An inspection of probation services in Cwm Taf Morgannwg PDU

Foreword (Back to top)

The inspection of Cwm Taf Morgannwg (CTM) Probation Delivery Unit presents a complex picture of a service operating in a challenging environment given the social inequalities in the area, yet demonstrating clear strengths in leadership, culture, and strategic intent.

The leadership team was visible, compassionate, and well-informed, with a strong grasp of both the operational pressures and the needs of its staff and communities.  Its commitment to improvement was evident in the development of a robust quality improvement plan, the embedding of a human-factors approach, and the proactive engagement with partners and stakeholders.

Staff across all grades reported feeling supported, listened to, and valued, and there was a clear sense of optimism about the direction of travel. However, despite these strengths, the inspection found that the quality of service delivery, particularly in keeping people safe, was inadequate. Risk assessments were often poor, multi-agency working was limited, and management oversight was inconsistent.   These deficits were compounded by factors such as redacted police information which hampered probation officer understanding of risk, and staffing gaps due to sickness and maternity leave. In addition, the engagement of people on probation to inform service delivery had room for development.

While some areas of casework, such as engagement and reviewing, showed signs of improvement, the overall delivery of supervision remained insufficient. The inspection team recognised the leadership’s strategic focus, progress made to date, and emerging improvements against our standards and therefore awarded a ‘Good’ rating for leadership.

The overall rating is ‘Requires improvement’, and further work is required to ensure that the strengths in leadership translate into consistently high-quality outcomes for people on probation and the communities that the leadership serves.

While further work is needed to enhance the quality of practice, and in particular a focus on improving work to keep people safe (which needs to be a priority across the service), the PDU has the right foundations to deliver a high-quality service. I encourage the PDU to build on its current work, and trust that our recommendations can support and inform its own performance improvement plans.

Martin Jones CBE 

HM Chief Inspector of Probation

---

Ratings (Back to top)

Fieldwork started August 2025

Score 4/21

Overall rating

Requires improvement

1. Organisational arrangements and activity

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

2. Service delivery

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

---

Recommendations (Back to top)

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

Cwm Taf Morgannwg Probation Delivery Unit should:

1. ensure work is undertaken with other agencies to manage domestic abuse and child safeguarding information requests, to ensure actual and potential victims are sufficiently protected
2. develop practitioner confidence and skills in the use of professional curiosity and challenging conversations to identify, analyse, assess, plan, and respond to indicators of risk effectively
3. ensure effective management oversight is provided with sufficient frequency and appropriately recorded in case records.
4. ensure that practitioners draw on all available and relevant services and provision to address the issues underpinning the risk of harm of people on probation
5. fully take into account the views of people on probation to inform service development.

---

Background (Back to top)

We conducted fieldwork in Cwm Taf Morgannwg PDU over the period of two weeks, beginning 04 August 2025. We inspected 26 community orders and 18 releases on licence from custody where sentences and licences had commenced during two separate weeks, between 23 December and 29 December 2024 and 13 January and 19 January 2025. We also conducted 26 interviews with probation practitioners.

Cwm Taf Morgannwg Probation Delivery Unit (PDU) covers the local authority areas of Bridgend, Merthyr Tydfil, and Rhondda Cynon Taf. The region has a population of approximately 450,000, with notable health and social inequalities. The area has a higher proportion of older people compared to the Welsh average, and significant levels of disability, mental health issues, and economic inactivity.

Employment in the region has faced persistent challenges. While the UK unemployment rate stood at 4.8 per cent for April–June 2025, local data from the population needs assessment indicated that Cwm Taf Morgannwg had a higher rate of workless households and economic inactivity than the national average. There were also elevated levels of benefit claimants and adults with no formal qualifications, which contributed to barriers in accessing employment and support services. Levels of domestic abuse and other violence were some of the highest in Wales, with violent offending representing over a third of the probation caseload.

Reoffending rates across the three local authorities largely reflected broader national Welsh trends and showed an increase over the last five years. The overall proven reoffending rate for adult offenders in England and Wales was 25.1 per cent for the October to December 2021 cohort, with those released from custodial sentences of less than 12 months reoffending at a rate of 55.3 per cent.

Commissioned rehabilitative services (CRS) were provided by the Forward Trust for accommodation support and St Giles Wise Partnership for finance, benefit, and debt support and personal wellbeing services. The Nelson Trust delivered services for women, and Dyfodol provided dependency and recovery services for males navigating drug and alcohol treatment services. In conjunction with other PDUs in South Wales, the PDU had commissioned additional services from BrainKind, who support individuals who have experienced a traumatic brain injury.  

The Probation Reset policy was operational at the time of inspection. Six of the 42 cases we inspected were subject to Probation Reset, with two having the adjusted PDU standards applied.[1]

---

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.	Good

Strengths:

• The PDU was guided by a senior leadership team held in high regard. Staff described them as visible, approachable, and compassionate. These senior managers demonstrated a realistic understanding of the key pressures and areas needing improvement within the PDU, as well as the effects of rapid change on both staff and middle managers. They had a strong grasp of the staff group and were well informed about the individual strengths and challenges across all grades. Roles and responsibilities among senior leaders were clearly defined and widely understood.
• Cwm Taf Morgannwg PDU had a delivery plan which aligned with the Area Executive Director’s business plan for Wales and was centred on the four priorities of the director general and chief probation officer. The PDU had also developed an extensive quality improvement plan to deliver on key areas of improvement identified by internal and external audits. This was actively reviewed, with a focus on outcomes, and was personalised for each office.
• The PDU leadership analysed and addressed key service delivery risks. Those associated with the challenges of the impact of national organisational changes and of gathering information from partners on domestic abuse and child safeguarding were recognised and understood.
• Staff at all levels had a clear understanding of the priorities for both quality and performance. They were aware of the need to drive up the quality of work delivered, particularly in keeping people safe. As a result of findings from regional case auditing activity, utilising the Wales auditing tool (WAT), the PDU had increased its focus on improving practice. There was a clear quality improvement plan, driven by leaders and quality development officers, and led by the deputy PDU head.
• The PDU had fully embedded the ‘human-factors’ approach, a central strand of a learning organisation model, which had been adopted by the region. Check-in meetings each morning across all grades, including court teams, and a daily protected hour when senior probation officers (SPOs) and senior managers were available, were central to operational delivery. Staff largely valued the human-factors approach, which led them to feel listened to and supported their wellbeing.
• The PDU culture was warm and promoted openness. Staff across all grades were positive regarding their ability to feed ideas about change to managers and senior leaders and also provide constructive challenge when things were not working well. In our survey, 26 out of 38 respondents considered that the culture of the PDU promoted openness and constructive challenge. Senior leaders maintained a strong presence across the three offices within the PDU, which staff found valuable because it enhanced communication and provided a sense of support. Routine ‘coffee and cake’ events provided further opportunity for staff to feel listened to, and many spoke of how issues raised within this forum had been addressed.
• The leadership team were strong advocates of co-location and collaborative partnership working. This had driven up referrals, delivery, and positive outcomes for people on probation. Although there were gaps in the use of services to address issues of harm, local services were engaged to support desistance in almost half of inspected cases. This was well supported by appropriate office space. 
• There were strong strategic and operational delivery relationships with partners and key stakeholders across the PDU. Both the head and deputy head of the PDU sat on several boards to drive improvements in service delivery for people on probation. There was confidence in the leadership and contributions made by the PDU under these arrangements. 
• In common with all probation delivery units, there had been significant change over the preceding 12 months. The management of these changes was found to be thoughtful and considered, and messages were cascaded to staff through a variety of channels. Despite the volume of change and some sense of change fatigue, staff appeared resilient in dealing with them and supported by managers. The leadership team communicated policies, guidance, and changes that affected any form of probation delivery in various forms. This included management meetings, team meetings, and all-staff calls.

Areas for improvement:

• Management oversight in our case inspections did not routinely support practitioners in their work, nor focus sufficiently well on the needs and risks of the case. In 26 of 42 cases we inspected where management oversight was needed, it was found to be insufficient, ineffective, or absent. This was despite the introduction of management initial touchpoint meetings at the start of supervision periods. While we saw evidence of robust and routine performance and sickness management, this was not evident in the inspected cases. Where there was some evidence of management oversight, actions set were not routinely followed up, and therefore not actioned by probation practitioners.  
• While risks to service delivery in information sharing were well understood, actions taken to mitigate risks had not resulted in the necessary improvements in cases at the point of inspection.

---

P 1.2 Staffing	Rating
Staff are enabled to deliver a high-quality, personalised, and responsive service for all people on probation	Requires improvement

Strengths:

• There was clear evidence that staff were supported in their professional development. They were encouraged and supported to attend training in areas of personal interest and to take on responsibilities beyond their usual remit, often through lead roles, to broaden their experience and skills. There was a strong ethos within the leadership team of fostering and developing staff with potential to develop within the organisation, even when it was known that this would leave gaps within the staff group.
• We found an embedded process for practice improvement and learning which included learning from serious further offences (SFOs) and other reviews. Staff were enabled to contribute to the work of the PDU and many described feeling heard and supported by managers. All staff development days were held monthly and included input from a range of internal and external speakers. We found particularly strong practice where learning from a high profile SFO review was well utilised to inform staff, share learning, and involve other agencies.
• PDU leaders had worked hard to increase attendance in offices. This had included a series of challenging meetings with staff where leaders had been transparent about the impact of sickness and absence on colleagues. This had also included discussions about working at home and there was a requirement for all staff to be in the office, except for exceptional or individual diversity circumstances. This had clearly paid off as staff were routinely working in the office over the whole week and sickness has reduced in recent months.
• Leaders were robust in ensuring that Reset processes were adhered to and were keen to promote this as a way of managing workload. Reset had led to workload reductions for practitioners on the workload measurement tool, but this was not always positively experienced by staff. Some of this was due to sickness and maternity challenges across the PDU.
• In common with many PDUs, the pressures and workloads for SPOs were significant, particularly the time spent on human resource activity. However, use of the protected hours, as part of the ‘human factors’ model, provided time when staff could consult, and also enabled less-experienced probation practitioners to learn to be autonomous and develop their own practice. This was further enhanced using the ‘SBAR’ model (Situation, Background, Assessment, and Recommendation) which encouraged self-reflection prior to taking issues to leaders, and supported learning and development of staff.
• Attrition rates for probation officers in the PDU were low at 1.3 per cent, which was below the regional average of 6.3 per cent. This reflected our findings that staff liked working in the PDU and had no desire to work elsewhere. There was a real mix of experience within teams, and we saw more experienced staff supporting newer colleagues well. Where staff had left, we were told anecdotally that this was often due to promotion or a move into regional or other positions within the Probation Service, rather than exiting the organisation.

Areas for improvement:

• Staffing figures at the time of the inspection announcement were sufficient to meet organisational requirements, this was not felt as there were gaps as a result of sickness and maternity absence. At the time of inspection, nine members of the team were absent due to maternity leave and a further six were on long-term sick leave. At the time of inspection announcement, the PDU had an average of 20.4 sickness days per person per annum across all grades, which was much higher than the region overall. This had improved more recently. However, these figures were particularly impacted by several long-term absences and also included shorter periods of sickness, some of which was described as work-related. This provided a real challenge for the PDU in its ability to cover this work when the posts were not backfilled.

---

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

• Referral routes for commissioned rehabilitative services (CRS) were clear. Practitioners routinely used CRS to support the needs of those on supervision. In 20 of 33 cases we assessed as requiring such services, they had been referred and commenced work. Staff talked of a positive experience with the majority of CRS providers. CRS staff were embedded within the PDU and provided services in all three offices.
• In common with all Wales PDUs, the regional centralised operational, resettlement, referral, and evaluation (CORRE) team was embedded into the PDU. The team supported practitioners with sentence planning activity for people on probation. CORRE staff reviewed the risk and needs of people on probation with practitioners, identified suitable interventions, and completed referrals. 
• Relationships with substance misuse providers were well developed. Managers and operational staff had regular liaison with drug service providers. However, this had not always translated into case management, and supporting the needs of those on probation; in 17 of 27 cases inspected, we found unmet need in relation to drug use.
• In the MAPPA cases in our case sample, we saw evidence of appropriate Multi Agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA). Level 2 and 3 meetings were chaired by the PDU head and partnership working between the PDU and Police WISDOM and MOSOVO colleagues was collaborative and effective.
• In addition to the services delivered from three probation office sites in the PDU, a full-time probation presence in a community hub in Maesteg also supported the needs of people on probation from that area and provided services across a wide range of partner agencies.
• The PDU had led a collaborative strategic response to SDS40, with core partner agencies indicating that they had been well informed, which had supported preparation for people released early from custody. This was especially the case in the planning for the significant numbers to be released from HMP Parc.
• Sentencers were provided with routine and up-to-date information on sentencing options and available services. The PDU operated a long-established strategic sentencer liaison forum, which met quarterly and delivered magistrates’ training twice a year through the Wales stakeholder engagement team. To support the effectiveness of these forums, the PDU benchmarked sentencer satisfaction using tools such as a judicial survey.

Areas for improvement:

• Practitioners lacked confidence in delivering toolkits and structured interventions. Our case inspections provided limited evidence that meaningful interventions to keep people safe were being delivered.
• The PDU had a number of locally developed tools which sought to improve case recording and ensure protected characteristics were fully considered. However, these tools had yet to be embedded fully into practice as the quality of case records was routinely highlighted as insufficient in our case inspections.
• While we saw strong evidence of the use of CORRE in the initial stages of a sentence, when further referrals and reviews throughout the life of the supervision period were needed, the use of CORRE by probation practitioners was less consistent.
• The implementation and delivery of sentences were insufficient in most of the cases we inspected. Concerningly, the delivery of services to keep people safe and reduce the risk of harm posed by people on probation were found to be insufficient in most cases. There was a lack of professional curiosity and practitioners did not respond to, or evaluate, new information when received. In addition, there was a lack of liaison with other agencies working with those under supervision. 
• Improvements in the MAPPA level one review arrangements had been a focus for the PDU but had yet to be fully implemented. More needed to be done to reduce the backlog of these reviews, and ensure that the quality of both the review and the recording improved.
• Accredited programme rates needed to improve. Only nine per cent of accredited programmes for individuals convicted of sexual offences had been commenced during the previous 12 months. Only 26 per cent of accredited programmes, other than for individuals convicted of a sexual offence, had commenced. In our case sample, six cases that should have started an accredited programme had not done so. However, there had been a period in which no accredited programmes had been delivered due to a national transition in the programmes being delivered, which accounted for at least some of this delay. Where programmes had been commenced completion rates were positive.

---

Diversity and inclusion (Back to top)

• Leaders demonstrated authenticity and a strong commitment to diversity, which was clearly embedded across the PDU, for people on probation, in partnership arrangements, and among staff. Reasonable adjustments were made in nearly all cases where staff requested them, reflecting a responsive and inclusive working environment.
• The PDU had a well-developed understanding of the needs of its caseload, supported by a directory of services tailored to those under supervision. In over two-thirds of the cases we inspected, practitioners were actively building on the strengths of individuals and enhancing protective factors. This included being responsive to past trauma, neurodiversity, and other personal characteristics.
• Collaborative work with the regional diversity and inclusion teams, alongside the use of community integration analysis, supported a nuanced understanding of the demographic profile of the caseload for the PDU.
• Senior leaders were actively engaged with the Wales diversity forum, helping to embed data, policy, and organisational learning into practice through established governance structures. The head of the PDU also served as the Wales strategic lead for faith.
• To support neurodiversity needs for the relatively high number of individuals within the caseload, the PDU utilised 3SC CRS provision, which offered targeted interventions. There was a clear ambition to further develop the service offer for both staff and people on probation.
• A seconded probation officer worked across the two youth justice services (YJS) in the area, complemented by officers within the PDU who focused on individuals aged 18 to 24. This supported smoother transitions of individuals between youth and adult services.
• The PDU ensured that Welsh-speaking people on probation were supported by giving them Welsh language induction packs and the chance to speak with a Welsh-speaking probation worker, where this was required.

Areas for improvement:

• The needs of women on probation were not routinely met. Previously, specific officers had worked with women in some offices, although this had not been sustained due to staffing challenges. There was an intent to bring back these specialist roles. Women were seen in probation buildings, during designated time slots, which was not ideal, and there were limited opportunities to see them elsewhere.
• There had also been recent issues with staffing by the CRS offering services to women, which had meant some delays in what was provided. While there were only seven females in our case sample, we found that not all women on probation were referred to the CRS provider. This was a missed opportunity to engage and support women with services to enhance desistance and reduce risk. Despite the work between probation staff and providers of women’s services, we saw the same deficiencies in work to address risk of serious harm. Practitioners did not always understand the complexities of women as both victims and perpetrators, often simultaneously.
• Although there were initiatives to engage people on probation and utilise their views to inform practice, these had yet to be fully implemented and embedded into practice. The PDU recognised that this has not been an area of priority for them. There remained a commitment to address this important area of work. A new audit tool for practitioners to complete within supervision sessions had been introduced to enable a feedback loop to support service delivery and greater engagement of people on probation.

---

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

Key question	Percentage ‘Yes’
Does assessment focus sufficiently on engaging the person on probation?	66%
Does assessment focus sufficiently on the factors linked to offending and desistance?	66%
Does assessment focus sufficiently on keeping other people safe?	27%

Engagement with the person on probation at the assessment stage was generally positive, with over two-thirds of relevant assessments demonstrating sufficient focus on engaging the individual. Motivation and readiness to comply were analysed in most cases. Personal circumstances were appropriately considered in the majority of cases, indicating a strong foundation for understanding the individual’s context. However, almost half of assessments failed to consider protected characteristics, suggesting that diversity-related barriers to engagement were not consistently understood.

Assessment of factors linked to offending and desistance was robust in most cases, with over three-quarters of assessments identifying and analysing key elements. Offending-related factors were addressed in a similar number of cases, and strengths and protective factors were identified in most, demonstrating a good level of insight into both criminogenic needs and the individual’s potential for positive change. These findings suggested that probation practitioners were generally effective in recognising the drivers of offending and the factors necessary for supporting desistance, although there remained scope to strengthen the use of local services and broader contextual information.

Safety considerations were less consistently addressed, with only approximately a third of relevant assessments sufficiently identifying and analysing risks of harm to others. While 18 assessments clearly identified all relevant risk factors, a concerning 26 did not. Additionally, only a third of assessments drew sufficiently on available sources and involved other agencies where appropriate. This pointed to a significant gap in multi-agency working, and the use of historical and contextual information relating to offending and behaviour.

Practitioners failed to demonstrate appropriate levels of professional curiosity. This was particularly evident in their consideration of an individual’s past behaviour and information from other agencies when completing their assessments, which was critical for managing risk and protecting potential victims. We found this had been done well in only 27 of 44 cases overall, and was particularly weak in cases managed by probation service officers (PSOs) where only three of 16 cases were considered sufficient. Improvements in these areas were essential to ensure that assessments fully supported public protection objectives.

We inspected 17 cases where the assessed risk of harm was high or very high. Across all 12 measures, these cases were assessed as sufficient more often than for lower-risk cases. However, not all potential victims were clearly considered in assessments where they should have been. Consideration of victims’ needs was insufficient in 27 of the 42 inspected cases, regardless of the risk level and grade of the probation practitioner.

---

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

Our rating[3] for planning is based on the percentage of cases we inspected being judged satisfactory against three key questions and is driven by the lowest score:

Key question	Percentage ‘Yes’
Does planning focus sufficiently on engaging the person on probation?	61%
Does planning focus sufficiently on reducing reoffending and supporting desistance?	77%
Does planning focus sufficiently on keeping other people safe?	39%

The findings relating to cases supervised by probation service officers were not 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.

Planning to engage the person on probation was sufficient in almost two-thirds of cases, indicating a moderate level of effectiveness. Most plans considered personal circumstances and readiness to change, which were key to fostering compliance. However, almost half of plans failed to account for protected characteristics. Planning for contact ending was notably weak, suggesting that while core engagement factors were well addressed, there was a need to improve inclusivity and end-of-contact planning.

Sentence planning to reduce reoffending and support desistance was sufficient in over three-quarters of inspected cases, reflecting a strong focus on rehabilitation. Plans prioritised offending-related factors effectively and identified services likely to support desistance. More than two-thirds of plans built on individual strengths and protective factors, indicating a sound approach to leveraging positive influences. Overall, planning in this area demonstrated a sound understanding of individual needs and pathways to change.

Planning to keep other people safe was sufficient in only just over a third of cases, highlighting a significant area of concern. While just over half of plans included necessary intervention to manage risk, less than half addressed critical risk factors, and multi-agency links were made in even fewer cases. Contingency arrangements were present in almost two-thirds of plans, but the overall picture suggested inconsistent risk management. Improved integration with other agencies and clearer prioritisation of risk factors were needed to enhance public protection.

---

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

Our rating[4] 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?	64%
Does the implementation and delivery of services effectively support desistance?	41%
Does the implementation and delivery of services effectively support the safety of other people?	23%

The implementation of the sentence or post-custody period with a focus on engagement was sufficient in almost two-thirds of cases. More than half of individuals experienced prompt commencement of sentence requirements, and a strong focus on maintaining effective working relationships, including consideration of diversity needs, was demonstrated in almost all cases inspected. Efforts to enable sentence completion were evident in most cases, reflecting a commendable level of flexibility and responsiveness to personal circumstances. However, for cases where Reset was appropriate, engagement in the lead-up to the suspension period was notably lacking. There was a failure to inform individuals of their requirements or consider diversity factors in the run-up to the suspension of supervision in all Reset cases inspected. This indicated a need for improved communication and inclusivity to prepare for the suspension of supervision.

The implementation and delivery of services to support desistance were sufficient in less than half of inspected cases, highlighting a significant area for improvement. Over two-thirds of cases inspected demonstrated the delivery of services that built upon individual strengths and protective factors, and a greater number had sufficient levels of contact. However, less than half of inspected cases had services delivered that were considered most likely to reduce reoffending. Coordination with other organisations was adequate in half of cases, but service delivery in key areas such as accommodation, education, training, and employment, and finance, benefit, and debt was limited. Furthermore, services addressing family and relationships, lifestyle, and substance misuse were inconsistently delivered.

These findings suggested that while some efforts were made to support desistance, a more comprehensive and targeted approach was required. Less than half of cases had received services addressing thinking and behaviour or attitudes to offending, both critical to reducing reoffending and managing risk. Engagement of key individuals in the person on probation’s life occurred in just 19 per cent of cases, and less than half of cases demonstrated that local services were engaged to sustain desistance. Accredited programmes were notably absent, with no cases utilising core interventions, such as Building Choices or Building Better Relationships.

Gaps in service provision and partnership working raised concerns about the effectiveness of risk management and the safeguarding of others during the sentence period. The implementation and delivery of services to support the safety of other people were found to be insufficient in the majority of cases, with less than a quarter assessed as effective overall. While the level and nature of contact were sufficient in most cases, attention to protecting actual and potential victims was lacking, with only 41 per cent of cases meeting the required standard. Multi-agency working in safeguarding children and domestic abuse was also inconsistent, with just 31 per cent and 36 per cent respectively demonstrating effective information-sharing. Coordination in the nine MAPPA cases inspected was also limited, with only three showing evidence of joint working with the police. These findings highlighted significant gaps in collaborative risk management and victim protection efforts. This was particularly disappointing given the strong multi-agency working and relationships observed in other areas of this inspection.

Service delivery in relation to risk of harm-focused work was inconsistent. Home visits were undertaken where necessary in just over half of cases, indicating some proactive risk management. However, services addressing key areas such as thinking and behaviour, attitude to offending, and substance misuse were insufficiently delivered. Support for family and relationships was notably poor, with only 17 per cent of cases receiving adequate services. Furthermore, coordination with other agencies to manage risk was sufficient in only a third of cases, and engagement of key individuals occurred infrequently. These results suggested that, while some efforts were made to manage risk, a more comprehensive and integrated approach was required to ensure the safety of others.

---

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

Our rating[5] 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?	88%
Does reviewing focus sufficiently on supporting desistance?	60%
Does reviewing focus sufficiently on keeping other people safe?	42%

Reviewing activity was typically responsive to changes in risk, engagement, and personal circumstances, with formal and informal reviews used to update plans and reinforce compliance. Our findings suggested that reviewing was used effectively to maintain engagement, although there remained scope to improve the consistency of involving individuals in the review process. The findings also suggested that more recent work was showing signs of improvement, potentially due to the focus on the quality improvement work being completed by the PDU.

Reviewing practices demonstrated a strong focus on supporting compliance and engagement, with most cases assessed as sufficient. Reviews commonly considered barriers to engagement and made necessary adjustments to plans, and over two-thirds of individuals were meaningfully involved in reviewing their progress. Written reviews were completed appropriately in most cases, providing a formal record of sentence implementation. This was despite the limits in the work delivered within the period of supervision detailed above.

Reviewing to support desistance was sufficient in almost two-thirds of cases. Reviews identified changes in offending-related factors in a similar proportion of cases and adjusted plans accordingly. However, less than two-thirds of reviews focused on building strengths and protective factors, and input from other agencies was considered in less than half of cases. While written reviews were completed in over two-thirds of cases, the overall picture indicated that reviewing was not consistently used to reinforce desistance, and greater emphasis on multi-agency collaboration and strengths-based approaches was needed.

In common with other areas of casework, reviewing to support the safety of other people was disappointing. Changes in risk-related factors were not identified and addressed often enough, and input from other agencies was not appropriately considered in over half of cases. Meaningful involvement of the individual and key people in reviewing risk occurred in only 43 per cent of cases. Written reviews of risk management plans were assessed more positively and completed in over two-thirds of cases. These findings suggested that reviewing was not consistently used to manage risk effectively, and improvements were needed in agency coordination and engagement with individuals to ensure public protection – a common theme throughout all stages of risk management work.

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

[1]In cases where contact had been suspended after more than eight weeks supervision, we applied our core standards and took a proportionate approach in making inspection judgements. We used an adjusted set of standards where contact had been suspended within eight weeks supervision or less.

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

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

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