An inspection of probation services in Dyfed Powys PDU

Foreword (Back to top)

The leadership team at Dyfed Powys Probation Delivery Unit (PDU) was motivated and committed to enabling the delivery of high-quality services. The practitioners demonstrated strong skills in engaging individuals throughout their sentence, including in the assessment and planning of work to address their offending behaviour and support desistance.

However, in line with findings from other PDU inspections, the quality of work to protect the public was insufficient across all areas of sentence management, and the implementation and delivery of services to help people change attitudes and behaviour were insufficient in too many cases.

As a result, the PDU was rated ‘Requires improvement’ overall.

The commitment of the head of PDU to visibility across a vast geographical area was commendable and appreciated by staff. The human factors grounding underpinned daily operations, aiming to overcome biases, limiting thought patterns and promote psychological safety. This meant staff and partners were able to challenge and raise concerns across all grades and had the opportunity to do so. As a result, most teams felt cohesive and supportive and encouraged these qualities in other teams when the need arose. This was particularly commendable in the case of rural teams covering substantial distances between offices where one staff absence represented a challenge to the resilience of the team. As a result, although staffing levels appeared healthy on paper, not all staff felt the benefit of this during their working week.

Given the culture of transparency and visibility, it was no surprise that the engagement of people on probation was a strength of this PDU throughout all areas of sentence management. Practitioners showed fairness and flexibility in their work, and planning activity was among the strongest we have seen. However, practitioners were not always using this strong engagement as a vehicle for public protection work. Although staff had the appropriate engagement and communication skills, transparent discussion of the children in the lives of those they supervise was often lacking.

Concerningly, we found that practitioners did not always have unhindered and rapid access to police intelligence about the domestic abuse history of their cases. This prevented a full understanding of risk and accuracy of assessments. Leaders were aware of this and had made identifiable improvements but more remained to be done.

Dyfed Powys has the culture and potential to address these issues. Leaders were experienced and were addressing the majority of barriers to effective public protection work. We wish them well in their renewed plans to drive improvement.

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.

Dyfed Powys should:

1. make arrangements with Dyfed Powys Police to enable swift and unhindered access to intelligence about domestic abuse perpetrated by people on probation
2. ensure domestic abuse and safeguarding information is analysed sufficiently to inform the quality of assessment, planning and management of people on probation
3. conduct an analysis of skills, knowledge and experience within the practitioner group and implement a system for checking that learning has been consolidated into practice
4. ensure that facilities to interview people on probation are safe, private and conducive to engagement, and that staff are aware of all health and safety measures in place to manage any risk
5. engage with local providers of services to ensure that they are providing high quality support for all people on probation.

---

Background (Back to top)

We conducted fieldwork in Dyfed Powys over the period of two weeks, beginning 11 August 2025. We inspected 27 community orders and 18 releases on licence from custody where sentences and licences had commenced during two separate weeks, between 30 December and 05 January 2025 and 10 and 16 February 2025. We also conducted 40 interviews with probation practitioners.

Dyfed Powys is the largest by area of six PDUs in the Wales region of the Probation Service. It is predominantly rural, covering more than half the land mass of Wales. People on probation report to offices in Aberystwyth, Newtown, Brecon, Llandrindod Wells, Llanelli, Haverfordwest and Carmarthen. There is also a part-time reporting centre in Cardigan. Staff employed by the PDU produce pre-sentence reports for magistrates’ courts in Aberystwyth, Haverfordwest, Llanelli and Welshpool. There are no Crown courts, approved premises or prisons in the area covered by the PDU.

The PDU covers an area populated by 524,219 people and governed by four local authorities: Powys, Ceredigion, Pembrokeshire, and Carmarthenshire, each of which has a separate youth justice service. The local force is Dyfed Powys Police. The PDU supervises 850 people serving community sentences and 393 people on licence from custody. The PDU supervised 272 people in custody ahead of their release. Black, Asian and minority ethnic people made up three per cent of the caseload, which is lower than the regional average, and two-thirds of people on probation had a disability which is higher than the regional average. The head of service had been in post for about nine months at the point of inspection and was supported by a senior operational support manager who had also been in post for nine months.

According to target staffing, the PDU was fully staffed across all grades, and above complement for some grades. Several staff were in training to become probation officers under the Professional Qualification in Probation (PQIP).

Commissioned Rehabilitative Services were available throughout Dyfed Powys for people on probation. The providers were Forward Trust for accommodation, St Giles Wise for personal wellbeing and finance, benefit and debt, The Nelson Trust for women’s services and Dyfed Drug and Alcohol Service and Kaleidoscope for drug and alcohol dependency and recovery.

The Probation Reset policy was operational at the time of inspection.^[1] Five of the 45 cases we inspected were subject to Probation Reset, with one having the adjusted PDU standards applied.^[2]

---

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 had a clear strategy that aligned with both regional and national objectives. However, this was not always translated into high quality service delivery. We saw significant positive work to engage people on probation and support desistance, particularly at the assessment and planning stage of their sentence. However, this did not then lead to sufficient work to keep people safe overall.
• Senior leaders were described as visible and approachable. There were daily human factor check-ins with middle managers which provided a consistent and accountable forum for supporting each other. This was mirrored in all offices by middle managers who held daily calls with their staff teams.
• Senior leaders were well regarded by strategic partners and were described as supportive and active in board attendance and individual pieces of work. Recent gaps in representation had been identified and addressed since the change in senior leadership. The representation and activity at governance boards with partners, and informal liaison, were impressive considering the challenging geographical spread and number of local authorities. The longstanding professional relationships between partners proved instrumental in facilitating challenge and driving meaningful change.
• The PDU operated with the goal of being transparent and open to challenge as part of a human factors approach. There were daily opportunities for staff to check in, plan workloads and celebrate success.
• Joint work with strategic partners to improve access to domestic abuse information had resulted in some improvements in the last nine months, since the head of service started in role. Waiting times for police responses to enquiries at the start of sentence had reduced from eight weeks to two to three weeks. This required further improvement, but senior stakeholders confirmed that the PDU strove to keep information sharing high on meeting agendas.
• Operational delivery improvement activity was driven by the results of internal audits. This generated quarterly plans, with cross referencing with regional quality plans. The PDU also produced a development plan informed by central priorities, local climate assessments and staff surveys. This meant that front line work was underpinned by local, regional and national priorities, incorporating cross-grade input.
• The head of service met middle managers each month to discuss how strategic objectives were to be operationalised, with a focus on action and the impact for people on probation. Weekly meetings focused more on team cohesion and emerging issues and allowed a widely dispersed management team to come together.
• The approach to engaging people on probation was well embedded, with specific activity for capturing the views of women and people convicted of sexual offending. Coordinators of this work were passionate and engaging, using the skills of participants to drive initiatives that would improve the person’s experience of probation, leading to long-term engagement. Participants were consulted on induction packs and were developing their own ideas for a mentoring scheme for prison leavers, and an arts project aimed at personal growth.
• According to our staff survey, reasonable adjustments were made for staff with disabilities, with six out of the seven staff who required support receiving it. The PDU also encouraged flexible working applications due to the large geographical area of Dyfed Powys.
• The PDU had led a recent Adult Practice Review following the death of a vulnerable person on probation. They were also weaving in the human factors approach to learning from Serious Further Offence (SFO) reviews, in the form of a fishbone exercise. This used reflection and collaboration with partners, including regional SFO reviewers, to map potential contributing factors, with a focus on systemic issues. Learning from SFOs and other serious case reviews was shared with the best practice learning group as well as informing protected development days delivered within the PDU.
• All sentence plans were completed in collaboration with a dedicated internal CORRE (Centralised Operational, Resettlement, Referral, Evaluation hub) team who identified appropriate interventions and completed the referrals. Practitioners also had access to a directory of commissioned and non-commissioned services to refer people on probation if their needs changed as they progressed through their sentence. This process aimed to ensure that the right interventions were identified and to facilitate the prompt delivery of services. This had the added benefit of taking some of the workload pressure off frontline practitioners. However, not all staff were clear on the remit of CORRE which led to potential gaps in referrals, particularly in the later stages of sentences. Senior leaders held practitioners to account for plans that were not completed with the CORRE team, and the efficacy of the system was monitored.
• Senior leaders had conducted a review of staff safety following a serious incident. An immediate review was conducted in the office where the incident occurred, resulting in changes to the position of panic alarms, emergency procedures and additional telephony in reception. This prompted a review of safety measures in all seven offices which resulted in actions such as the identification of blind spots and installation of CCTV. Staff affected by the incident had access to counselling on the following working day, along with compassionate leave and temporary alternative duties if required. Sixteen of 19 respondents to our staff survey felt that sufficient attention was paid to their safety at work.

Areas for improvement:

• Domestic abuse and child safeguarding information was often insufficient to inform robust assessments and management plans. Work was in progress to address the quality of information received but additional work was needed to address training needs and the confidence of some practitioners.
• Planning, particularly for desistance, was a strength, potentially linked to the practitioners’ collaboration with the CORRE team. However, when people on probation moved into the implementation and delivery phase of their sentence, sufficient work to address desistance was not being delivered in more than half the cases we inspected. This demonstrated that CORRE was not always impacting positively on services or interventions or leading to longer-term change. Whilst there was evidence of CORRE guidance being communicated to staff, there was inconsistent understanding of which services CORRE could refer to, and subsequent referrals past the initial planning stage were often lacking.
• Staff across all grades described unique challenges associated with the large geographical area of this PDU which affected staffing resilience. Both managers and practitioners described absences being felt more strongly in smaller rural teams and covering colleagues’ work being a regular occurrence that took them away from their own priorities and diminished capacity.
• Home visits took hours of travel, which meant that staff could spend considerable time away from the office. There were no approved premises or prisons in the PDU area and, although staff made appropriate use of remote contact arrangements, in-person meetings required considerable travel. Practitioners were routinely working over capacity, and many told us that this was felt more strongly than records showed because of these additional, unmeasured pressures.
• Despite the focus on staff safety across seven offices, not all staff in the Cardigan office felt safe. They worked from a satellite reporting centre two days a week, in a building owned and run by a partnership agency. People on probation were admitted via intercom to the rear of the property, rather than through a reception area and staff described insufficient connectivity to call emergency services should they need to. Senior leaders had conducted a review with central health and safety colleagues, which had deemed the centre safe and fit for use. This had not been communicated well enough to staff working from this office whose continuing safety concerns made them feel undervalued.
• Not all staff felt valued and appreciated. Many staff, who experienced increased stress from covering colleagues’ work, felt they did not receive recognition or positive feedback for the additional work they were doing.

---

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:

• Staffing levels across all grades had improved over the last 12 months. The PDU had a full staffing complement of probation officer posts, and there had been an over recruitment of senior probation officers. Probation service officer (PSO) posts were almost at full staffing complement. The head of service had sought approval from the region to over-recruit to this grade as a strategy to overcome complexities associated with rural and staff resilience. Reception was well staffed across the PDU, resulting in less pressure on case administrators to cover this work.
• Despite a high percentage of staff in post, sickness and maternity leave and high attrition rates resulted in gaps in overall staffing levels. The head of service adopted a variety of methods to address this, including redeployment of staff, diverting the allocation of pre-sentence report writing and supporting staff who were considering leaving the service.
• The head of service offered a refreshing perspective on managing practitioner workload and the relationship between demand management and stress levels. She recognised the pressures associated with being constantly accessible to people on probation through mobile phones, emails and instant messaging, particularly when working from home. To help staff establish healthier boundaries, they were encouraged to leave laptops in the office and consider whether every phone call needed an immediate response. This topic was a central focus of a protected learning day where staff participated in training to help them take greater control of their time and prioritise their most critical tasks.
• Staff at the Haverfordwest office were piloting an AI tool to assist them in recording sessions with people on probation. Feedback was unanimously good, with a positive impact felt on work/life balance and overall wellbeing. Staff were engaging with HMPPS colleagues to give feedback and support the development of the tool to enhance its effectiveness.
• The human factors approach facilitated several opportunities for practitioners to engage in reflective supervision. They also participated in daily checks-ins to identify potential areas for support and to celebrate success and could reserve a daily slot with their manager for case discussions. Practitioners were largely positive about the SBAR (situation, background, assessment, recommendation) approach which prompted them to support their self-development by considering solutions and impact before approaching management.
• The majority of staff who responded to our survey told us they had frequent supervision that supported them to improve practice. Staff in the Newtown office had access to group supervision which harnessed the skills and expertise of all grades to drive improvements in service delivery and was being positively received.

Areas for improvement:

• Staff did not feel that staffing levels were adequate. This was linked to individual absences being felt more strongly in small teams. Almost
  three-quarters of respondents to our staff survey felt that staffing levels were not at all sufficient. Practitioner staffing levels were depleted by approximately 15 per cent through long-term absences and temporary posts. There had also been a small increase in the number of working days lost to sickness in the last 12 months.
• There was a lack of effective training and support for PSOs outside protected development days. PSOs were less effective in assessing and delivering work to manage the risk of harm than their probation officer colleagues. PSOs were committed and worked hard in their roles, but senior leaders felt that learning was not being embedded sufficiently well to meet PSO development needs. An induction training package was led by the regional team, but there were limited opportunities to enhance and embed this at a local level because of the demanding workload.
• Just under half the cases we inspected had sufficient management oversight. Although further improvement was required, this presented a promising picture. Cases had a management footprint with clear reflective discussion, and oversight at allocation stage. There were several daily opportunities for staff to engage in reflective discussion with management, in a way which challenged them to lead and identify solutions. However, discussions and subsequent actions agreed following liaison with managers, were not always shown on case records.

---

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:

• There was a region-wide approach to sentence planning, strengthened by the CORRE team who collaborated with practitioners to identify and refer to appropriate services in the initial stages of supervision. The principles and intent behind CORRE were credible and many staff appreciated the respite from these tasks. The cases we inspected had clear and detailed sentence plans. CORRE was developed to identify commissioned services and other local services meeting wider needs such as employment, training and education.
• Dyfed Powys covers 55 per cent of the land mass of Wales, meaning that rurality and travel were significant barriers to accessing services. The PDU offered seven offices across the area, along with an additional satellite reporting office. Local facilities were also used for programme delivery where necessary. Efforts were being made to secure compliance and reduce the extent to which rurality was a barrier to attendance through home visits. Women only reporting was also available in all seven offices.
• The PDU was actively involved in strategic forums to address the needs of complex cases. The Joint Intelligence Project (JIP) brought partners together to identify lower-risk nominals linked to serious organised crime. The initiative had a preventative objective, to interrupt activity so that these individuals did not proceed to behaviour or offending on a larger scale. It supported active information sharing between partners across several local authorities.
• There were strong links with the National Security Division to ensure that suitable cases were escalated or de-escalated smoothly. Similarly, the PDU presence in the vulnerability hub brought colleagues in MAPPA (multi-agency public protection arrangements), IOM (integrated offender management) and the regional stalking coordinators together, to protect the most vulnerable victims.
• The PDU understood the needs of people on probation living in their area, through liaison with community integration colleagues and needs analysis. Some key issues included a higher proportion of older people on probation; mental health needs and people convicted of sexual offending. Our case inspections saw delivery of maps for change toolkits, as well as work to safely involve people convicted of sexual offending in a forum to share their views and experiences to drive improvement in services.
• Practitioners were supported to engage people on probation with complex mental health needs, through the Offender Personality Disorder Pathway, and through delivery of mental health treatment requirements. Training was developed with an organisation called ‘West Wales for Mental Health’, facilitated by a mental health nurse with lived experience.
• Co-location of drug and alcohol services across the PDU was having a positive effect on the engagement of chaotic individuals. Agencies were collaborating to ensure those with chaotic lifestyles could attend joint appointments or access services from one single building. Information sharing was effective as a result and those on court mandated treatment orders received the services they required, with good evidence of record keeping and collaborative court reviews. The co-commissioning of these services resulted in swift resolution of issues such as waiting times for prison leavers to be referred to substance misuse services.

Areas for improvement:

• Practitioners received timely notifications from police partners when a person on probation had been arrested, or the police had been called to an incident involving them, through a system of reportable incidences. These updates were giving practitioners an advantage in understanding and reviewing risk information swiftly. There was some confusion, however, over whether a case with no notifications required routine police checks or whether the absence of notifications was enough to confirm decreased risks. There was, therefore, a lack of assurance that all relevant risk-related information was known and reviewed periodically.
• There were some frustrations with the delivery of Community Rehabilitative Services (CRS), many of which were delivered via the telephone. Appointments were frequently no longer offered if individuals failed to attend, despite their chaotic lifestyles. This affected how practitioners viewed these services, with people on probation indicating that this delivery model was not suitable for them. The PDU were being supported by regional colleagues and were raising issues with commissioners at regional strategic meetings.
• Despite the positive work in planning with the support of the CORRE team, the remit of this team was not universally understood. The process encompassed referrals to both commissioned and non-commissioned services, although there appeared to be an over-reliance on CRS, when local services may have met the individual’s risk and needs better. This was reflected in the cases we inspected where the delivery of services to address desistance was lacking.
• Practitioners were not clear on what structured interventions were available across the PDU. This availability fluctuated according to identified needs, capacity for delivery and geography. A spreadsheet detailing availability and planned delivery had been relaunched the week before inspection. We saw a lack of structured interventions being delivered, even when they would have been suitable.
• Completion rates of accredited programmes in the last 12 months for those convicted of a sexual offence were high, at 91 per cent. Completion rates for an accredited programme, where the conviction was not a sexual offence, were much lower at 27 per cent. Rurality affected the start of programmes because there were not enough participants to meet programme integrity. It was hoped that a change in programme delivery to that of Building Choices would overcome these issues given the universal nature of the programme and the ability to deliver to a higher number of participants at one time. This programme had not yet started. Only two of the six cases we inspected had commenced their programme where this had been required. Interventions colleagues worked with some individual practitioners to identify suitable alternatives such as toolkits, and we saw these being delivered in some cases.

---

Diversity and inclusion (Back to top)

Strengths:

• Women on probation were able to attend their appointments at times that were reserved for them. This was consistent across all seven offices, which meant that barriers to attendance such as rurality, relationship history or safety were addressed.
• People on probation living in rural areas could access appointments from seven offices and one satellite office throughout the PDU. There was little evidence in case inspections of enforcement and compliance linked to travel difficulties or rurality. People on probation living in rural areas were able to deduct hours for travel time to unpaid work placements.
• The PDU had commissioned a neurodiversity service, offering consultations to staff and direct work with people on probation using a range of engagement models and communication styles.
• The PDU had the highest proportion of male practitioners in the region, which increased flexibility and responsivity in the allocation of cases. It also added to the richness of team dynamics and allowed the PDU to offer positive male role models to people on probation where appropriate.

Areas for improvement:

• Inspectors were satisfied that Welsh language speakers on probation requesting a service in Welsh would be accommodated by the PDU, although there was little evidence that an active offer was embedded in practice. For example, receptionists did not routinely answer the phone using both English and Welsh and staff in the PDU could not provide assurance that individuals who had expressed a preference to use Welsh, would routinely receive correspondence in that language.
• Despite effective work to engage women on probation, practitioners’ management of the risks associated with these cases was poorer than that of male cases. There was a theme of under-assessment of the risk posed by the woman to others, particularly associated with relationship history and safeguarding children.
• A small number of cases were inspected where Welsh or English was not the first language of the person on probation. Not enough efforts were made to ensure they were understood and could communicate in their first language. The PDU had interpreter services available, but they were not used, and we saw examples of staff using Google translate during appointments. Dyfed Powys is not a culturally or ethnically diverse area, with the potential for a lack of accessibility for people on probation from different backgrounds.

---

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] 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?	82%
Does assessment focus sufficiently on the factors linked to offending and desistance?	80%
Does assessment focus sufficiently on keeping other people safe?	38%

• Risk assessments were not always fully informed by intelligence from the police about domestic abuse. In some cases, enquiries had not been made, and, in others, practitioners were waiting weeks for a response from police. Practitioners were, therefore, unable to understand fully patterns of abusive behaviour perpetrated within the home.
• Inspectors found that, even when intelligence from other agencies was received, practitioners were not using this often enough to inform their assessments. We saw examples of practitioners accepting information without verification from those they supervised, and a tendency to focus on the present rather than propensity to cause harm and how likely this might be.
• The vast majority of cases we inspected demonstrated sufficient engagement with the person on probation, involving them in their assessment, informing them of MAPPA eligibility, and drawing on individual strengths and support around them. Although we did not see enough cases fully assessing risk to the public, the relationships built by practitioners provided a vehicle for public protection work to improve. Practitioners were well placed to have challenging and transparent conversations with those they supervised.
• Practitioners were largely able to assess the offending history of people on probation. The vast majority of cases identified and analysed the reasons for an individual committing an offence and what protective factors needed to be built on to prevent future offending. Two-thirds of cases we inspected drew on other sources of information to assess offending including analysis of previous convictions, Crown Prosecution Service information and previous probation or youth justice assessments. Practitioners were less likely to use information from other sources, including police and children’s services, to assess risk to others. This demonstrated a need to improve practitioners’ capability and curiosity to seek and verify information in some areas of their work. Practitioners’ capability and curiosity to seek and verify information in some areas of their work.

---

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

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

Key question	Percentage ‘Yes’
Does planning focus sufficiently on engaging the person on probation?	78%
Does planning focus sufficiently on reducing reoffending and supporting desistance?	91%
Does planning focus sufficiently on keeping other people safe?	47%

• Almost all planning activity focused sufficiently on supporting a life away from offending. Plans focused on resolving issues linked to offending and increasing the individual’s stability. Individual sentence plans produced by practitioners in this PDU were particularly detailed and it was clear to see what work was intended.
• In too many cases, there was insufficient planning to outline how practitioners would work with other agencies and the person on probation to keep people safe. In most cases, practitioners were identifying measures to protect all potential victims and planning sufficiently for contingencies. However, apart from these two measures, overall, there was not enough planning to keep other people safe.
• Inspectors saw differences in the quality of public protection work of probation officers and probation service officers (PSOs), demonstrating that more support and training was required to enhance the skills of PSOs.

---

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^[5] 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?	84%
Does the implementation and delivery of services effectively support desistance?	47%
Does the implementation and delivery of services effectively support the safety of other people?	36%

• The large majority of cases we inspected contained appropriate flexibility to people on probation to ensure their requirements were met. Appointments were available from eight locations and women on probation were able to report at times exclusive to women. We saw proportionate flexibility with employment and childcare arrangements. Home visits were completed in 27 out of 38 relevant cases we inspected, both as a public protection tool but also to engage people living in remote areas who may have disabilities.
• Practitioners were fair in their decision to enforce. They acted in nearly all relevant cases to identify when attendance and compliance were slipping to avoid the need for enforcement. This suggested that practitioners were using strong engagement skills to set boundaries and build professional relationships with people on probation to secure their attendance and engagement. The vast majority of cases we inspected demonstrated an effective working relationship with those under supervision.
• Despite effective assessment and planning to reduce the likelihood of reoffending and risk to others, we did not see this in the work that was subsequently delivered. Less than half the cases we inspected showed that sufficient work was delivered to support people on probation to desist from crime.
• The most significant gaps in delivery involved addressing problems in family and relationships, as well as attitudes and thinking. Practitioners told inspectors they were not always clear on what internal programmes and structured interventions were available.
• Only 27 per cent of people on probation in Dyfed Powys, whose sentences had terminated in the last 12 months and were sentenced to an accredited programme, had completed it. There were better outcomes for people convicted of sexual offending, where the vast majority had the appropriate programme delivered. The rurality and geography of the PDU meant that delivery of programmes and structured interventions was more challenging, as there were often too few participants to start a group in some offices, and hours of travel between offices made it unfeasible to complete a programme elsewhere.
• Information sharing between probation and other agencies to keep people safe during the delivery of the sentence was insufficient. This was particularly the case with domestic abuse cases, with just 13 of the 33 cases that required further information from police, in order to manage risks, receiving adequate information on which to inform their sentence delivery.
• Practitioners received timely notifications from police following an arrest or incident involving a person they supervised. This was a valuable resource that had the potential to add richness to dynamic risk management. However, information was cursory, often not containing names and other basic information. This meant that practitioners had to follow up on this information, and this was not always completed.
• MAPPA cases were managed alongside input from other agencies. Ten of the 12 cases we inspected showed sufficient liaison with other agencies, including police.

---

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

Our rating^[6] 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?	79%
Does reviewing focus sufficiently on supporting desistance?	61%
Does reviewing focus sufficiently on keeping other people safe?	43%

• In 24 of 38 relevant cases that we inspected, the plan of work or approach with the person on probation had been adjusted, based on changes in circumstances, such as a house move or relapse into substance misuse. These decisions were supported either by documenting or recording the new circumstances and what action would be taken. This recording was a feature of 34 out of 38 relevant cases we inspected.
• Reviewing activity fell short in action taken to keep people safe. The themes of the omissions included: long periods with no updated police or safeguarding enquiries; no consideration of what a further arrest might mean for risk to others; verifying new information with other agencies and recording a reduction in risk to others prematurely or without sufficient rationale.
• While we saw evidence of effective work in many cases, there were continued omissions of vital information relating to keeping people safe, including failure to consider risk related to changes in circumstances or to victims in reviewing activity. This undermined the work that was being completed.

---

---

Further information (Back to top)

Full data from this inspection and further information about the methodology used to conduct this inspection are 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 Donna Waters, 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] Probation Reset – This mandates that supervision of a person on probation, who is eligible according to certain criteria, will be suspended at the two-thirds point of their sentence. These measures aim to target resources at the start of supervision in the community.

[2] 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.

[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 are 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 are 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 are 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.