An inspection of probation services in Cardiff and the Vale PDU

­Foreword (Back to top)

Cardiff and the Vale PDU had clear strategic aims to keep people safe and empower staff to deliver effective services, but the implementation of its strategy was not effectively supporting these goals. As a result, the quality of work delivered in the PDU was often insufficient.

Casework across all four service delivery standards we inspected was ‘Inadequate’, with work to keep people safe being the weakest area of practice.

Leaders did demonstrate some strengths, including a thorough understanding of the profile of people on probation living in Cardiff and the Vale of Glamorgan. They were also regarded as constructive and valued contributors within the local strategic partnerships with other agencies. The co-location of probation staff with other professionals in initiatives such as Grand Avenues showed that leaders were ready to try new ideas in relation to meeting the needs of people on probation. However, efforts were not translating into satisfactory outcomes for those being supervised in Cardiff and the Vale of Glamorgan.

Staffing levels appeared comparatively favourable when measured against other areas we have inspected. However, the operational reality, marked by sickness absence, staff turnover, and a high proportion of staff and managers who were new in role, meant that the workforce remained fragile and under strain. The oversight provided by managers was not driving sufficient improvement at the pace required. Leaders needed to be more directive, ensuring that staff and middle managers were adequately supported, skilled, and equipped to deliver high-quality probation services. Better governance was also required to focus more clearly on the quality of work delivered to support people to change and protect people from harm.

The PDU’s urban centres provided access to a wide range of services for people on probation. However, provision was uneven across Cardiff and the Vale, with notable gaps for women. Despite co-location with service providers and positive strategic partnerships, delivery to address risk and need was too often insufficient and failed to meet expectations.

The quality of work to keep people safe required urgent attention in Cardiff and the Vale. This has been a recurring theme in our inspection activity and was evident in the cases we inspected here. Efforts to secure improvements in the timeliness and quality of key information from partner agencies, especially children’s services, had not gone far or fast enough. Practitioners and middle managers lacked sufficient professional curiosity when reviewing available information and addressing gaps in risk assessments and decision-making.

This inspection has highlighted challenges that require urgent and sustained attention. While there are some foundations to build on, significant improvement is needed to ensure that the PDU is consistently effective in protecting the public and supporting rehabilitation.

Martin Jones CBE

HM Chief Inspector of Probation

---

Ratings (Back to top)

Fieldwork started September 2025

Score 2/21

Overall rating

Inadequate

1. Organisational arrangements and activity

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

• Service delivery

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

---

Recommendations (Back to top)

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

Cardiff and The Vale should:

1. ensure domestic abuse and safeguarding information is complete and analysed sufficiently to inform the quality of assessment, planning and management of people on probation
2. ensure work is undertaken with other agencies to manage domestic abuse and child safeguarding, such as the police and children’s social care services, to ensure actual and potential victims are sufficiently protected
3. 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
4. develop practitioner’s 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 the use of interventions and services available for people on probation to support desistance and manage the risk of harm
6. engage with local providers of services to ensure that they are providing high quality support for all people on probation
7. fully consider the views of people on probation to inform service development.

---

Background (Back to top)

We conducted fieldwork in Cardiff and the Vale PDU over the period of two weeks, beginning 15 September 2025. We inspected 45 community orders and 14 releases on licence from custody where sentences and licences had commenced during two separate weeks, between 10 February 2025 and 16 February 2025 and 17 March 2025 and 23 March 2025. We also conducted 44 interviews with probation practitioners.

Cardiff and the Vale was one of six PDUs in the Wales probation region, serving a population of 519,662. Seventy-nine per cent of residents identified as White, making Cardiff the most ethnically diverse part of Wales. The PDU also supervised the highest proportion of people under the age of 25. The area faced significant challenges, including a shortage of accommodation, high rates of offending linked to substance misuse and one of the highest reoffending rates in Wales.

The PDU head was an established senior leader who had been in post in Cardiff and the Vale since 2022 and was supported by a senior operational support manager. At the time of our inspection announcement, the PDU employed 178 full-time equivalent staff, supervising a caseload of 2,561 people on probation. This comprised 1,192 community sentences, 665 individuals subject to post release supervision and 704 people in custody.

While most staff were based in urban areas, such as Cardiff city centre and Barry police station in the Vale of Glamorgan, the PDU covered a range of coastal and rural communities. Staff also worked from community-based hubs, including the Grand Avenues project in Ely and Caerau, and from specialist hubs for young adults and women, both hosted by a third sector partner, Safer Wales. Local courts included Cardiff Magistrates’ Court and Cardiff Crown Court.

Geographically, the PDU shared boundaries with Cardiff and the Vale of Glamorgan local authorities and fell within the South Wales Police force area. HMP Cardiff and Mandeville House Approved Premises were located within the PDU footprint, although these staff were not under the PDU line management.

A range of regional Community Rehabilitative Services (CRS) and locally co-commissioned services were delivered across the PDU. Dependency and recovery support services were delivered by Dyfodol; accommodation support services were delivered by Forward Trust; and women’s services were provided by The Nelson Trust.

Inspection standards had been updated in response to the implementation of Probation Reset from July 2024. This meant that an individual’s contact with their probation practitioner was suspended for the final third of their supervision period. In addition to the core standards, we applied a set of adjusted standards to licence cases where Probation Reset had been applied eight weeks or less from the point of release. We inspected 11 cases subject to Probation Reset, with three of these inspected against adjusted standards.

---

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: 

• Leaders in Cardiff and the Vale PDU fostered a culture of openness, constructive challenge, and ideas. Middle and senior leaders were approachable and keen to receive staff suggestions for improvement.
• Leaders had a strong understanding of the communities in which they operated, underpinned by a clear diversity and needs profile of the cohort of people on probation.
• The PDU’s Priority Action Plan and local Quality Plan were distilled into a concise one-page staff plan to aid communication, and staff at all levels could clearly articulate the core priority of keeping people safe.
• Regular PDU management and accountability meetings focused on operational priorities, performance and the implications of organisational change. When leaders had focused on reducing the backlog of home visits, for example, measurable improvements had been made. The content and structure of protected learning days for staff were informed by intelligence from various means including Keeping People Safe and Wales Assurance Tool audits, and performance information.
• Leaders were valued and influential representatives at all relevant partnership forums, chairing key strategic and operational boards. External partners described a culture of healthy professional challenge at a strategic level.
• Leaders had identified deficits in the quality of domestic abuse and child safeguarding information available to practitioners when undertaking assessments and making risk-based decisions. The volume of requests also threatened to overwhelm established processes. Through effective strategic and regional partnerships, some PDU administrative staff now had access to read-only information from South Wales police database. Staff also had access to Reportable Incident information from the police, allowing them to monitor any police contact with people on probation.
• Leaders made effective use of sophisticated diversity data scrutinised by the regional disproportionality board in shaping service delivery. Subsequent activity had targeted inequalities linked to ethnicity, disability, age, gender, and neurodivergence.

 Areas for improvement: 

• The leadership approach had prioritised staff empowerment and autonomy over micromanagement. While this was an appropriate longer-term ambition, current operational challenges, such as staff vacancies, high workloads, and high levels of inexperience, demanded more directive leadership with clearer ownership of decisions and their impact, until the workforce reaches greater maturity and stability.
• While leaders had clearly communicated the priority of keeping people safe and the activity required to underpin this objective, our casework findings and internal assurance evidenced ongoing deficits. The quality of work continued to be undermined by high caseloads, staff turnover, and insufficient management oversight, resulting in insufficient public protection activity in too many cases.
• Insufficient governance arrangements were in place to drive quality and public protection practice. Leaders acknowledged that, until recently, governance had taken a performance focus rather than an investigative approach to the quality of work being completed. This limited their ability to identify and address underlying issues in casework, resulting in missed opportunities to drive meaningful improvement.
• Inspection findings closely aligned with internal audit themes, particularly relating to keeping people safe. While the actions outlined in the quality improvement plan were sound, the pace of change in response to concerns about casework quality has been too slow. To realise meaningful improvement, leaders needed to accelerate improvement activity and strengthen accountability for progress.
• Leaders needed to give clearer direction and have stronger oversight of change. Not all Reset cases were being transferred to practitioners dedicated to working with people on probation in the final third of their sentences. As a result, Probation Reset was not freeing up the capacity of practitioners as intended. Some practitioners saw the process as onerous and subsequently deprioritised this nationally mandated initiative.
• Leaders had not done enough to make sure all practitioners understood safeguarding referral routes. The PDU had co-located a probation service officer (PSO) in Cardiff Multi-Agency Safeguarding Hub (MASH), with access to social care systems, and to provide a presence in strategy meetings involving cases subject to probation supervision. Although the post was withdrawn due to staffing issues, an administrator from the regional public protection team retains system access which had improved response times for safeguarding enquiries. However, this did not result in improvements to the quality of information in casework we inspected. In the Vale of Glamorgan, access remained unavailable but under review. Inspected cases showed that children’s services were often receiving multiple initial enquiries which provided limited information. That was affecting the quality of assessment and risk management activity and placed unnecessary pressure on social care partners.
• Staff had access to South Wales police reportable incidents, but practitioner responses to arrests and intelligence about risk were inconsistent, with action taken not always clear. The high volume of incidents was taking up to three hours daily to process, and some staff, particularly in the women’s team, were overwhelmed due to the frequency of incidents involving female victims and perpetrators.
• Engaging people on probation activity within the PDU was underdeveloped. While there had been some initial efforts, such as surveys, suggestion boxes and recognition events, these were limited in scope and impact. The PDU did not have a well-embedded forum for people on probation to provide consistent feedback, and just eight out of 18 respondents to our survey of people on probation stated they had been asked for their views about being on supervision and felt well listened to.

---

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.	Inadequate

Strengths: 

• The head of service was well supported by a senior operational support manager. Although their workloads were significant, lines of accountability were clear across the range of operational and strategic priorities.
• The middle management team was now fully staffed and had dedicated administrative support. They also had access to a management coordination hub for support with administrative tasks.
• Leaders actively considered staff development, with several practitioners progressing into middle management and regional or national roles. High-performing staff were encouraged to develop through coaching and specialist roles. 
• The use of daily human factors checklists created space for discussions between case administrators, practitioners, managers, and senior leaders about risk issues, workload pressures and potential mitigating actions. Some staff found this process helpful for wellbeing and prioritising tasks, including identifying casework that needed escalation, such as transfers and enforcement.

 Areas for improvement: 

• Organisational data indicated that Cardiff and the Vale PDU had reached its target staffing level. However, actual capacity was reduced due to staff being seconded, acting up or on extended leave. This resulted in the PDU operating with 19 per cent fewer probation officers (POs) and 12 per cent fewer PSOs than the target. Just two out of 28 respondents to our staff survey believed staffing levels were sufficient in the PDU. While leaders were committed to staff development, the staff churn created instability and undermined operational resilience. Fifty-six per cent of inspected cases had more than one probation practitioner since the start of their supervision period. One respondent to our survey of people on probation said: “as a lifer I get passed from officer to officer every six to 12 months; you’re never going to build a solid relationship like that”.
• Average caseloads for POs had increased by over 20 per cent in the 12 months prior to inspection. For PSOs, that increase was around 11 per cent. Numerous staff continued to operate well above capacity according to the workload measurement tool. Only six out of 28 respondents to our staff survey felt their workload was manageable.
• High workloads were compounded by staff sickness. Although average PO sickness decreased from 18.2 to 14.8 days, PSO absence rates rose from 8.4 to 11.6 days. Many staff reported their capacity was stretched due to covering for absent colleagues, placing further strain on the workforce.
• Attrition at the case administrator grade rose from 14.6 per cent to 20.6 per cent in the 12 months leading up to inspection. While this was partly driven by positive development opportunities, it created instability. Some administrative staff felt like chess pieces, frequently redeployed to plug urgent gaps. When combined with insufficient induction and training for this grade, these factors contributed to a sense of being undervalued and overstretched.
• Staff redeployment and redistribution of work was often reactive, even when vacancies were anticipated. This was leading toto sudden caseload transfers between staff, often without sufficient time to familiarise themselves with their increased workload, adding pressure and disrupting continuity. In several cases, PQiPs were deployed to teams facing resource gaps, which risked affecting the quality of their learning and development.
• Levels of inexperience across grades, including middle management, was a challenge. Although leaders recognised the need to improve practice, and there was some evidence of formal and informal performance management activity, implementation was inconsistent. In some cases, managers were hesitant to address underperformance due to concerns about exacerbating staff sickness or wellbeing issues. This risked poor practice becoming entrenched in some instances. Strengthening managerial support through effective coaching and ensuring manageable caseloads would help embed a more responsive and resilient improvement culture.
• Middle managers had high workloads. This was compounded by levels of inexperience across grades; vacancy and sickness considerations; and onerous HR processes. Managers did not have time to record the volume of case discussions they held with their staff. Management oversight was effective in just 19 per cent of cases we inspected, including some with complex risks and needs. Even where oversight was evident, it did not always identify fundamental deficits in casework and prompt sufficient corrective action.
• The quality of assessment, delivery and reviewing activity completed by POs and PQiPs was more often sufficient than that completed by PSOs.¹ Some PSOs were concerned that their training had not adequately equipped them to manage some of the complex issues prevalent in their caseloads, such as mental health, domestic abuse and child safeguarding. This concern was echoed by managers and evident in the cases we inspected.

---

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: 

• In response to rates of deprivation and reoffending in Ely and Caerau, leaders co-located probation staff within the Grand Avenues project, supervising 130 individuals with access to local services, third sector support and unpaid work opportunities. Backed by 10 years of funding, the project was being evaluated by the University of South Wales, with several positive outcomes identified. Practitioners reported improved engagement and compliance. Inspectors heard from people on probation about their positive experiences at Grand Avenues, highlighting the value of localised approaches to community reintegration.
• Probation practitioners were co-located with Safer Wales at the young adult hub in Cardiff. This allowed people on probation aged 18–25 to be supervised away from the main office. Young adults could access a range of services at the hub including mentoring, commissioned rehabilitative services and community sentence treatment requirements, as well as practical support with food, and clothing. Inspectors spoke to a young adult who was enthusiastic at the prospect of being supervised at the hub, telling us that it felt safer and more welcoming than the main office. Staff based at the hub described excellent relationships with their Safer Wales colleagues and spoke with passion about their work with young adults.
• The PDU provided a seconded PO to both Cardiff and the Vale Youth Justice Service (YJS) teams and strategic and operational relationships were described as positive. The Young Adult Hub was being used to support the transition of young people from the YJS to the Probation Service. Appointments for that cohort were held at the hub with practitioners from YJS and probation during the transfer period, ensuring a smoother transition and early access to relevant services.
• PDU practitioners played an important role in the Joint Intelligence Partnership (JIP), a multi-agency forum with prison, police and probation services, which was intended to respond to high levels of drug-related offending and young adults on probation in Cardiff and the Vale. The JIP enabled proactive intelligence sharing and robust risk management for 123 individuals who did not meet the criteria for management under other frameworks such as Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA) or integrated offender management (IOM). Issues addressed included serious organised crime, modern slavery and child exploitation, with the approach enhancing oversight and safeguarding for complex cases.
• IOM arrangements were working well, with co-location strengthening collaboration between probation and police. Communication was effective throughout the sentence, and joint management clearly benefited both IOM cases in our sample. The WISDOM project (Wales Integrated Serious and Dangerous Offender Management) targeted 40 people convicted of serious acquisitive crime across Cardiff and the Vale. The team’s offer was enhanced by psychology input and young adult support workers, enabling practical support in the community and psychologically-informed practice.
• Co-commissioned substance misuse services were delivered through Dyfodol. Through effective partnerships between the PDU, the regional substance misuse project lead and Dyfodol, the use of drug rehabilitation and alcohol treatment requirements had increased significantly since 2023.
• Mental health treatment requirements had been available in the PDU for 12 months and had been well received by sentencers and practitioners. Although volumes were initially higher than expected, there were currently no waiting lists, and funding had been secured for additional psychologist resource across South Wales.
• The Centralised Operational Resettlement, Referral and Evaluation team (CORRE) supported timely referral to CRS provision at the start of new periods of supervision, although some improvements were required to sequence interventions more carefully.

 Areas for improvement: 

• Provision for women on probation varied significantly across the PDU. In Cardiff, access to the Safer Wales women’s centre supported a joined-up, trauma-informed approach. In contrast, provision for women in the Vale was restricted to half a day per week female-only reporting at the police station. Leaders had recognised this and were considering how to improve this offer. While CRS provider, The Nelson Trust, offered a range of support, including a creche at its centre, its location outside the city centre made it difficult to reach for many women on probation. Staffing challenges across agencies meant the full offer could not always be delivered. This was reflected in weaker planning, delivery and review in female cases compared to male cases we inspected.
• At the time of inspection, there was a backlog of more than 100 MAPPA-eligible cases requiring level-setting consideration, and almost 70 Level 1 case reviews were overdue. This risked individuals that pose a risk to the public not being assessed, managed and reviewed appropriately. Leaders had recently established review forums with the police to consider Level one cases through a multi-agency lens.
• Some MAPPA level two cases were not being discussed quickly enough. In two of the four cases we inspected, initial meetings had been delayed. Since April 2025 there had been an increase in level two cases, which was attributed to an increase in fixed term recall releases; more category three domestic abuse cases; and recent awareness raising for practitioners. Key partners, including the Home Office, were often absent, which risked affecting the management of foreign national cases. Major accommodation problems in Cardiff were also a reason for cases being heard at MAPPA level two.
• Actions from Multi-Agency Risk Assessment Conferences (MARAC) were often unclear or incomplete, raising concerns about the effectiveness of safeguarding and risk management for victims of domestic abuse. In several cases, referrals from probation practitioners in relation to concerns about domestic abuse were missed, delayed, or rejected without clear justification. Leaders had rightly identified MARAC as a risk on their register and were involved in an ongoing review with strategic partners, but further work was needed to improve the effectiveness of work in this area.
• Practitioners were not always responsive to the emerging needs of people on probation, sometimes because they lacked confidence in the services provided through CRS. Apart from the Forward Trust accommodation service, which was oversubscribed, the rate of referrals resulting in starts and completions were too low across all CRS provision. Several locally commissioned services were not being used enough. Where referrals had been made, it was not always clear what work had been undertaken by providers, or how this had been coordinated by practitioners. Non-engagement with CRS provision was not always being consistently enforced. These factors affected the efficacy of delivery in some cases. 

---

Diversity and inclusion (Back to top)

Strengths: 

• As the PDU with the highest proportion of young adults in Wales, bespoke provision for 18–25-year-olds was available via the Safer Wales young adult hub. The national charity, St Giles, was also providing a personal wellbeing service specifically for this age group.
• Safer Wales offered a service for young adults on probation from a Black, Asian and minority ethnic background. Initial take up of this grant-funded offer was slow, however, since the formation of the specialist young adult team knowledge and understanding of the offer has improved and it was being used. People on probation in this cohort could access targeted support with asylum, immigration, benefits and accommodation advice. A dedicated youth worker at the hub also provided practical support with literacy, travel costs linked to employment and education, and access to social inclusion activities.
• In response to health inequalities, the PDU collaborated with the reducing reoffending team and Cardiff and the Vale health partners to develop a GP surgery offer, providing emergency access, prescribing, screening, and onward health referrals. This was embedded in the women’s centre and had recently been rolled out in the Westgate Street office. Services had also been commissioned to support those with brain injuries or neurodivergent individuals.
• Data around education, training and employment outcomes for young adults and men aged 40–49 had resulted in the delivery of employment advice events for those cohorts. Feedback was also obtained from participants in those events and evidenced a range of outcomes, including registration on training events, contact with employers and submission of job applications. Most participants reported that the events met or exceeded their expectations.
• The PDU had a Welsh language offer, allocating practitioners fluent in Welsh to relevant cases where requested.
• Twelve out of 18 respondents to our survey of people on probation said that their probation practitioner had taken the time to understand their personal needs during induction.

Areas for improvement: 

• The quality of work undertaken for White people on probation appeared to be sufficient more often than for people from Black, Asian or minority ethnic background.²
• Leaders made effective use of regional disproportionality taskforce data to inform commissioning decisions and service improvements. Ethnicity data indicating that Cardiff and the Vale was the most diverse PDU in Wales resulted in commissioning of Be the Change. Unfortunately, referral rates were too low, and several practitioners we spoke to were unaware of the service.

---

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[3]³ 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?	53%
Does assessment focus sufficiently on the factors linked to offending and desistance?	75%
Does assessment focus sufficiently on keeping other people safe?	24%

• Assessments almost always considered how motivated people on probation were to engage and comply with their sentence. In two-thirds of cases, practitioners considered the impact of personal circumstances, such as employment and childcare, which could influence levels of engagement. Engagement activity in resettlement cases was a particular strength, underpinned by good levels of pre-release contact by practitioners.
• Engagement activity was weakened by inconsistent assessment of protected characteristics. In several cases, inspectors found no evidence that diversity was discussed at the start of supervision. This meant key factors like disability, culture, religion, and language were not meaningfully explored and as a result, important opportunities to understand the impact of these key factors on engagement were missed.
• Practitioners could routinely identify factors linked to offending, and assessments often took a strengths-based approach, identifying positive influences and support networks that could help develop more stable lifestyles. This work was particularly strong in those cases being released from custody.
• Work to assess the safety of others was insufficient in far too many cases. Child safeguarding concerns were present in 68 per cent of the cases we inspected, yet fewer than half of relevant cases had access to sufficient information to inform assessments. Safeguarding requests made at court were often missing a response or lacking sufficient detail, and practitioners did not consistently follow this up with children’s social care. While recent improvements in the timeliness of information sharing are encouraging, the quality remained poor, often lacking the detail needed to make informed assessments. Critically, even when safeguarding information was available, it was used effectively in only 15 out of 49 relevant assessments, reflecting a concerning lack of professional curiosity and rigour in safeguarding practice.
• While access to domestic abuse information from police was generally better, its effective use in risk assessments remained worryingly inconsistent. Practitioners made meaningful use of this information in only 21 out of 49 relevant cases. Too often, they relied on outdated information or failed to analyse behavioural patterns evident in police records. This limited their identification and understanding of the risks posed to potential victims, such as family members and new partners, and led to missed opportunities to fully safeguard those at risk of harm.

---

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

Our rating[4] ⁴for 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?	59%
Does planning focus sufficiently on reducing reoffending and supporting desistance?	71%
Does planning focus sufficiently on keeping other people safe?	37%

• The involvement of the CORRE team in completing sentence plans was driving good quality desistance planning. Comprehensive objectives that targeted key desistance factors were evident in around three-quarters of the cases we inspected. This was particularly effective when CORRE staff, practitioners and people on probation engaged in meaningful discussions about the work required during the sentence; sequenced it carefully; considered levels of motivation to engage; and identified solutions for potential barriers.
• Deficits in assessing protected characteristics led to planning that did not consistently address key barriers to engagement. This was insufficient in more than half of relevant cases. Where ethnicity and culture were overlooked, plans failed to reflect the lived experiences and potential barriers faced by individuals, such as discrimination, language needs, or lack of community support. Practitioners did not always consider how to meaningfully engage neurodivergent people on probation or those with health needs in key requirements such as unpaid work, or with partner agencies delivering elements of the plan.
• Far too few plans (17 out of 53 relevant cases) made links to the work of other public protection agencies, and deficits in the identification of all relevant victims and risk issues meant that fewer than half of plans addressed all risk of harm factors. This undermined the effectiveness of risk management. Planning needed to be more collaborative and informed by timely, analytical information.
• Contingency planning needed to improve in most cases we inspected (32 out of 58 relevant cases). Inspectors found several examples of contingencies that were formulaic and did not plan for critical scenarios, such as breach or contact with potential victims. As a result, plans were ineffective in supporting practitioner responsivity to escalating risks.

---

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

Our rating⁵ 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?	54%
Does the implementation and delivery of services effectively support desistance?	37%
Does the implementation and delivery of services effectively support the safety of other people?	19%

• A reasonable majority (13 out of 18) of respondents to our survey of people on probation said they had a good relationship with their probation practitioner, and inspectors found there was a sufficient focus on maintaining an effective working relationship in 70 per cent of inspected cases.
• Practitioners demonstrated flexibility in their approach and consideration of personal circumstances in most of the cases we inspected (84 per cent). However, care should be taken to maintain an appropriate balance between flexibility and enforcement. Insufficient enforcement action was taken in 16 out 45 relevant cases. This was evident in relation to attendance at unpaid work and CRS appointments, with insufficient evidence provided for absences and delayed or absent enforcement activity. This risked undermining the credibility of probation supervision, weakening accountability, and reducing the effectiveness of rehabilitative interventions.
• Although we consistently saw good quality planning linked to desistance, there was a marked reduction in the sufficiency of delivery against those plans. This was also evident in cases subject to Probation Reset, despite this initiative seeking to front-load interventions in the early stages of the sentence.
• People on probation were not getting sufficient access to services aimed at promoting their desistance from offending and reducing their risk of harm. Referral rates into the range of CRS providers had increased in the 12 months prior to inspection and CRS provision had been offered in 37 out of 51 relevant cases in our inspection. However, rates of delivery were far too low across all services commissioned to help people on probation address problems related to their offending. Data on completion rates for CRS provision was concerning, and several locally commissioned services, such as Brainkind and Be the Change, were under-used. Just eight out of 16 relevant respondents to our survey of people on probation felt they had access to required services.
• Despite the high prevalence of substance-related offending in Cardiff and the Vale, the impact of services was limited. Only six out of 31 relevant cases received sufficient support for alcohol misuse, and just seven out of 39 relevant cases for drug misuse. Communication by practitioners with Dyfodol about drug testing was not consistent. This undermined efforts to address substance misuse and risk and reduced the effectiveness of rehabilitation requirements.
• Practitioners raised concerns about the quality of delivery from some providers of commissioned rehabilitative services, citing an over-reliance on telephone appointments, poor communication, and limited evidence of positive outcomes for the people they supervised. These issues affected practitioner confidence in the efficacy of interventions and risked disengagement from rehabilitative work. Although steps had been taken (such as co-location and regular briefings) to strengthen relationships and improve understanding, further action was needed.
• Urgent improvements were required to improve the quality of work delivered to keep people safe, which was judged sufficient in fewer than one in five cases we inspected. The protection of actual and potential victims was sufficient in 15 out of 54 relevant cases. Inspectors identified serious gaps in multi-agency working and information sharing, particularly in domestic abuse and child safeguarding cases. The involvement of other agencies in managing and minimising the risk of harm was insufficiently coordinated in 31 out of 48 relevant cases, resulting in a disjointed approach to risk management. Improvements were required in practitioner confidence to raise professional challenge where appropriate and hold partners to account for the elements of delivery for which they were responsible. A more collaborative approach to service delivery was urgently required across the range of operational partnerships.

---

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

Our rating⁶ 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?	64%
Does reviewing focus sufficiently on supporting desistance?	51%
Does reviewing focus sufficiently on keeping other people safe?	36%

• Most cases had a written review, although only 43 per cent of people on probation had been meaningfully involved in reviewing their progress. Reviewing was not always being used by practitioners to encourage people on probation to engage in their sentences, and progress was not being recorded in all the cases we inspected.
• In 27 out of 51 relevant cases, reviewing activity did not fully consider changes in factors linked to offending behaviour or result in adjustments being made to the plan of work. This was underpinned by insufficient consideration of information from other agencies working with the individual.
• Risk was not always actively managed in Cardiff and the Vale. Reviewing was not sufficiently responsive to emerging risk in 30 out of 51 relevant cases. Just 28 out of 51 relevant reviews drew on input from other agencies involved in managing the risk of harm, resulting in limitations to the accuracy of reviewing activity. Practitioners often failed to engage with key individuals, such as family members and other professionals. These factors meant that practitioners did not always have up-to-date and accurate information to review dynamic factors and respond accordingly.

---

---

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 Helen Cox, 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.

Footnotes

1. The findings relating to staff grade have not been subject to a relative rate index analysis, which is a test used to compare rates of incidence, we report on our findings with that caveat. ↩︎
2. The findings relating to ethnicity have not been subject to a relative rate index analysis, which is a test used to compare rates of incidence, we report on our findings with that caveat. ↩︎
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 score for the key question, which is placed in a rating band. Full data and further information about inspection methodology is available in the data annexe. ↩︎
5. The 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 ↩︎
6. 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. ↩︎

---