Skip to content

All content is available under the Open Government Licence v3.0, except where otherwise stated.

To view this licence, visit:
https://nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3

or write to:
Information Policy Team,
The National Archives,
Kew,
London TW9 4DU

or email: psi@nationalarchives.gov.uk.

This publication is available at:
https://hmiprobation.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk.

© Crown copyright

Inspection of Probation Delivery Units: Guidance Manual

Published:

Version 1.0 October 2026

1.1. Statement of purpose (Back to top)

His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Probation is the independent inspector of probation and youth justice services in England and Wales. We set the standards that shine a light on the quality and impact of these services. Our inspections, reviews, research and effective practice products provide authoritative and evidence-based judgements and guidance. We use our voice to drive system change, with a focus on inclusion and diversity. Our scrutiny leads to improved outcomes for individuals and communities.

1.2. Values (Back to top)

Influential

We care about making a positive impact on the organisations we inspect and the individuals they work with.

Independent

We ensure that the judgements we make are supported by evidence and are fair and impartial.

Professional

We work in a respectful, transparent, professional way, listening to and sharing learning internally and externally.

Inclusive

We will work as ‘one HM Inspectorate of Probation’, valuing and respecting each other’s viewpoint and skills, so that everyone feels a part of what we do.

Diverse

We are passionate about diversity and the value that comes through giving everyone a voice in our inspections and the chance to succeed in our organisation.

1.3. Our mandate (Back to top)

HM Chief Inspector of Probation’s responsibilities are set out in the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 (Section 7), as amended by the Offender Management Act 2007, Section 12(3)(a). This requires the Chief Inspector to inspect (Section 1) and report to the Secretary of State (Section 3) on the arrangements for the provision of probation services.

Under the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 (Section 7(6)), the Chief Inspector is also required to inspect and report on youth offending teams, established under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (Section 39), and bodies acting on their behalf.

We are the independent source of fair comment for ministers and the public on the effectiveness of the work of probation and youth justice providers.

We test the effectiveness of the provision and provide assurance. Critically, we make recommendations to identify and disseminate effective practice, challenge poor performance and encourage improvement. Our reports provide evidence-based intelligence for commissioners, providers and those who use probation services. They are designed to play a key part in facilitating and encouraging improvement in effective service delivery.

1.4. Confidentiality (Back to top)

Confidentiality

In group meetings and case interviews with practitioners, we provide assurance that information shared will only be used in an aggregated form and will not identify individual staff members, unless immediate action is needed to protect an individual. The exception to this is cases scheduled for multi-agency learning panels (MALP). These are reviewed by probation delivery unit (PDU) managers in collaboration with the probation practitioner(s) and partners during the inspection fieldwork, and a multi-agency discussion is held during fieldwork, which involves several individuals.

We will anonymise information before including it in publications. However, we will not treat it as confidential, in that we reserve the right to use all information that we obtain throughout our inspection activity. This extends to all information provided to us in writing or verbally by staff or partners either working for the PDU or under contract to the probation service. Similarly, information provided to us by stakeholders, children and people on probation who are invited to contribute to the inspection is not treated as confidential.

1.5 Expectations of inspection staff (Back to top)

We expect all inspection staff to uphold the highest professional standards. In meeting this expectation, they will:

  • be courteous and professional, treating staff from inspected bodies with respect
  • uphold the inspectorate’s values in all that they do
  • approach inspections with integrity and evaluate evidence objectively
  • work with inspected bodies to minimise disruption, stress and bureaucracy as far as is reasonably practicable
  • act promptly on concerns about the safety of staff or people on probation
  • declare any conflicts of interest, whether actual or perceived, before undertaking work with an inspected body

1.6 Expectations of inspected bodies (Back to top)

We expect inspected bodies to be open and transparent, to maintain a positive working relationship with inspectors and inspection support staff, and to uphold the highest professional standards. In meeting this expectation, providers should:

  • be courteous and professional, treating our staff with respect
  • approach the inspection with integrity and be open, transparent and honest. This includes providing evidence – or access to evidence – that will enable the inspector to report honestly, fairly and reliably about their provision. It means not withholding or concealing evidence, or providing false, misleading, inaccurate, or incomplete information
  • work with inspectors to take all reasonable steps to minimise disruption, stress and bureaucracy
  • ensure the safety of inspectors while on their premises
  • maintain constructive professional dialogue with the lead inspector and the inspection team
  • bring any concerns about the inspection to the attention of the lead inspector promptly.

Overview of probation inspection (Back to top)

2.1. Introduction (Back to top)

The revised PDU inspection programme for the Probation Service starts at the end of 2026. This manual sets out the arrangements for the inspection programme, covering all aspects of the inspection process and methodology, as well as the roles, responsibilities and conduct of HM Inspectorate of Probation staff.

Key changes include:

  • a move to focus on PDU inspections, considering the impact of the Sentence Act 2026 on frontline delivery
  • moving to one set of case inspection standards, focusing on assessing, planning and delivery, incorporating reviewing within these standards
  • a focus on ‘achieving change’, and ‘keeping people safe’
  • the completion of all fieldwork activity in one week
  • removing overall ratings for PDUs, but continuing to rate against each standard
  • not rating leadership, staffing or services but instead commenting on these areas through the lens of the case work that we inspect
  • including MALPs and ‘showcase’ slots within fieldwork
  • taking a ‘risk and random’ approach to determine where we inspect, while maintaining an element of random selection this will enable us to respond with inspection when we want to explore effective practice or have become concerned about delivery in any area.

Where relevant we will comment on the progress in implementing relevant recommendations from previous Probation Service inspections.

2.2. Standards for PDU inspections (Back to top)

Our standards are based on a set of principles that good probation services should meet to deliver high-quality probation practice. They are based on established models and frameworks, and are grounded in evidence, learning and experience. Our research shows a clear correlation between supervision that meets our quality standards and significantly better outcomes for people on probation, including lower reoffending rates.[1]

Following the changes introduced by the Sentencing Act 2026, our priority is to assure the quality of work delivered to people on probation, victims and communities.

Inspections focus on the quality of work to achieve change and keep people safe. This is assessed and rated through case inspections only. PDUs do not receive an overall rating; instead, we rate performance at the level of the assessing, planning and delivery standards.

Case inspections cover two strands: achieving change (previously engagement and desistance) and keeping people safe (which brings together well-being and risk of harm). We inspect evidence against three standards: assessing, planning and delivery; and we consider how reviewing within these standards supports effective practice.

Evidence is drawn from multiple sources, including case records, assessments, meeting notes and interviews with practitioners. We do not require specific assessment tools but we do expect assessments to be sufficiently thorough and completed early enough to inform effective planning and delivery.

Leadership, staffing and services are not rated separately. Instead, we consider their impact through the cases inspected, including workload management and the quality of oversight and support provided to practitioners.

A single set of standards applies across all case types and operational models. We report findings that are relevant to specific groups, such as by sex or ethnicity, to support targeted improvement. Our focus is on personalised, responsive delivery based on individual need, rather than sentence type or length, recognising that the volume of work will vary by case.

Further detail about the standards and additional supporting documents can be found on the HM Inspectorate of Probation website.[2]

2.3. Inspection principles (Back to top)

We assess quality, for example the quality of assessing activity, rather than the specifics of a process or the use of any particular tool. The wording of our key questions and prompts reflects this. We determine ratings based on what and how a PDU is achieving against our standards. We consider the performance of the PDU at the time we inspect and, typically, do not make judgements about how policy and practices may influence future impact. However, we will acknowledge effort in the report narrative.

How we score

In PDU inspections, each key question about case assessment and management is integral to effective service delivery for that case and is linked to the core purposes of probation. Sufficient attention therefore needs to be given to all of them. The rating that can be achieved for each standard is set at the lowest percentage score achieved at key question level within the standard, when data from all the cases in the PDU is aggregated. Under each key question is a set of ‘prompts’, which influence judgements in individual cases about whether the key questions have been met. There are also additional information-only questions that do not influence judgements on the key questions.

2.4 Decisions about where we inspect (Back to top)

We take a ‘risk and random’ approach to selecting PDUs for inspection. This means that we make decisions based on where we think we can have the greatest impact, at the same time as maintaining an element of random selection to minimise predictability.

In taking a risk and random approach, we make decisions in line with the following principles:

  • We prioritise PDUs where we have concerns based on data, information and/or intelligence.
  • We prioritise PDUs where we expect to find effective practice.
  • We will inspect a variety of PDUs, for example to ensure that we inspect some rural PDUs and some metropolitan PDUs within a 12-month period.
  • We will inspect at least one PDU from each region within a 12-month period.

2.5 Summary of inspection phases (Back to top)

The inspection consists of three phases:

Phase I:    Pre-fieldwork planning and preparation
Phase II:  Fieldwork
Phase III: Post-fieldwork.

Phase I: Pre-fieldwork planning and preparation

The pre-fieldwork phase begins four weeks before the fieldwork, when the lead inspector announces the dates of the fieldwork. At this point, we issue documentation to help the PDU with planning and preparation and announce the inspection on social media. The lead inspector holds a planning meeting three weeks before the PDU fieldwork.

Phase II: Fieldwork

During the PDU fieldwork week, the inspection team examines all the inspection cases. Meetings with individuals and groups of staff in the PDU are scheduled for this same fieldwork week. There will be a MALP and ‘showcase’ slot during this week, as well as interviews with people in probation.

Phase III: Post-fieldwork

Feedback, including case inspection ratings and findings, is shared via Microsoft Teams on the Tuesday (where possible) following the inspection fieldwork. The PDU will not receive an overall rating; the ratings for assessing, planning and delivery will be based solely on the case inspection data.

In addition to this, the internal inspection findings meeting normally takes place the week following the PDU fieldwork. The meeting is normally chaired by the chief operating officer and includes the lead inspector and the head of programme. The Chief Inspector may also attend. The deputy lead inspector and assistant inspectors attend if available.

The lead inspector prepares an inspection report, which is submitted to the inspected organisation in the second week after the inspection fieldwork, for checking factual accuracy before publication. At this point, we hold a further meeting to share the themes identified during the inspection.

We aim to publish the report eight weeks after the end of the PDU fieldwork, once factual accuracy checking is complete.

Welsh language scheme

In accordance with the Welsh Language Act 1993, HM Inspectorate of Probation has adopted the principle that it will treat the Welsh and English languages equally when carrying out inspections in Wales. HM Inspectorate of Probation has a Welsh Language Scheme that sets out how we deliver services in Welsh.

More information about the Welsh Language Scheme can be found on our website.[3]

Phase I: Pre-fieldwork and planning (Back to top)

3.1 Inspection announcements (Back to top)

Each PDU inspection is announced four weeks before fieldwork begins. The announcement is made by the lead inspector to the head of the PDU or the most senior manager available. It is also announced on social media.

This includes:

  • a brief overview of the inspection
  • confirmation of the locations and fieldwork date
  • confirmation of the date and time of the initial PDU planning meeting
  • providing the PDU with instructions on how to access the relevant channel in Microsoft Teams.

3.2 Pre-fieldwork activity (Back to top)

Before the inspection is announced, the information and data team collates key documents and background information to support the lead inspector in planning the inspection. The inspection support staff start to prepare the inspection.

After the inspection announcement, the PDU submits the evidence in advance using Microsoft Teams, and confirms meeting dates and interviews with key staff members and stakeholders.

Background information

The lead inspector also reviews the following information:

  • relevant operational assurance reports, which are shared by the Performance Assurance and Risk Group after the inspection is announced
  • relevant information from the Prisons and Probation Ombudsman, covering the previous 12 months
  • relevant information from the Serious Further Offences team at His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS)

We do not need PDUs to provide this information in their evidence in advance submission.

3.3 Planning meetings (Back to top)

The planning meeting is documented, and a copy issued to the single point of contact (SPOC), by the HM Inspectorate of Probation inspection support team and any other relevant people.

PDU fieldwork planning meeting

The PDU fieldwork planning meeting normally takes place on a Monday or Tuesday, three weeks before the PDU fieldwork.

Required attendees include:

  •  lead inspector
  • head of PDU (and deputy, where applicable)
  • SPOC.

Optional attendees include:

  • the HM Inspectorate of Probation inspection support team
  • the head of programme and/or deputy head of programme
  • the deputy lead inspector
  • others identified by the PDU who need to be involved in the planning and preparation, if required, for support or absence cover for the SPOC.

The lead inspector chairs the meeting and covers the following:

  • confirmation of the inspection team
  • offices where the case assessments may take place
  • probation practitioner interviews and scheduling in fieldwork week
  • confirmation of the meetings required during fieldwork (a list of standard meetings is put forward for all inspections)
  • a request for any further information/evidence identified following analysis of evidence in advance
  • access to IT, rooms and buildings where on-site activity is taking place
  • arrangements for seeking views from people on probation
  • confirmation of arrangements for sharing details of the selected sample and the case inspection schedule
  • discussion of any issues arising from the PDU evidence in advance
  • MALP and showcase arrangements

The planning meeting is documented, and a copy issued to the SPOC, by the HM Inspectorate of Probation inspection support and any other relevant people.

All correspondence between the inspected organisation and HM Inspectorate of Probation should be addressed to the mailbox probationinspections@hmiprobation.gov.uk.

3.4 Evidence in advance (Back to top)

The PDU submits evidence in advance in relation to the relevant standards and key questions that apply. All evidence should be uploaded to a specific channel in Microsoft Teams set up by HM Inspectorate of Probation. As part of the planning meeting, the lead inspector provides more detailed guidance about the specific evidence required.

Inspectors review the evidence in advance as part of the assessment of PDU, and to identify relevant topics to be followed up during the fieldwork.

Suggested evidence in advance

The list below sets out the only evidence in advance that we request, unless otherwise agreed with the PDU head and lead inspector. The lead inspector may ask for additional evidence as the PDU fieldwork progresses, although this is only when necessary.

Requested PDU evidence in advance:

  • PDU delivery plan
  • organisational data spreadsheet
  • risk register
  • staff training needs/analysis
  • context document
  • PDU performance service level measures
  • people on probation needs analysis, including diversity factors
  • intranet access (where relevant)
  • governance boards structure/attendance (where available)
  • audits and evaluations of case management/quality improvement plans.

Organisational data spreadsheet

An organisational data spreadsheet is sent to the PDU with the inspection announcement letter. This document requests a range of data and allows us to:

  • triangulate evidence against the data collected from other sources, including probation practitioners, on matters like caseload and staff engagement
  • ensure that we collect contextual data on the inspection of domain one in a consistent way across different services
  • support further, national-level, research and analysis of the factors underlying high-quality probation provision, to advance our understanding of effective practice.

Where data is not available, or does not meet our specifications exactly, the spreadsheet allows this to be explained.

Evidence in advance context document

The PDU uses this document to give a succinct summary of where it sees its current position in relation to the relevant sections of the inspection standards and key questions.

Deadline for submitting evidence in advance

Evidence in advance for each PDU, including the PDU evidence in advance narrative template, is uploaded into Microsoft Teams by the Monday three weeks before the first PDU fieldwork week.

3.5 Questionnaires for Probation Service staff (Back to top)

We provide information leaflets for all Probation Service staff, which contain a link to our questionnaire. We ask for them to be circulated to all staff in the PDU. We use questionnaires to seek the views of staff on key aspects of service delivery. This includes questions about organisational leadership, staffing resource, and the availability of services for people on probation. Completion of the questionnaires is voluntary.

The staff questionnaire opens on the Monday after the PDU inspection is announced. We ask PDU staff to complete the questionnaire no later than the Friday two weeks before inspection fieldwork in their PDU. Data from the questionnaires is analysed and provided to lead inspectors ahead of the PDU fieldwork.

Data generated from completed questionnaires helps to inform our findings about PDUs; data will be published and comments may be referred to in the published inspection reports. By completing the questionnaire, staff and practitioners are consenting to HM Inspectorate of Probation processing their personal data. We will not identify any individual as the source of this information.

3.6 Presentation by head of PDU (Back to top)

As part of the PDU fieldwork, we ask for a presentation of up to 30 minutes from the head of PDU, covering the following:

  • local picture of your PDU (for example, approved premises (APs), prisons, staffing, local authorities)
  • leadership structure and priorities
  • recent achievements
  • any ongoing development areas or barriers within the PDU
  • overview of staffing, including a focus on staff engagement and training and development
  • the impact of organisational leadership on the quality of service delivery
  • overview of local innovation – potential for inspectors to plan to see/visit innovative projects during the fieldwork
  • anything else you think we should know or you want to tell us about.

3.7 Preparing probation staff for inspection (Back to top)

We undertake case discussions with probation practitioners to allow them to clarify and add context to the case records, as well as to provide a learning opportunity for them. This is most useful if they feel able to be open and honest about their work. Feedback from practitioners is that perceived pressure to prepare cases for inspection is unhelpful and can increase stress. It can also result in ‘wasted’ effort, as preparation often focuses on issues that are not central to the inspection standards. To avoid this, we ask managers to minimise preparation before the fieldwork week.

Case sample (Back to top)

4.1. Selecting the case sample (Back to top)

Case sample principles

We inspect against the same standards and use the same approach in all of the cases that we inspect, both licences and community sentences. This allows us to focus on the how well the PDU has worked with the risks, needs and strengths of the individual, rather than focusing on the type of sentence.

Case sample selection:

We sample a number of cases commencing in a given three-week window. From nDelius we get a longlist of all cases that commenced within a specific three-week timeframe. The ISA then randomly selects the required number of cases from eligible cases in each stratification group, avoiding excluded cases such as those subject to SFO reviews, but matching the stratification proportions. Excluded cases will be included on the spreadsheet and the notes column used to explain the circumstances. The ISA organises the longlist and applies the stratification. These arrangements are discussed in more detail at the planning meeting.

Confidence levels

The margin of error (or confidence interval) for our case inspection findings depends on the selected sample size: the larger the sample size as a proportion of the overall caseload, the more certain we can be that our findings reflect the eligible population. In order to balance the need for accuracy with proportionate activity, we will as a minimum achieve a margin of error of five percentage points and a confidence level of 80 per cent for a random sample of cases that come under our case sample specifications and have begun within a three-week period. This means, for example, that if our inspection of a sample of cases shows that 47 per cent are being supervised sufficiently, we can be 80 per cent sure that the true percentage for the total eligible caseload is between 42 per cent and 52 per cent. Importantly, this assumes that the sample is truly random, which links to the sampling method (see next section). For inspection purposes, an 80 per cent confidence level provides a balance between cost-efficiency and statistical precision. We base our calculation on case data taken from nDelius.

Stratification

To be confident we are inspecting a variety of cases that is representative of the long list of cases we select from, we use stratified sampling. This ensures groups that make up a very small proportion of cases are appropriately represented in our inspected sample.

The variables we use to stratify on are the types of cases we know from previous inspections, research evidence, and policy guidance typically vary in how they are delivered. The stratification variables used for this inspection are sex, sentence type, and risk of serious harm (RoSH) level, ensuring that the ratios of male and female, post-custody and community sentence cases, and low/medium and high/very high RoSH cases in the selected case sample match those in the period of commencements being inspected.

We aim to ensure that the proportion of cases in the selected sample in each stratification group closely matches the proportions in the longlist.

Equity, diversity and inclusion

We do not select cases with specific protected characteristics or diversity issues or seek to boost the numbers of cases with specific characteristics, because that can skew the overall sample and data. People on probation are shaped through differing combinations of interconnected and overlapping characteristics, experiences and circumstances. Our sampling approach therefore provides an opportunity for the range of protected characteristics to be included, without creating small specific subsets on which it might be inappropriate or misleading to comment.

Dealing with cases that should have been excluded

Occasionally, during fieldwork, it becomes apparent that a case on the schedule does not meet the case sample specification and should have been excluded at an earlier stage. If this happens, the inspector will have a brief conversation with the probation practitioner to let them know that the case should not have been put forward for inspection. We apologise for any inconvenience this may cause. The lead inspector will then decide whether a substitute case needs to be inspected and will discuss this with the Head of the PDU. Where possible, we will speak with the probation practitioner holding the substitute case. If this is not possible, the substitute case will be inspected as a file read.

Schedules (Back to top)

5.1. Weekly schedules (Back to top)

During the fieldwork week, the inspection team reviews the identified cases. In Wales, Welsh-speaking local assessors are also part of the team for the fieldwork week. The PDU is issued with a provisional schedule for meetings, interviews and the MALP, and case inspection discussions on the Monday, two weeks before the fieldwork week. The schedule sets out the times of the probation practitioner discussions, which normally last 60 to 90 minutes, plus any meetings, MALP and showcase slot, and whether the interviews will be online, using Microsoft Teams, or face to face.

Any requests for changes to the proposed fieldwork schedule are raised by the SPOC by the Monday of the week before the fieldwork at the latest and are resolved by the lead inspector. The SPOC also identifies any cases for potential exclusion at this point, for example any that have been subject to a Serious Further Offence or other review; the lead inspector confirms any such exclusions. If a probation practitioner is not available during the fieldwork week, the lead inspector and the SPOC agree on whether a suitable substitute is available. If not, the case will be inspected by a file-read. Late changes in availability may also be resolved by inspecting the case as a file-read.

Planning the schedule for meetings takes place during the pre-fieldwork phase. The lists of core meetings below set out the meetings that inspectors may require during inspection fieldwork, but final decisions about the meetings required will be made by the individual lead inspectors.

Most of our inspection work is completed on-site. Some PDU case inspections may also be completed remotely; we will discuss this with the PDU at the PDU planning stage.

For meetings with groups of staff, the optimum number of attendees is between six and 10.

The schedule templates indicate when meetings should take place and whether they will be held face to face or on Microsoft Teams, with the lead inspector having flexibility to make changes. We will consider a combination of face-to-face and Microsoft Teams meetings; however, we will only hold meetings on Microsoft Teams in exceptional cases, as we have found that this approach is not ideal, particularly for larger meetings with up to 10 participants. Inspection meetings should not be recorded unless approved by the lead inspector in advance under exceptional circumstances.

The list below sets out the core meetings we wish to cover routinely. Other meetings may be arranged either during the planning meeting or as the fieldwork progresses.

Meetings with individuals and groups of staff

The purpose of these meetings is to support insights from case inspection data, and explore how leadership, staffing and services is seen from different perspectives in the hierarchy of the organisation:

  • head of PDU (and deputy, if applicable)
  • middle managers
  • probation practitioners
  • administrative staff

Meeting content

Inspection against our standards requires inspectors to be disciplined and focused. In line with our inspection methodology, inspectors scrutinise a range of information from the evidence in advance. They use meetings during the fieldwork to triangulate or corroborate this evidence and fill any gaps. Fieldwork does not have a zero starting point, so the focus of different meetings during fieldwork may vary. Individual meetings are tailored to gather the specific evidence band information that they need. To help focus contributions, inspectors will be clear about time management of the meeting.

5.2 Multi-agency learning panel (MALP) (Back to top)

The lead inspector will select one inspected case for discussion at a MALP during the fieldwork week. The case will be formally inspected, including a discussion with the probation practitioner, and discussions will focus on relevant case inspection standards.

Inspectors will guide the conversation using open, reflective questions. Participants should be prepared to share examples of joint work, decision-making, information exchange, or service coordination related to the case. Attendees with direct involvement in the case should review their involvement to be able to contribute to discussion. Discussions may also explore hypothetical situations to understand how the partnership would respond to specific risks or challenges and explore wider partnership working. The focus is on learning, collaboration, and improvement, not individual performance. 

We ask a senior probation officer (SPO), and any agencies with direct involvement, to complete a review of the case before the MALP so that they can contribute to the discussion. The review should consider any positive work identified by the PDU or partner agencies, alongside any areas for development in the multi-agency work in this case. The PDU should identify the appropriate partners to attend the MALP.

All key statutory and non-statutory partners who contribute to probation outcomes should attend the MALP, including agencies who are currently or have been involved during the supervision period. We ask that the PDU to identify the appropriate partners who are required to attend the MALP. It will be held in person. 

As a minimum the following should attend:

  • probation practitioner
  • senior probation officer
  • Police representative
  • Children service representative (can be excused following the case inspection where not relevant)
  • quality development officer or manager

In addition, other relevant agencies may include:

  • MAPPA representatives 
  • Local authority housing, substance misuse, health and mental health services 
  • Adult Social Care
  • Commissioned Rehabilitative Services (CRS) where relevant
  • Voluntary and community sector representatives
  • Other PDU staff where appropriate

Partners can attend as practitioners (where they have been directly involved with the case) or team managers (where they can represent broader partnership arrangements).

5.3 Showcase slot (Back to top)

The inspection timetable during fieldwork includes a showcase slot. This gives the PDU an opportunity to highlight effective practice linked to case inspection standards and to help the lead inspector understand service delivery and the context in which cases are managed.

The format is flexible, and the PDU can choose how best to showcase their work.

Examples may include:

  • feedback from people on probation on engagement and participation, including clear ‘you said, we did’ examples
  • innovative multi‑agency working
  • work relating to equity, diversity and inclusion
  • observations of practice
  • projects the PDU is proud of
  • presentations
  • work related to keeping people safe

5.4 Team meetings (Back to top)

The lead inspector will advise on appropriate arrangements for HM Inspectorate of Probation team meetings and gathering feedback during the fieldwork phase. A meeting room may be required for this purpose, for up to 12 members of staff; no IT access is required in this room, although where conferencing facilities are available this would support any potential hybrid team meetings.

Phase II: Fieldwork (Back to top)

6.1 Methodology (Back to top)

Case inspection focuses on the quality of practice. We examine tasks that relate to the supervision of people on probation – specifically, assessing, planning and delivery – and consider how reviewing within these standards supports effective practice. The lead inspector, deputy lead inspector and a team of inspectors carry out the case inspection. The case inspections take place during the fieldwork week. Leadership, staffing and services are not inspected or rated separately. Instead, we consider their impact through the cases inspected, including workload management and the quality of oversight and support provided to practitioners.

Case inspections include reading and assessing relevant information available through electronic records and tools, such as the national case management system, nDelius, the violent and sexual offenders register, OASys assessments, the victim database and any other tools used for assessing and planning. The Probation Service is asked to provide access to other documents relevant to the case – for example, minutes of multi-agency public protection arrangements meetings, multi-agency risk assessment conferences and professionals meetings.

We undertake case discussions with the probation practitioner for each case. These involve discussions about assessing, planning, delivery and reviewing in relation to the selected case, and about the outcomes achieved. We also ask practitioners about their experience of workloads and services, as these have an impact on the management of the selected case. If the allocated practitioner is unavailable, we can arrange a remote interview, hold an interview with a suitable replacement, or undertake a file read only.

Case inspectors use all sources of evidence to formulate their assessment of the case, including case records and any interview with the probation practitioner.

As part of our case inspections, we also gather other data about the cases and the services they received, to develop an understanding of emerging issues and support our further analysis and research. These questions do not influence inspection judgements.

6.2 Case assessment rules and guidance (CARaG) (Back to top)

The CARaG is a comprehensive set of published rules and guidance to be followed by inspectors when assessing cases. The CARaG promotes transparency and consistency in our inspection of cases. Inspection staff should use the appropriate CARaG as a reference document when assessing a case.

The CARaG provides guidance on the key questions and prompts. It is updated regularly, to ensure that it remains consistent with any changes that we make at standard, question and prompt level and so that it remains linked to evidence. The CARaG also contains links, where relevant, to more detailed guidance about specialist areas.

6.3. Inspection sites (Back to top)

During the pre-fieldwork phase, we identify the inspection sites for PDU inspections and allocate individuals within the inspection team to specific offices.

We understand that private office space may not be available at all inspection sites for the whole fieldwork phase. The PDU may allocate the team to a desk in an open office with access to private interview rooms, in accordance with the timings on the schedule, where case discussions can take place with probation practitioners.

On arrival, the PDU gives an induction to the building, including a health and safety briefing. Inspection staff need access to fobs, and information on opening and closing times.

6.4. IT access (Back to top)

HM Inspectorate of Probation staff have access to various criminal justice IT systems, including OASys, nDelius and the victim case management system. To comply with the General Data Protection Regulation, inspectors only access the cases identified on the case sample lists, or additional cases by arrangement with the inspected organisation. Where possible, inspectors should have access to a monitor and suitable workspace.

6.5 Probation practitioner case discussions (Back to top)

As part of our assessment of a case, the inspector has a discussion with the probation practitioner for that case. This provides an opportunity for the case to be discussed in more detail as part of our assessment, and provides insights into leadership, staffing and services. Inspectors give the probation practitioner an introduction and overview to help them understand the inspection process. The interview includes constructive feedback to the probation practitioner, delivered in a productive and sensitive manner to encourage reflective discussions. Details of the interview, including any judgements made about the case, are not discussed with line managers unless there are serious concerns (prompting an ‘alert’ to be raised – see below). Feedback provided to practitioners will focus on key strengths and areas for improvement of the work they have undertaken personally. The inspector will not necessarily provide an overview of the judgements they have made of the work completed in the case. Individual cases are not given an overall rating; data from all cases on each of the separate key questions is aggregated to arrive at the service-wide ratings for the individual standards.

If the probation practitioner is unavailable, another member of staff with sufficient working knowledge of the case (for example, a co‑worker or line manager) may attend. They must have had direct involvement in the case and be able to add meaningfully to the discussion beyond the written record. Managers with no direct involvement in the case are unlikely to be suitable substitutes. If no alternative is available, the case is assessed based on the written material alone (as a file-read).

If the substitute is the practitioner’s line manager or supervisor, it may be appropriate to provide them with the feedback that would have been given to the practitioner in person. As the conversation is about a case that belongs to the organisation, there is no conflict of confidentiality. However, if the substitute is not in a supervisory role to the practitioner, no feedback should be given.

We are sometimes asked if the second person can attend the case discussion with the current probation practitioner. Our preference is to meet the current practitioner alone, with the following exceptions:

  • where there has been a recent change of probation practitioner and the previous one can add something useful to the assessment of the case
  • where a second person has played a key role in the delivery of an intervention
  • where the probation practitioner is very new to the role (for example, a new trainee) and needs support from a colleague.

Inspectors will ask the second person to leave the discussion before giving feedback to the practitioner.

6.6 Keeping in touch meetings (Back to top)

The lead inspector will hold ‘keeping in touch’ meetings with the head of service during fieldwork. The timing of these meetings will be agreed in the planning meeting. The purpose of these meetings is to:

  • keep the PDU informed about the progress of the inspection
  • test emerging themes
  • ask for additional evidence that may be required.

The lead inspector will not be able to discuss any data from cases during the fieldwork week, as the data will be incomplete and will not have been subject to our quality assurance processes.

6.7. Seeking the views of people on probation (Back to top)

HM Inspectorate of Probation has a strong commitment to engaging with people on probation and those with lived experience of probation supervision and to incorporating their views and experiences in our inspection process. We use two different methods of obtaining the views and experiences of people on probation.

Text survey

We identify all people who began probation supervision during the twelve-week period from which the inspected case sample was chosen. Before the PDU fieldwork, we contact them by text message to say that they will be invited to complete a short online survey asking for their views about being supervised. Completion of the survey is voluntary. If an individual does not have access to a mobile telephone, we ask the probation practitioner to communicate the same message to them using whatever means of communication they prefer.

For inspections in Wales, the survey is also available in Welsh. We will work with the Probation Service to find alternative means of engaging with individuals who might find a text message survey or focus group difficult. The survey includes an option for those completing it to request a follow-up telephone interview and/or to be considered for inclusion in a focus group during the inspection.

Focus groups/visits to specialist services

During planning we will talk to PDU leaders about any groups of individuals whose views we might usefully include in our discussions. This might include focus groups of people on probation, women on probation, others with specialist needs or the experiences of people on probation who are from ethnic minority groups. These discussions are undertaken informally but focus on similar key issues as the surveys and focus groups. We work with the PDU to gather information about these activities, but ask that the PDU does not make any changes to the normal timing or location of projects to accommodate inspectors. In some cases, inspectors may wish to speak to individuals before a groupwork programme begins or during a break and will liaise with providers to ensure that this does not disrupt the group.

Informal discussions

During fieldwork, inspectors also seek opportunities to gather feedback from offices and waiting areas, including, where appropriate, speaking to people on probation who are attending for appointments. Under these circumstances, we ensure that we do not affect interview schedules but work around them. If the time available is limited, we arrange to follow up the interview by telephone, if the individual is happy for us to do so. We also work with PDU leaders to help us identify the best times and places to undertake such contacts.

Use of evidence from people on probation

We use information from people on probation to help illustrate our findings and to inform our views about, and judgements of, probation services. In some cases, we may use information to inform our lines of enquiry in the non-case inspection activity that we undertake during the fieldwork week. The weight given to the views expressed depends on their context and how widely they are felt. The views of people on probation may be incorporated into all sections and aspects of our reports.

We identify all people who had agreed to SMS contact, as flagged on nDelius, and were supervised by probation in the community approximately 15 weeks before the fieldwork began. We contact them by text message 3 weeks before fieldwork and invite them to complete an online survey. Posters and leaflets for people on probation are shared with the PDU.

6.8. Alert processes (Back to top)

Individual alerts

During case inspections, where we identify a significant actual or potential risk of harm to other people, or to the individual on probation, or where there is organisational practice that requires immediate attention, we have a responsibility to act on our concerns. The following procedures provide all inspection staff with an effective and consistent mechanism for tackling serious situations that require immediate attention.

An alert encompasses practice, or practice omissions, that require immediate remedial action to be taken (usually by the organisation responsible for the case) to reduce or contain an identifiable, significant and imminent risk.

Inspection staff should ask themselves:

  • What might happen if no action is taken?
  • How serious is the risk?
  • When might it happen (that is, how imminent is it)?

If we are concerned that there is a danger to life and limb, an incident from which recovery will be difficult or impossible, or that an offence has taken place or is taking place (for example, fraud), then we need to act.

Through the individual alert process, we are seeking assurance, confirmed by evidence, that action has been taken. We do not manage the risk directly. The deputy lead inspector’s role is to make sure that the organisation (or third party) responsible for the case takes sufficient action to address the concerns.

Any incidents recorded through the individual alert system may inform the inspection findings or recommendations.

Organisational alerts

The organisational alert procedure, which could apply at PDU or regional level, provides all inspection staff with an effective and consistent mechanism for tackling situations of identifiable, systemic, significant and imminent risk that require immediate attention. Organisational alerts are not designed to address general poor practice, even if this is on a large scale.

The purpose of the organisational alert procedure is to assist inspected bodies to address issues of identifiable, systemic, significant and imminent risk where this has not otherwise been done. The fact that an organisational alert has been raised will be described in the published inspection report.

Advice to probation practitioners in other situations

Where a case does not meet the threshold for an alert, case inspectors may offer advice to the practitioner as part of their feedback, but any such advice does not constitute an instruction, and no feedback is required from the practitioner or others.

6.9. Meeting format (Back to top)

Ideally, meetings with groups of staff should consist of six to 10 people; in larger groups, some participants could be overlooked, while smaller groups might not generate sufficient diversity of views. Where possible, representatives from different work locations should be included. Staff should be of the same grade (or doing the same role), and should not be included in groups with their line managers or senior managers. If attendees are not of the expected role or grade, inspectors may advise them that their attendance is not required. Certain topics might require consistency in other areas, such as gender, age and ethnicity.

Meetings with groups last normally between 45 and 90 minutes. We prefer face-to-face meetings unless travel distances make that difficult. Face-to-face meetings should take place in a space that is private, not subject to interruptions and with sufficient comfortable seating. Remote meetings are conducted using Microsoft Teams. The inspected organisation is responsible for identifying the best location for meetings to take place, and for ensuring that there is good representation from staff.

6.10. Closing the inspection fieldwork (Back to top)

The fieldwork weeks for all inspections begin on Monday afternoon and end on Friday, usually between 12pm and 2pm.

On the final day of fieldwork, the lead inspector:

  • ensures that all fobs/security passes have been returned
  • meets the head of PDU to end the week, but no feedback will be given
  • explains the process for confirming ratings for the case inspections and the process for writing and submitting the draft report
  • discusses the process if there are factual inaccuracies in the draft report
  • explains the process for challenging ratings
  • highlights key dates and next steps for improvement plans and publication of the provisional final report
  • explains that the head of probation inspection will contact the SPOC or regional probation director (RPD) after publication of the report to get their general feedback on the conduct of the inspection.

6.11. Quality assurance (Back to top)

The HM Inspectorate of Probation quality assurance (QA) strategy aims to ensure the quality and consistency of judgements across all inspection programmes. It focuses on our ambition to maintain high-quality inspection and on providing assurance that judgements are sound, evidence-backed, and made by trained inspectors. It aims to ensure high standards in inspection practice, judgements, reports, data integrity and support programme development.

Quality assurance framework

The Inspectorate’s quality assurance framework is a comprehensive guide that sets out the standards and expectations for new and current HM Inspectors (HMIs) and Assistant Inspectors (AIs). It details the induction process before beginning inspections, the inspection development pathway, real-time inspection QA, ongoing quality assurance benchmarks, and expectations for operational support. It incorporates a feedback loop for individual and organisational learning, and outlines data integrity check processes and responsibilities within the QA function.

The guiding principles of our quality assurance framework are:

  • quality assurance must be consistent, comprehensive, proportionate, and equitable
  • the regularity of quality assurance activities should be transparent
  • additional assurance is applied where external factors might influence judgements
  • clear accountability is established for quality at different inspection stages
  • we balance on-site and off-site quality assurance requirements
  • assurance is a collective responsibility within the organisation, not solely dependent on a single lead.

Staff induction

A robust induction for new inspectors is crucial, as it lays the foundation for their future effectiveness and confidence in their roles. New inspectors receive a comprehensive corporate induction, ensuring a strong understanding of the organisational culture and expectations. Additionally, they are given supplementary reading materials to enrich their knowledge base before beginning core skills training. This approach ensures they are well-prepared and equipped with the necessary information and context to excel in their training and subsequent inspection responsibilities.

Inspection Development Pathway

The Inspection Development Pathway (IDP) is the organisation’s core framework for developing and accrediting inspection competence. It provides a structured, end-to-end development route, bringing together induction, core skills training, shadowing, supported practice, quality assurance and portfolio-based assessment.

The IDP ensures inspectors develop both the knowledge and the practical ability to apply inspection skills effectively across different contexts. It is a staged, behaviour-led pathway aligned to the Civil Service Success Profiles framework, with embedded observation, feedback and continuous professional development.

As an accredited programme delivered with Skills for Justice Awards, the IDP maintains rigorous external quality assurance and standardises the training and assessment of all HMIs and AIs. Through trained assessors, internal quality assurance and transparent processes, it supports consistent, high-quality inspection practice and provides assurance to inspected bodies about the credibility and reliability of inspection work

Routine quality assurance

The IDP is a structured programme designed to enable new inspectors to gain the necessary knowledge, skills and understanding to undertake their duties competently. There is a high level of support and knowledge transfer in the first 12 months to ensure high standards of inspection practice. After completion, inspectors engage in regular quality assurance as part of a developmental process, aimed at maintaining the integrity of inspection data and fostering continuous learning. This supportive approach involves routine quality assurance assessments, ensuring inspectors are consistently growing and enhancing their skills.

Benchmarking

Benchmarking is a crucial aspect of maintaining high standards in the Inspectorate. It provides an opportunity for all inspectors to have their work quality-assured, offering insights into general knowledge and practice levels. This process helps identify areas for improvement and ensures consistency in inspection methodology. We ask inspected services to assist us with providing access to training cases, to support benchmarking.

Phase III: Post-fieldwork (Back to top)

7.1. Ratings explained (Back to top)

PDU ratings

PDU ratings are based on the results of the inspection of individual cases. Ratings are awarded for each of the three case inspection standards and are based on consolidated results (at key question level) of all cases inspected.

For each key question, the answers to a number of supporting prompts are considered when making the judgement at key question level. While the answer at key question level often reflects the balance of answers to the underpinning prompts, that is not always the case. Occasionally, a negative answer to a single prompt is of sufficient concern to outweigh the influence of the answers to the other prompts at key question level. For example, if a probation practitioner had failed to identify a significant factor related to risk of harm, that might result in a negative answer at the key question level for questions relating to keeping other people safe, even if other strengths were identified in respect of the other prompts.

The rating for each standard is aligned to the banding at the key question level where the lowest proportion of cases were judged to be sufficient, as we believe that each key question is an integral and equally important part of the standard. For a PDU to be rated as ‘Good’ against our assessing standard, for example, we must be satisfied that the quality of work being done to achieve change with people on probation in assessing, to accurately identify and assess all the factors underlying offending behaviour, and to identify risks of harm to others are all sufficient, as we (and, we believe, the public) regard all of them as equally and separately important. Therefore, if we rate one key question as ‘Good’ and one as ‘Inadequate’, the overall rating for that standard is ‘Inadequate’.

Lowest banding (proportion of cases judged to be sufficient at key question level)Rating (standard)
Minority: <50%Inadequate
Too few: 50–64%Requires improvement
Reasonable majority: 65–79%Good
Large majority: 80%+Outstanding

In the example below, the scores for two of the key questions under the assessment standard fall into the ‘Good’ band, but as the score for the final key question is in the ‘Requires improvement’ band, the overall standard is rated as ‘Requires improvement’.

Overall PDU rating

PDUs do not receive an overall rating; instead, we rate performance at the individual standard level and award three ratings, one each for assessing, planning and delivery.

7.2. Internal Inspection findings meeting (Back to top)

We hold an internal inspection findings meeting the week after fieldwork. The meeting normally consists of the chief operating officer (who chairs the meeting), the lead inspector, head of probation inspection programme and deputy head of probation inspection programme. The Chief Inspector, head of assurance and improvement and deputy lead inspector may also attend.   

The purpose of the meeting is to ensure that senior leaders are sighted on PDU inspection findings and are aware of any emerging themes. The panel will also discuss the extent to which the PDU has made progress on relevant recommendations from previous HM Inspectorate of Probation inspection reports (Probation Service and thematic inspections). The meeting does not have the power to change any ratings, as they are based entirely on case inspection findings.

7.3. Report writing (Back to top)

It is important that PDU reports are well presented, credible and accessible to the intelligent lay reader. Equally, to drive improvement in practice, the report needs to present the information required by the technical audience. We use a short report format in PDU inspections, with the intention of making the content accessible to a broader audience. Alongside the report, we also publish a data workbook, which sets out all the data from inspected cases and surveys, and contextual data. Reports contain a short narrative, explaining the progress made against recommendations from previous inspections. Reports may also identify areas of particularly effective or innovative practice that inspectors feel are worth sharing with other PDUs.

The lead inspector is allocated eight days to complete the first draft of the PDU inspection report, including presenting their judgements to the inspection findings meeting.

The following processes are then carried out to finalise the report:

  • initial editing (checking on grammar and house style)
  • structure, accuracy and quality check by the head or deputy head of programme (strategic editing)
  • review by the Chief Inspector
  • factual accuracy check by the PDU
  • statistics check by the data and information team.

The factual accuracy check is a process that enables the PDU to suggest amendments to any factual statements in the report that are incorrect. It is not an opportunity to present new information or to amend the findings of the inspection.

7.4. Inspection feedback (Back to top)

Initial feedback and case inspection ratings   

Feedback including case inspection ratings and findings will be shared the Tuesday following the inspection fieldwork via Microsoft Teams, timing to be agreed between the LI and Head of PDU. This allows time for all case inspections to be completed and for the lead to analyse the findings.

Factual accuracy and further feedback

The lead inspector prepares an inspection report, which is submitted to the inspected organisation in the second week after the inspection fieldwork, for checking factual accuracy before publication.

Final feedback

In the second week post fieldwork and after completion of the report, we deliver a further feedback session to the head of PDU and any additional staff or partners that the PDU wants to attend. At this meeting more detailed feedback will be provided of positive findings and areas of concern. This will be held via Teams unless agreed otherwise.

7.5. HM Inspectorate of Probation ratings challenge process and complaints procedure (Back to top)

We are committed to ensuring that our processes are transparent, fair and of a professional standard. This includes handling complaints proficiently and in an open and rigorous way, investigating the matters raised thoroughly and replying as quickly as possible to any concerns raised with us.

Organisations can make a complaint if they are dissatisfied with the way in which we carry out, or fail to carry out, our business. This includes the quality of our work and the way we work, including the conduct of the organisation and of individual members of staff. It can also include issues with our inspection judgements. Our complaints policy can be found on our website.[4]

While our formal complaints policy covers any issues that organisations may have with the findings of our inspections, the expectation is that these will be dealt with informally, negating the need to invoke the formal complaints policy.

There is therefore an opportunity to raise such issues at the factual accuracy check. The chief operating officer is the final decision-maker on any matters of factual accuracy and/or challenge to inspection ratings.

We aim to address any concerns or dissatisfaction as early as possible, preferably before they are escalated to a formal complaint. If an organisation is not satisfied with the response from the chief operating officer concerning a challenge to ratings, it can then invoke the formal complaints procedure. This will need to be supported with new evidence. We will not reconsider solely on the basis that our judgements are disappointing to the organisation.

7.6. Report publication (Back to top)

We aim to publish PDU reports eight weeks after the end of the fieldwork. Reports in Wales require at least an additional two weeks to allow for translation.

7.7. Action plans (Back to top)

The PDU liaises with the Performance Assurance and Risk Group to agree an action plan to address the concerns and where relevant priority concerns identified in the report. These may include regional and national areas of concern, as well as those specific to the PDU. We expect the action plan to be in place within two months of the publication of the report.

Footnotes (Back to top)

[1] HM Inspectorate of Probation (2023). Examining the links between probation supervision and positive outcomes – completion and proven reoffending. Research & Analysis Bulletin 2023/04. https://hmiprobation.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/document/the-links-between-the-quality-of-supervision-and-positive-outcomes-for-people-on-probation/

[2] Our inspections – HM Inspectorate of Probation

[3] https://hmiprobation.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/contact/diversity-and-inclusion/welsh-language-scheme/

[4] HM Inspectorate of Probation (2024). Complaints procedure. Available at: https://hmiprobation.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/corporate-document/complaints/