff in the Gateshead office was greater than the South Shields office.
• Case administrative staff were managed outside the PDU within a regional hub model. Staff across all grades reported that this had impacted on professional relationships and increased the time it took to complete tasks. 
• Practitioners and middle managers had access to ‘BOOST’, a regional performance monitoring and management tool. Some staff did not find the digital tool useful and some had experienced technical challenges. As a result, not all practitioners used it, and relied on SPOs and administrative support to send reminders about performance.

---

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

Strengths

• The PDU had diverse and flexible services to meet some of the identified risks and needs of people on probation. The PDU had access to Enhanced Reconnect, which aimed to improve continuity of healthcare for people with complex needs who had left prison and been identified as a high risk to the public. The PDU also had a sustained partnership with Changing Lives, which delivered a holistic female-only service at local women’s hubs. The hubs provided holistic, personal and trauma-informed support to meet individual needs. Changing Lives also offered an outreach service for women with disabilities or who were struggling with the initial aspects of engagement.
• There was consistent and regular presence from services in both the South Shields and Gateshead offices. This included staff from Change Grow Live and South Tyneside Adult Recovery, who provided substance misuse interventions; staff from the Department of Work and Pensions, who offered employment support; and staff from Ingeus, who provided support for people on probation with personal wellbeing needs and finance, benefit and debt needs. There was regular two-way communication, which had built strong operational relationships. 
• There was evidence of a strong collaborative relationship with both Gateshead and South Tyneside local authorities to prevent homelessness and reduce rough sleeping for people on probation, and with Northumbria police to tackle domestic abuse. Probation staff regularly attended the Homeless Prevention Pathways for Offenders (HOST) meeting in Gateshead and the rough sleeper meeting in South Tyneside. Probation also regularly contributed to the multi-agency tasking and coordination meetings. This multi-agency forum identified the most harmful and serial domestic abuse perpetrators and provided multi-agency intervention.
• In our case inspections, we saw a focus on supporting people on probation to cease offending. In assessment, planning and the work being delivered by probation staff and external providers, practitioners focused on addressing offending-related factors and building on strengths and protective factors. 
• Services were generally delivered in appropriate and accessible locations for most people on probation. Most of the locally commissioned services were within easy travel distance of both probation offices. For people on probation in South Tyneside, Ingeus was based at Action Station Community Centre, which provided access to services and opportunities to enhance wellbeing and support community integration. Sixteen of the 19 respondents to the person on probation survey indicated that the distance they had to travel to get to appointments was reasonable.
• Completion rates for accredited programmes had improved over the last 12 months. At the time the inspection was announced, the rate for accredited programmes for individuals convicted of a sex offence was 55 per cent, compared with 37 per cent 12 months previously. The completion rate for programmes other than those for individuals convicted of a sex offence was 51 per cent, compared with 35 per cent 12 months previously. These were both higher than the regional completion rates. 

Areas for improvement:

• There was no structured feedback mechanism in place to give leaders oversight of the use of CRS in the PDU. This meant there was no oversight of barriers to service delivery. For example, around a quarter of all CRS referrals made between late February and May 2025 had been cancelled. This meant that some people on probation were not completing sufficient work to address offending-related factors and risk of harm. Leaders acknowledged that this area needed to be improved. A pack containing information about CRS was being developed for heads of service.
• Not all people on probation who were assessed as having problems related to their offending were being referred to CRS for help and support. For example, only seven per cent of cases over the last 12 months had received a referral for support with finance, benefit and debts, but the current caseload data showed that 38 per cent of people on probation had an identified need in this area.
• While there were services available to support people on probation with a personality disorder, practitioners did not routinely use the service. In the last quarter, 51 people on probation were identified as being suitable for the offender personality disorder pathway; however, only 13 were referred into it. This meant probation practitioners were not receiving specialist advice to help them understand the person on probation’s behaviour, presentation and problems in relation to their personality.
• Drug Rehabilitation Requirements (DRRs), Alcohol Treatment Requirements (ATRs) and Mental Health Treatment Requirements (MHTR) were available in Gateshead and South Tyneside. However, active ATRs and DRRs were low compared with the drug and alcohol needs of the caseload. Waiting lists for MHTR meant that people on probation experienced delays in accessing these services. Positively, a business case had been approved for the MHTR provider to recruit two additional staff members to help reduce waiting times.
• Some MAPPA processes and procedures needed greater oversight. There was a backlog of MAPPA level settings, when practitioners initially determine the level of MAPPA management required for the person on probation. There was also a backlog of MAPPA Level 1 reviews, when practitioners review the suitability of ongoing MAPPA Level 1 management. While the number of MAPPA cases we inspected was small, there was coordinated multi-agency oversight in less than half of them. Some staff reported not feeling confident with MAPPA processes. It was positive that staff had engaged in MAPPA awareness training, with the aim of increasing the quality of Level 2 and 3 referrals.
• People on probation were unable to telephone the Gateshead or South Shields office reception directly. A switchboard number was used instead. Staff and people on probation reported that this led to challenges in communication and frustration.

---

Diversity and inclusion (Back to top)

Strengths:

• The PDU had a diversity and inclusion action plan. This provided clear, coherent and consistent messaging about the key priorities in relation to diversity and inclusion.
• Our casework showed that people on probation were routinely asked about their protected characteristics at the start of their sentence. Diversity needs were considered in sentence delivery in 94 per cent of cases inspected. 
• The PDU had relevant data to understand the profile of people on probation and of its workforce. The workforce was representative of the caseload and population in relation to ethnicity. 
• We saw high-quality practice across all our standards in the work completed with women on probation. This was supported by strong, embedded women’s services available via Changing Lives, which offered access to women-only spaces. Both probation offices also offered women-only reporting times. They had specialist women concentrators, who had accessed training to help them understand how to deliver a gender-specific, trauma-informed approach.
• Young adults transitioning from youth justice to probation were supported by a probation officer based in the youth offending service in Gateshead and in South Tyneside. Recently, the seconded probation practitioner role in Gateshead youth justice service had become vacant, but there had been swift action to replace them. The PDU had recently formed a young adults team in both offices and was seeking opportunities for specialist input from partners for young adults, such as Ingeus and Youth Justice. 
• The PDU had introduced neurodiverse interview rooms in each office. These rooms had supportive equipment, fidget tools and mindfulness colouring sheets to help achieve better levels of engagement in supervision sessions.

Areas for improvement:

• The proportions of male and female staff on the PDU workforce did not reflect the proportions in the caseload: 74 per cent of staff were female compared with 10 per cent of people on probation. This is consistent with the proportions nationally and is largely related to national recruitment. This meant that most people on probation were supervised by female practitioners. Where a person on probation needed to be managed by a male practitioner, there were fewer officers that they could be allocated to. 
• Although individuals from a Black, Asian or minority ethnic background made up only a small percentage of people on probation in Gateshead and South Tyneside, it was unclear how their individual needs were being identified and met. There were no commissioned specialist services available for black, Asian and minority ethnic people on people.

---

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?	84%
Does assessment focus sufficiently on keeping other people safe?	41%

• Practitioners positively engaged with people on probation at the start of their sentence. In more than three-quarters of cases (25 out of 32) the person on probation was meaningfully involved in their assessment, and it was evident that their views had been taken into account. 
• In 90 per cent of cases inspected, practitioners had identified and analysed key factors linked to reducing an individual’s risk of further offending.
• The system for sharing information provided basic details about domestic abuse and child safeguarding concerns. Practitioners did not always ask for further necessary details in relevant cases. When they did, they faced challenges in getting all the information they needed; for example, practitioners were only given an individual’s domestic abuse history within the last 12 months as standard. This meant practitioners were unable to fully understand all risks towards women and children. As a result, we found that in around a third of relevant cases (nine out of 30) practitioners did not use information sufficiently in assessing the individual’s domestic abuse risk and in over half of relevant cases (16 out of 29) they did not use information sufficiently in assessing child safeguarding risk. This meant that assessments did not always sufficiently set out and analyse the risks to all children, actual and potential victims of domestic abuse.

---

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

Our rating[2] 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?	63%
Does planning focus sufficiently on reducing reoffending and supporting desistance?	88%
Does planning focus sufficiently on keeping other people safe?	50%

• Where planning was most effective, people on probation were being engaged in drawing up sentence plans with the practitioner. There were discussions about the work that would be completed during their sentence, and how this would be delivered. In 74 per cent of the cases inspected, the person on probation was meaningfully involved in planning, and their views taken into account.
• Planning activity consistently focused on the most important factors in reducing an individual’s risk of further offending and built on their strengths and protective factors. Plans also clearly outlined how the requirements of the sentence to reduce reoffending and support the individual to stop offending would be delivered, and by whom.
• In 59 per cent of cases inspected planning sufficiently addressed factors related to the individual’s risk of harm and prioritised those that were most critical. We saw examples where practitioners had not considered how all victims would be safeguarded or identified interventions to address risk of harm factors. 
• Contingency plans were not sufficiently robust in most cases. This was largely because practitioners did not always fully consider and analyse the risk of harm to others or identify appropriate action to take in all circumstances linked to risk, for example if an individual entered into a new relationship or had contact with children. In cases where there were domestic abuse concerns, MAPPA and Multi-Agency Risk Assessment Conferences (MARAC) were not considered in risk management planning.
  

---

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[3] 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?	81%
Does the implementation and delivery of services effectively support desistance?	59%
Does the implementation and delivery of services effectively support the safety of other people?	38%

• Practitioners consistently focused on developing and maintaining an effective working relationship with people on probation. In 94 per cent of cases, practitioners worked flexibly with people on probation, taking account of their personal circumstances. This included being flexible with appointments, for example offering telephone appointments and home visits in response to employment and childcare commitments or mental health crises.
• While most requirements of sentences started on time, not enough activity was completed with individuals to help reduce reoffending or to address factors linked to risk of harm. This included work in relation to domestic abuse, offence-focused work, and drug misuse.
• Some practitioners were too flexible with people on probation who were non-compliant, which meant that the order of the court was not always delivered. Enforcement action was taken when appropriate in only seven out of 16 relevant cases.
• Concerningly, practitioners only gave enough attention to protecting actual and potential victims in eight of 28 relevant cases. Practitioners did not always act on new information linked to risk, such as further offending or disclosures made by individuals about their intimate relationships and contact with children. Practitioners did not work effectively with the police and social services to protect women and children often enough in response to significant changes in circumstances.

---

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

Our rating[4] 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?	68%
Does reviewing focus sufficiently on supporting desistance?	48%
Does reviewing focus sufficiently on keeping other people safe?	28%

• People on probation were meaningfully involved in reviewing their progress and engagement in just over half of the cases inspected. This included collaborative discussions about the individual’s progress and issues of non-compliance. Practitioners engaged people on probation in different ways, for example using telephone appointments and home visits, to help them comply with their sentence. In over three-quarters of relevant cases (22 out of 27), practitioners completed an appropriate review as a formal record of actions to implement the sentence. This included breach reports and formal assessment reviews.
• In most cases, reviewing activity did not sufficiently focus on supporting the person on probation to stop offending or on managing risk of harm. Practitioners identified and addressed changes to factors linked to an individual’s further offending in only five out of 24 relevant cases.
• Practitioners did not pay enough attention to reviewing risk of harm to keep people safe. Reviews identified and addressed changes in factors related to risk of harm in only five of 26 relevant cases. Practitioners did not consistently and appropriately respond to information related to the risk posed by the person on probation. For example, during the sentence, over a third of cases inspected had been arrested or questioned by police for new offences or allegations. In response to this information, practitioners did not always fully explore these incidents with the person on probation. They did not liaise sufficiently with partner agencies, including social services and the police, to gather further information in order to protect potential and actual victims. 

---

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 Hannah Darby, 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 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.

[3] 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.

[4] 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.