An inspection of probation services in Gwent PDU 

Foreword (Back to top)

Our inspection of Gwent Probation Delivery Unit (PDU) found that it was facing some significant staff and resourcing challenges. The head of the PDU had been in post for only eight months at the point of inspection, although had quickly understood these challenges and engaged the leadership team in a clear strategy and vision to address them decisively.

However, at the time of our inspection there was still much to do, and the PDU was rated ‘Requires improvement’ overall.

Action had been taken to improve the culture of the organisation. We saw evidence that staff now felt more engaged, and that they felt more confident in the leadership team’s ability to manage change and address inappropriate behaviours where necessary. While we recognised that there was further work to do to regain fully the confidence of all staff groups, we were confident that these were the right approaches to take.

The work to keep actual and potential victims safe was insufficient across all our inspection standards. This related to the absence of, or often limited, detail contained within the initial information received from the police and children’s services. Practitioners did not always ask for further information to support more robust risk management planning to protect actual or potential victims. While some action had been taken to address these information gaps, and to focus significant staff learning and development time on improving public protection practice, this was not yet having a sufficient impact in the cases we inspected.

Vacancy rates for probation officers (POs) were high, leading to unmanageable workloads and high levels of absence for work-related stress. The leadership team was redeploying staff and resources, where necessary, to ensure that the impact of this on people on probation was minimised. However, this meant that there were too many reallocations taking place within the cases we inspected. This often led to a drift in the delivery and coordination of services to address the reoffending of the person on probation effectively, and support their desistance.

Despite high workloads, staff in the PDU were motivated and committed to making a difference to the lives of people on probation. Practitioners were skilful at approaching people on probation, to understand their needs, and took flexible approaches to engage them into their sentence plans.

There was a broad range of services across Gwent, with some co-location arrangements with commissioned rehabilitative services (CRS) and Gwent Drug and Alcohol Services (GDAS). However, staffing challenges, both inside the PDU and across some service providers, was not always conducive to effective information sharing and the coordination of service delivery. Work to address structural barriers to accessing timely accommodation and mental health services for people on probation, to support their rehabilitation and to protect the public, was in the initial stages.

I am confident that the PDU can continue to build on the actions already taken to address some of its main challenges. Local leaders need to continue their focus on making improvements to work to keep people safe, and ensuring that critical services are delivered effectively to address the risks and needs of people on probation across Gwent.

Martin Jones CBE 

HM Chief Inspector of Probation

---

Ratings (Back to top)

Fieldwork started September 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.

Gwent PDU should:

1. improve the quality of the work to assess, plan, manage, and review risk of harm, ensuring that practitioners access and use all available information
2. make arrangements with the police and children’s services to ensure sufficient information sharing to identify actual and potential victims accurately and to inform the quality of assessment and management of people on probation 
3. ensure that interventions necessary to improve desistance and reduce reoffending are provided in all cases   
4. develop practitioners’ confidence and skills in the use of professional curiosity and challenging conversations to identify, analyse, assess, plan, and respond to indicators of risk effectively
5. ensure that staff with the responsibility for case management have the skills, knowledge, and time to undertake the work effectively
6. ensure that effective management oversight is provided to enhance and sustain the quality of the work with people on probation and to keep people safe.

---

Background (Back to top)

We conducted fieldwork in Gwent PDU over the period of two weeks, beginning 08 September 2025. We inspected 31 community orders and 26 releases on licence from custody where sentences and licences had started during two separate weeks, between 10 February and 16 February 2025, and 17 February and 23 February 2025. We also conducted 47 interviews with probation practitioners.

Gwent PDU covers one police force (Gwent Police) and five unitary local authority areas (Newport, Caerphilly, Blaenau Gwent, Torfaen, and Monmouthshire). There are three courts (Newport Magistrates’ Court, Newport Crown Court, and Cwmbran Magistrates’ Court), four probation offices (Newport, Caerphilly, Ebbw Vale, and Pontypool), and one women’s centre, in Newport. Gwent PDU serves two prisons in the area (HMP Usk and HMP Prescoed).

The Gwent safeguarding board coordinates child and adult safeguarding work across the five local authority areas. The Aneurin Bevan University Health Board covers all of Gwent and South Powys. Gwent PDU is a statutory partner for three youth justice services across Gwent – Blaenau Gwent and Caerphilly, Monmouthshire and Torfaen, and Newport.

The population¹ of Gwent is 601,686. Reoffending rates ²across the area vary significantly, with the lowest rate at 19.7 per cent, in Monmouthshire, compared with 29.8 per cent in Newport. This compares with an overall 28.5 per cent reoffending rate across Wales.

The overall caseload for Gwent PDU was 2,363 cases, a slight increase from the number 12 months earlier. In total, 1,092 were community sentences, 760 were being supervised on licence, and 511 were in custody.  

Eleven full-time equivalent POshad been seconded into other roles. Significant levels of PO sickness compounded already high caseloads, leading to some POs holding up to 140 per cent of their overall capacity.

Gwent PDU was last inspected by HM Inspectorate of Probation in 2022, with an overall rating of ‘Requires improvement’. Key findings included deficits found within the work to keep people safe, a lack of effective and impactful management oversight, and insufficient delivery of services to address the offending behaviour of people on probation.

The following CRS had been commissioned: accommodation, and finance, benefit, and debt services provided by the Forward Trust; personal wellbeing services provided by St Giles Wise; and women’s services provided by the Nelson Trust. Additional services to support neurodiversity for people on probation were provided by 3SC. Substance misuse services, including for those people on probation who were subject to community sentence treatment requirements, were provided by GDAS.

---

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 head of PDU had been in post for around eight months at the point of inspection and had a clear understanding of the strengths and challenges of Gwent PDU. This was reflected within the PDU business plan to drive the quality of practice, empower middle leaders, stabilise and strengthen staffing arrangements, and implement significant national change programmes to address probation demand. Activity was taking place to address all aspects of this plan.
• There was a clear link between the PDU plan and the activity of the PDU strategic and operational groups, informing daily management tasking to coordinate priorities, redeploy resources, and mitigate business risks where needed. This was driving some impressive outcomes in the cases we inspected, in relation to engagement and in the work to assess and plan to address the offending behaviour of people on probation.
• The PDU was taking action to address poor service level performance measures and seeking to increase the quality of practice. The deputy head of the PDU led on the quality improvement plan, with an additional local quality development officer (QDO) in post to support regional case assessment tool work and ‘keeping people safe’ audits. Performance and accountability meetings considered the individual needs of staff and opportunities to deploy QDOs to improve staff performance, and engaged human resources (HR) within wider conversations around staff support and wellbeing.
• The leadership team were active members of some strategic partnerships. The head of PDU chaired the local multi-agency public protection arrangements (MAPPA) strategic management board and was active within the child and adult safeguarding partnerships. These relationships were being used to identify, and begin to address barriers to, important service provision, including for mental health and the high demand for appropriate accommodation for people on probation across Gwent.
• Some positive action had been taken by the leadership team in response to concerns about the organisational culture and to address inappropriate behaviours. Training had been delivered by the Tackling Unacceptable Behaviours Unit, and staff had regular and informal forums and a daily protected hour, to provide them with the opportunity to raise concerns directly with the senior leadership team. 
• The relaunch of a monthly staff wellbeing group and informal monthly meetings to address low morale and increase staff engagement were welcomed. Staff were generally positive about the visibility and approachability of the senior leadership across the four offices. Many staff felt able to approach the leadership team to discuss the key challenges they were facing. Over half of all respondents to the staff survey indicated that the PDU culture promoted openness, constructive challenge, and ideas, marking a significant improvement in scores from the 2024 HM Prison and Probation Service People Survey.
• Significant concerns had previously been raised within the People Survey about staff confidence in the ability of the leadership team to manage change effectively. Despite having to implement several significant national change programmes in the PDU, staff confidence was clearly improving, with nearly half of all staff responding to our survey indicating that the impact of change on service delivery, including equality impact, was assessed, with appropriate action taken.
• The business risk register reflected the many challenges facing the PDU, including the impact of staff absences on service provision, the poor and unsafe facilities at the Ebbw Vale office, and the impact of insufficient use of critical risk information from the police and children’s services. Actions had been taken, with some mitigations in place.
• Approaches to engaging people on probation had matured, with middle managers and staff supporting regular forums across Gwent. Senior leaders were regularly engaged in forums to respond to the feedback of people on probation. Changes had been made to offices and the facilities for people on probation, based on their feedback.

Areas for improvement:

• Not enough progress had been made to improve service delivery and the work to keep people safe since our last inspection. Despite clear business priorities to focus activity to improve the work to keep people safe, this was deemed insufficient across all areas of sentence management.
• Significant improvements were needed in the public protection work within the cases we inspected. The leadership team had been taking substantial action to address the gaps in information sharing and had appropriately escalated concerns to regional leaders. Work with the police to address redacted intelligence had produced some evidence of modest improvement. Regional public protection leaders had been engaged to support information sharing and direct access to children’s services. although there was significant work remaining to achieve this, in part due to children’s services migrating to new systems. Senior POs (SPOs) had been engaging with their children’s services counterparts to address barriers in the interim period. Protected learning days had been used to improve practitioner consistency when using professional curiosity and responding to reportable incidents.
• Available referral and performance information from CRS was not always used effectively by leaders to understand or address impediments to delivery. Staffing pressures across probation and some CRS providers led to barriers in information exchange and the effective coordination of services to address the reoffending of the person on probation and support desistance.
• Leaders needed to carry out further work with some groups of staff to increase their confidence in the complaints process, and that their experiences would be acknowledged and addressed in a productive and confidential manner.
• The Probation Service had limited engagement with the three local youth justice management boards across Gwent, despite being a statutory partner. This meant that these services were insufficiently briefed on national probation policy changes that might have impacted on their engagement with children and families accessing their services.

---

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:

• The middle management team was well established and worked cohesively in daily tasking meetings to ensure that its priorities were aligned. Despite significant challenges with staffing absences, proactive action had been taken to ensure that cases were reallocated and staff redeployed where there was the greatest need. When PO numbers had dropped to insufficient levels in the Ebbw Vale office, quick action had been taken to reassign cases and offer alternative reporting instructions to people on probation.
• The often complex and time-consuming nature of the work to support those people on probation subject to short-term sentences was placing additional pressure on staff dedicated to managing these cases. The leadership team was responsive to this, with cases now allocated across generic sentence management teams, to avoid the risk of increased staff absences. Management oversight and tasking of resettlement remained in place under the reviewed delivery model, with some promising resettlement work within the inspected cases.
• The senior leadership team was actively promoting more consistent use of the sickness absence policy. There had been a steady decrease in the number of short-term absences over the six months preceding the inspection, although PO absences remained too high.
• Probation service officer (PSO) attrition was high, at 14.5 per cent in the 12 months preceding the inspection. The PDU had recently implemented an improved induction and training programme for PSO staff, supporting some improvements in attrition.
• Supervision for staff and middle managers took place regularly, with opportunities for staff to engage in reflective practice discussions. This was supporting practitioners to analyse and plan to address offending behaviour effectively, and to engage people on probation with their sentence plans.
• Increased levels of face-to-face training had been welcomed by staff as part of protected learning time. The schedule was coordinated by QDOs and informed by themes from audits and Serious Further Offence learning. Most staff (41 out of 60) who responded to our survey felt that a culture of learning and continuous improvement was actively promoted.

Areas for improvement:

• Only two out of 60 staff responding to our staff survey indicated that staffing levels were ‘somewhat sufficient’. There were significant gaps seen across PO and administrative grades. A substantial number of POs were on secondment and not available to support frontline delivery. Although back-fill arrangements had been agreed with the regional leadership team, this relied on rolling recruitment campaigns. PO staffing levels were not forecast to be at target until June 2026. This also incorporated projected growth in target staffing numbers.
• Absence levels were unacceptable for POs, with an average 18 days lost per annum. This was impacting on practitioners’ ability to deliver effective interventions, coordinate services, and prioritise the work to keep people safe. The high levels of PO absence were also affecting the workload of PSOs, who were often drafted in to support some areas of their work.
• Around 60 per cent of staff sickness related to mental health and stress-related conditions, with many identifying high workloads as contributing to their absences. The PDU had implemented a more consistent application of the sickness procedures and sought help from HR business partners and occupational health teams, to support stress risk assessments and staff returning to work. However, this was not making sufficient impact.
• Staff experienced high levels of allocations shortly after returning to work or following completion of their training. This was not always conducive to supporting a safe or effective working environment, or successful consolidation of learning.
• Attrition rates were high for case administrators. At the point of our fieldwork, the PDU had seven vacancies for administrators, although it had recently recruited nine applicants. Significant delays due to pre-employment and vetting meant that administrators currently in post often had unmanageable workloads.
• The SPO role was too broad and encompassed line management, HR responsibilities, leading subject areas, and providing management oversight on cases. The senior leadership team had implemented approaches such as the protected hour, where staff were able to seek non-urgent advice from SPOs to support their workload prioritisation. However, management oversight had been effective in only 13 of the 54 relevant cases we inspected.
• Practitioners were encouraged to adopt the SBAR (situation, background, assessment, recommendation) model when seeking management advice. This was intended to empower practitioners and ensure that SPOs were able to make swift and informed decisions. However, SPO decision-making and guidance were not always recorded on probation case management systems. This was concerning, given the relatively large number of case reallocations within the cases we inspected, which meant that staff might not always have been aware of previous potentially critical management instructions.

---

P 1.3 Services	Rating
A comprehensive range of high-quality services is in place, supporting a tailored and responsive service for all people on probation.	Requires improvement

Strengths:

• The PDU had access to a range of services that broadly met the risks and needs of people on probation, with CRS providers and drug and alcohol services co-locating to some degree across the four probation offices. Women’s CRS provision operated out of a dedicated centre in Newport.
• The PDU leadership team was engaged with regional teams to support the additional commissioning of services, based on the needs of the caseload. This included services to support those people on probation with neurodiversity and brain injury.
• PDU leaders had worked with the regional commissioning team to identify service gaps for people on probation who needed help with acute mental health services and safe accommodation. Difficulties in navigating mental health services had led to an increased use in Level 2 and Level 3 MAPPA management, which generally provided a tighter degree of coordination when difficult-to-access services were needed. Leaders had started to develop direct access to primary mental health services for those subject to MAPPA.
• Practitioners were delivering some strong engagement work. People on probation were meaningfully engaged within the plans to build on their strengths and protective factors in 48 out of the 57 cases we inspected. People on probation generally gave positive feedback about their relationships with their practitioners and the flexibility of their appointment times.
• Practitioners were using the centralised, operational, resettlement, referral, and evaluation (CORRE) team to identify and refer people on probation to appropriate services, to meet assessed desistance needs. When asked in interviews, 42 out of the 47 practitioners identified that they had access to an appropriate range of services, either in-house or through other agencies, to meet the needs and risks of people on probation.
• Following a significant gap, PO staff had been seconded into the three youth justice services across Gwent. Operational relationships were positive, with strong transitional arrangements. Based on the disproportionate outcomes for 18–25-year-olds, the leadership team was planning to utilise seconded staff to support the development of a specialist team for young adults.
• The launch of the mental health treatment requirement demonstrated some effective sentencer engagement and the coordination of health services at pre-sentence stages. The high demand for services was reviewed, with additional staff in place to support the delivery of requirements.
• Arrangements for integrated offender management were strong at a strategic and operational level, with collaborative relationships with the police. Although police and probation officers were working from different offices, there was some evidence of positive information sharing and joint agency working. The additional lifestyle coach supported people on probation to engage with wider services.
• PDU leaders were committed to delivering services that were accessible to people on probation. This included sourcing alternative programme delivery locations in Ebbw Vale. When asked in the people on probation survey about their experiences, most respondents indicated that the distance they had to travel to appointments was reasonable. Satellite office provision was also being sought in Monmouthshire.
• Services for people on probation from an ethnic minority background had recently been commissioned in Gwent. This was in response to the increasing migrant population in Newport, and that 7.5 per cent of the PDU caseload identified as Black, Asian, and minority ethnic.

Areas for improvement:

• Despite leaders having access to CRS referral and completion data, this was not being routinely reviewed to evaluate the effectiveness of service delivery. Staff absences in the PDU, as well as some staffing challenges across CRS providers, had led to drift in the delivery of some services. Coordination of services was insufficient in 28 of the 44 relevant cases we inspected.
• Despite CRS personal wellbeing and accommodation providers reporting that they were able to offer flexible services to meet the needs of people on probation, this was not always evidenced in the cases we inspected. Services were often not delivered consistently enough across some providers. Appointments for personal wellbeing services often took place by telephone and were often infrequent.
• The national rollout of the new Building Choices programme and prioritisation framework for accredited programmes meant that there had been some delays in the start of some programmes, with a pause on the delivery of structured interventions. These would normally have been used to support practitioners to delivery appropriate interventions. However, given the limited availability of these services, practitioners were trying hard to deliver toolkits and other interventions under difficult and pressured circumstances. Delivery of structured interventions was due to restart shortly after the inspection.
• The availability of accommodation that was appropriate for the risks and needs of people on probation was limited. Despite some positive operational relationships with local authority housing teams and the help of a regional accommodation pathways support worker to the PDU, housing risk assessments sent by practitioners were often of insufficient quality to enable reasonable, safe, and timely accommodation provision. 
• There was no direct access to primary mental health care, even when this related to an increased risk of serious harm to others. Although a community psychiatric nurse was available to help the PDU navigate complex and inflexible referral pathways, this did not always support access to appropriate services, with limited and little-known escalation routes.
• Despite data suggesting that people on probation who were aged 40-49 years, and those with a disability, had less favourable education, training, and employment (ETE) outcomes, leaders had taken insufficient action to ensure greater access to services for these cohorts.
• The Ebbw Vale office was not suitable for delivering services for people on probation. Interview rooms lacked privacy and sound protection, there were fire safety issues, and the building was generally in a poor state of repair.

---

Diversity and inclusion (Back to top)

Strengths:

• A self-evaluation of practice at court, targeted at priority cohorts, had identified some improvement in pre-sentence advice when taking into account diversity needs. Within the reports we inspected, 69 per cent of advice to court considered individual’s diversity and personal circumstances.   
• Approaches to engaging people on probation had matured, with middle managers and staff supporting regular forums across Gwent.  
• An SPO was assigned the responsibility for compliance with the Welsh Language Act. The PDU had some Welsh-speaking practitioners and used appropriate interpreting services where these were needed.  
• Following a significant gap, PO staff had been seconded into the three youth justice services across Gwent. Operational relationships were positive, with strong transitional arrangements. Based on the disproportionate outcomes for 18–25-year-olds, the leadership team was planning to utilise seconded staff to support the development of a specialist team for young adults.  
• Reasonable adjustments were generally offered to staff when additional equipment was needed to support their work, with any delays being tracked and escalated. In total, 20 per cent of staff in the PDU had a declared disability. Managers made occupational health referrals for staff to support returns to work. The staff survey indicated that, out of 21 staff who needed reasonable adjustments, 14 had been agreed. Some reasonable adjustments not agreed by managers usually related to increased home working or caseload reductions for staff.
• The PDU leadership team was engaged with regional teams to support the additional commissioning of services based on the presenting needs of the caseload. This included services to support those people on probation with neurodiversity and brain injury.  
• Services for people on probation from an ethnic minority background had recently been commissioned in Gwent. This was a response to the increasing migrant population in Newport, and that 7.5 per cent of the PDU caseload identified as Black, Asian, and minority ethnic.

Areas for improvement:

• There were actions plans to address less favourable ETE outcomes for people on probation aged 40–49 years or with a disability. However, this was not translating into activity to coordinate available ETE services effectively and make them more accessible for these cohorts.

---

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 ³for 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?	72%
Does assessment focus sufficiently on the factors linked to offending and desistance?	68%
Does assessment focus sufficiently on keeping other people safe?	28%

• Assessments were not sufficiently focused on keeping other people safe. This was driving the overall ‘Inadequate’ rating. This often related to a lack of relevant and critical risk information. Practitioners had not requested police information in eight out of 57 cases where it should have been. Child safeguarding information was not requested in seven out of 56 relevant cases.
• Where information was requested from the police and children’s services, the PDU had received a response on every occasion. However, those responses were of varying quality. In total, 11 out of 57 responses from the police contained insufficient and often heavily redacted information. Children’s safeguarding information was often vague and lacked the relevant context needed in 21 out of 56 relevant cases. Practitioners were not then routinely requesting follow-up information, to enable them to make a sufficient analysis of the risk posed by the person on probation.
• Within inspected cases, when information was received from the police, it was used sufficiently in only 25 out of 39 relevant cases. Analysis related to child safeguarding was slightly more positive, with 22 out of 30 relevant cases sufficiently analysing information from children’s services. Despite some concerning gaps, inspectors agreed with the overall risk classification assigned to people on probation in 88 per cent of the cases we inspected.
• Assessments to keep other people safe for women on probation were generally more effective than for men on probation. In these cases, assessments drew on available sources of information significantly more often.
• There were some encouraging approaches to engaging people on probation meaningfully with their assessments in the cases we inspected. The positive analysis of protected characteristics and personal circumstances provided practitioners with a good level of understanding about how best to engage people on probation with their supervision. Where this was done well, practitioners considered the person on probation’s maturity, offending history, previous responses to supervision, and how mental health issues might impact their ability to engage fully with services.
• The assessments we inspected were generally analytical of the offending-related factors of the person on probation. Most of these assessments were strengths based and drew on the protective factors necessary to support individuals’ desistance. Further liaison by practitioners with services already engaged with people on probation, to obtain and verify their progress with this provision could have improved their effectiveness further.

---

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

Our rating⁴ 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?	74%
Does planning focus sufficiently on reducing reoffending and supporting desistance?	79%
Does planning focus sufficiently on keeping other people safe?	39%

• Critical gaps in information and a lack of consistent analysis of the risks to other people meant that plans did not sufficiently address factors related to risk of harm, and prioritise those most critical, in over half of the cases we inspected. Overall, plans were not therefore inclusive of necessary constructive or restrictive interventions to manage risk of harm in 27 out of 53 relevant cases. The insufficient focus of plans to keep other people safe was driving the overall ‘Inadequate’ rating for planning.
• Plans were making insufficient reference to the work of other agencies, including children’s services and the police, even when they were actively involved in managing the presenting risks of the person on probation. Contingency plans were often too vague to understand what action should be taken if the risk of the person on probation increased. This included recording the circumstances in which a new child safeguarding referral should be made.
• When people on probation were released into the community after serving a prison sentence, plans to address their risk of harm to others were significantly more effective than for those subject to community sentences. Better outcomes were supported by an increased level of management scrutiny and tasking activity surrounding the work to resettle these individuals than for community-based sentences. There was some promising use of licence conditions to set out necessary constructive or restrictive interventions to manage the risk of harm, with generally more effective contingency plans in place.
• Many practitioners were skilful in engaging people on probation with their planning. This meant that in most of the cases we inspected, plans had taken the personal circumstances of the person on probation into account. Despite practitioners experiencing high workloads, staff continued to set appropriate levels of contact, with these being sufficient to engage individuals to support the effectiveness of interventions in 38 out of the 51 relevant cases we inspected.
• Most plans we inspected were strengths based and drew on potential sources of support for the person on probation. Staff were positive about the support from the CORRE team, which supported planning in many cases. Plans set out the services most likely to reduce offending and support desistance in 45 out of 57 cases.  

---

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?	72%
Does the implementation and delivery of services effectively support desistance?	40%
Does the implementation and delivery of services effectively support the safety of other people?	28%

• The implementation and delivery of services to address reoffending and support desistance, and the delivery of work to support the safety of other people, were insufficient within too many of the cases we inspected. This was driving the overall ‘Inadequate’ rating.
• Sufficient attention was given to protected actual or potential victims in only 22 out of 57 cases we inspected. Significant gaps in practice were often related to ineffective multi-agency working with partners involved with managing the risk of harm of the person on probation, or to protect their actual or potential victims.
• Only 20 out of 48 home visits had been completed where necessary to support the effective management of risk of harm. Despite receiving input about the importance of home visits within their protected learning time, practitioners did not always have sufficient capacity, which was a missed opportunity to identify risk of harm to protect actual or potential victims.
• Further work was needed to ensure that all MAPPA-eligible cases were screened sufficiently at the start of sentences. MAPPA Level 1 arrangements were generally working well and had some level of management oversight. Out of the 13 MAPPA-eligible cases inspected, there was evidence of coordinated multi-agency oversight, including joint working with the police, in eight cases.
• Despite promising work to assess and plan for interventions to address the person on probation’s risk of reoffending and support desistance, delivery of these services was sufficient in only 23 out of the 57 cases we inspected. CRS services were generally offered when they should have been. However, the involvement of other organisations was insufficiently coordinated in 28 out of 44 relevant cases. High caseloads led to delays to the start of some requirements, and to the delivery of toolkits or alternative interventions by practitioners. This meant that some appointments often took a ‘check-in’-style approach.
• Thirteen out of the 57 cases we inspected had been allocated to three or more practitioners. The lack of robust handover arrangements had led to some drift in the delivery and coordination of services.
• Practitioners had appropriate levels of contact with people on probation, to maintain effective working relationships with them, and had taken into account their diversity needs in 40 out of 51 relevant cases. Enforcement was generally used effectively, with 23 out of the 33 relevant cases having appropriate action taken when needed.

---

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?	67%
Does reviewing focus sufficiently on supporting desistance?	46%
Does reviewing focus sufficiently on keeping other people safe?	36%

• Reviewing activity was insufficiently focused on the work to address the risk of reoffending of people on probation or to keeping other people safe. This was driving an overall ‘Inadequate’ rating.
• Practitioners generally received information from the police in relation to changes in the risk of the person on probation, under the ‘reportable incident’ system. Practitioners were broadly aware of the process of responding to reportable incidents, but this was applied too inconsistently, with many cases having insufficient follow-up. As a result, reviews did not identify and address changes in factors related to risk of harm, with the necessary adjustments being made to the ongoing plan of work in 32 out of 47 relevant cases we inspected.
• While formal written reviews were generally being undertaken (31 out of 47 cases), these were not sufficiently informed by the necessary follow-up to reportable incidents when this was needed. Input from other agencies had not been gathered as necessary to inform these reviews in 32 out of the 47 relevant cases we inspected.
• Practitioners did not routinely request progress updates from other agencies to inform their reviews sufficiently. That meant that practitioners did not always understand the impact of the services delivered in reducing the risk of reoffending for people on probation. Where we saw this done well, practitioners had used professionals’ meetings or partnership group emails to ensure that those involved in delivering services were kept informed of the progress of the person on probation.
• Practitioners used structured contact recording and often reviewed the engagement of people on probation with them meaningfully in their appointments. They were often particularly skilful in discussing enforcement and the compliance issues of people on probation, and had made necessary adjustments to the ongoing plan of work in 24 out of 39 relevant cases.

---

---

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 Leon Bonas, 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. Source: Office for National Statistics (July 2025). UK population estimates, mid-2024. ↩︎
2. Source: Ministry of Justice. (July 2025). Proven reoffending statistics: October 2022 to September 2023. ↩︎
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. ↩︎

---