An inspection of probation services in North Tyneside and Northumberland PDU
Foreword (Back to top)
This inspection of North Tyneside and Northumberland Probation Delivery Unit (PDU) found some encouraging evidence of good leadership, a positive organisational culture and a clear commitment to staff development and wellbeing. Inspectors saw assessments and plans with a focus on engagement and supporting people to stop offending.
Unfortunately, however, work to keep people safe by assessing, planning and managing risks posed by people on probation was insufficient. Additionally, many services for people on probation were underused.
These factors led to an overall PDU rating of ‘Requires improvement’.
Our case inspections identified several examples of effective practice; however, in far too many cases, practitioners paid insufficient attention to emerging risks, including risks to actual and potential victims. The quality of management oversight needed to improve to ensure risk-focused practice was sufficient and embedded. Arrangements for obtaining good-quality domestic abuse and safeguarding information from the police and children’s services were ineffective. This undermined the quality of risk assessment and public protection work. These issues are common across all our recent inspections and need to be an area of renewed focus, both nationally and locally.
Staff across the PDU were motivated, and many enjoyed their jobs. They spoke highly of the support they received from their managers and peers. Staffing and workloads were improving, and there was a strategic focus on retaining trainee probation officers (POs). Staff were encouraged to develop their skills and experience and supported to progress into senior roles. However, there remained a 30 per cent vacancy rate at PO grade, meaning that this group of staff had yet to fully realise the benefit of national policy changes to increase capacity across the workforce.
The PDU benefited from strong relationships with partner agencies and was using performance and quality data to drive improvement. Activity to engage with people on probation was well embedded and considered at a strategic level. PDU leaders must now use these strengths to identify and address the barriers preventing people on probation from accessing services, and to understand any potential disproportionality in access or outcomes across individual protected characteristics.
With an onward focus on risk and public protection, and by building on the evident strengths in leadership and culture, I am confident that North Tyneside and Northumberland PDU is well placed to make the improvements necessary to safeguard vulnerable people from harm and help people on probation lead
law-abiding lifestyles.
Martin Jones CBE
HM Chief Inspector of Probation
Ratings (Back to top)
| Fieldwork started May 2025 | Score 5/21 |
| 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 | Requires improvement |
| 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.
North Tyneside and Northumberland PDU should:
- make arrangements with police and children’s services to ensure that the information shared is sufficient to ensure all actual and potential victims are accurately identified, and to inform the quality of assessment and management of people on probation
- work with providers of commissioned rehabilitative services (CRS) and other partner organisations to improve the volume and quality of referrals
- improve the quality of work to assess, plan for, manage and review risk of harm
- ensure effective management oversight is provided to enhance and sustain the quality of the work with people on probation and keep people safe
- consider options to reduce spans of responsibility for senior and middle managers so that they can provide oversight of the quality of work with people on probation.
Background (Back to top)
We conducted fieldwork in North Tyneside and Northumberland PDU over a period of two weeks, beginning 19 May 2025 and 02 June 2025. We inspected 33 community orders and 17 releases on licence from custody where sentences and licences had commenced during two separate weeks, between 30 September 2024 and 06 October 2024 and 18 November 2024 and 24 November 2024. We also conducted 45 interviews with probation practitioners.
North Tyneside and Northumberland was one of seven PDUs in the North East region, with a large geographical footprint, bordering Scotland at its northernmost edge. The PDU covered a number of urban, rural and coastal communities. Several offices in the PDU were closed in 2021, which meant that all practitioners working in North Tyneside were based at Victoria House, which they share with Newcastle PDU staff. Staff covering communities in Northumberland were primarily based in Ashington, with small satellite offices in Hexham, Alnwick, and Berwick.
Northumbria Police was the local force. The PDU shared boundaries with North Tyneside and Northumberland local authorities. HMP Northumberland was within the PDU boundary, but staff there were not managed by the PDU. No approved premises were located in Northumberland or North Tyneside. Magistrates’ courts operated in North Tyneside, South East Northumberland and Berwick, with court staff being managed regionally.
At the time of the inspection, the head of service had been in post for seven years and was supported by a middle management team with a range of experience and responsibilities. The leadership team opted not to enter the Prioritisation Framework.[1] They continue to operate a business-as-usual delivery model, despite resourcing and workload pressures, with a view to maintaining key aspects of service delivery.
The PDU served a population of approximately 538,824. According to the 2021 census, 95 per cent of North Tyneside and 98 per cent of Northumberland residents identify as White, which was reflected in both the probation caseload and the staff group that work in the PDU. The total caseload at the time the inspection was announced was 1,648. This comprised 886 community sentences, 372 individuals subject to post-release supervision and 390 people in custody.
A range of regional CRS and locally co-commissioned services were delivered across the PDU. Dependency and recovery support services and personal wellbeing services were delivered by Ingeus; the accommodation support service was delivered by Thirteen Housing Group; and women’s services were provided by Changing Lives.
Inspection standards have been updated in response to the implementation of Probation Reset from July 2024.[2] In addition to the core standards, we applied a set of adjusted standards to licence cases where Probation Reset has been applied eight weeks or less from the point of release. We inspected 10 cases subject to Probation Reset, with six of these inspected against adjusted standards.
1. Organisational arrangements and activity (Back to top)
| P 1.1. Leadership | Rating |
| The leadership of the PDU enables delivery of a high quality, personalised, and responsive service for all people on probation. | Good |
Strengths:
- The head of service was well established, and staff and stakeholders spoke highly of his visibility, engagement and leadership. Middle managers were approachable and responsive to staff needs, and strong peer-to-peer support created a positive culture.
- The delivery plan clearly set out the vision and strategy for the PDU. This was simplified into important objectives and communicated effectively to staff. Managers knew what their priorities were, and staff understood what areas of performance needed improvement.
- Relationships and engagement with strategic partner agencies were strengths in the PDU. The head of service was viewed as proactive, responsive and supportive by staff from organisations working in partnership with the PDU. Staff from partnership agencies said that PDU middle managers were well prepared and engaged when they attended strategic meetings.
- Governance arrangements were mostly effective and had improved the quality of engagement and desistance activity. Structures were underpinned by data and audit intelligence. A monthly cross-grade performance meeting, attended by the leadership team and practitioners, tracked priorities and operational barriers from a practitioner’s perspective. The meeting was well supported by a regional performance officer, who was instrumental in explaining why and how performance should be improved.
- To promote information-sharing about the risk posed by people on probation, practitioners had access to a daily police bulletin detailing arrests and call-outs. In addition, a joint monthly meeting was held with police to share information about individuals of concern.
- Leaders had improved accessibility for people living in rural communities by establishing satellite offices, sharing space in partner buildings, and advocating at local and national levels to improve estate provision.
- The safety and wellbeing of staff were taken seriously by leaders, who used a variety of methods to engage with staff in a meaningful way.
- The views and experiences of people on probation were being integrated into the way the PDU was run. The head of service chaired a forum with people on probation, which improved leaders’ visibility and supported decision-making. It also helped with communication between staff and people on probation. The forum focused on tangible serviceimprovements, such as sentence and exit planning. Participants who attended the forum experienced personal benefits, such as increased confidence.
- PDU leaders were proactive in learning lessons when things went wrong. Managers undertook rapid reviews of practice to mitigate for regional delays in serious further offence processes. The service was actively involved in
multi-agency review processes, including serious case reviews and audits of Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA) and Multi-Agency Risk Assessment Conference (MARAC) activity. The head of service was a valued contributor to domestic homicide reviews (DHRs), which were delivered by the Community Safety Partnership. Some probation staff had been trained as DHR chairs, which helped to overcome national funding problems. In addition, a rapid DHR process had been established, allowing high-level thematic learning to be disseminated within 30 days instead of the usual process, which can take several years.
Areas for improvement:
- Although leaders emphasised quality, public protection, and reducing reoffending as PDU priorities, staff perceived that their focus was mainly on meeting measurable performance targets. Greater clarity was needed to help staff understand and meet expectations for effective sentence management.
- PDU leaders made efforts to streamline national and regional communication for staff. However, staff told us that in the face of fast-paced change, they occasionally lacked confidence in managers’ ability to provide effective guidance and often had to rely on colleagues to help them understand how to implement new processes.
- Activity to keep people safe was being undermined by deficits in regional processes for obtaining domestic abuse and safeguarding information. Leaders did not have a clear understanding of the quality of requests or returns locally. Responsesto initial domestic abuse enquiries provided statistics about the number of occasions police had been called out to an address, rather than the context of those incidents. This added limited value to assessment or risk management decisions. Processes for obtaining more detailed information were ineffective and getting in the way of practitioners’ ability to adequately analyse risk.
- Local services were underused and there was no local problem-solving forum for PDU leaders and service providers to overcome barriers to referral. This meant that access to some services for people on probation was reduced.
- PDU leaders and strategic partnersdid not sufficiently analyse data to assess whether people on probation with particular protected characteristics had equitable access to services and outcomes. Strategic partners recognised this as an area needing improvement.
| P 1.2 Staffing | Rating |
| The leadership of the PDU enables delivery of a high quality, personalised, and responsive service for all people on probation. | Requires improvement |
Strengths:
- The PDU was staffed to 96 per cent of its target level overall, and middle management posts were fully staffed. There was a strategic focus on the development and retention of Professional Qualification in Probation (PQIP) staff from within the PDU to address vacancies at PO grade. This was evident from the positive experience described by those training in the PDU.
- Of the practitioners we interviewed, 70 per cent said their workload was manageable. With some limited exceptions at PO grade, workloads across the PDU were below full capacity. Probation services officers (PSOs) and managers were beginning to experience increased capacity because relevant cases were being reallocated to the Resolution Hub, a team established to manage all cases subject to Probation Reset.
- 10 out of 17 respondents to our staff survey agreed that the PDU promoted a culture of learning and continuous improvement. Rates of attendance at mandatory training were higher than the regional and national average. Leaders set clear expectations about attendance at training events and practice development days and were confident when addressing poor performance.
- Twelve out of 18 respondents to our staff survey agreed that the staff potential was identified and developed in the PDU. There were numerous examples of development opportunities, both within individuals’ roles and to support onward career ambitions.
- Staff sickness had reduced from an average of 12.1 working days lost to 7.5 across the PDU in the 12 months before the inspection was announced. Managers were alert to the impact of workloads and stress and were confident in carrying out stress risk assessments for relevant staff.
- Inspectors spoke to several people on probation during the fieldwork week who told us that their probation practitioner had been instrumental in supporting them to change. One said: “They have been brilliant. My life was destroyed, and they have put me back on my feet.” 16 out of 18 respondents to our survey of people on probation said they had a good relationship with their practitioner.
Areas for improvement:
- Workload demands on the head of service were unreasonable. North Tyneside and Northumberland PDU covers a large, geographically dispersed area and is served by two local authorities. Local estates issues were also prevalent and required a lot of strategic attention. Although key stakeholders and staff consistently described the head of service as visible, proactive and effective, leadership resource was stretched.
- The PDU did not have enough POs, with 30 per cent of posts being vacant. Staff turnover at this grade was largely because POs had opportunities for promotion within the service or to move on to other roles. While leaders encouraged this, stability at PO grade was a challenge that was not sufficiently addressed through the pace of recruitment of trainees. As a result, almost one third of cases we inspected had had more than one probation practitioner.
- Supervision of practitioners by senior probation officers was not clearly sustaining or improving practice in the casework we inspected. Practitioners often identified the cases to be discussed during supervision, which was not always an effective method of identifying areas for improvement.
- Management oversight was effective in just 28 per cent of cases, with only four out of 11[3] relevant high-risk cases receiving sufficient oversight. Oversight was typically present at allocation stage, but less evident as the sentence progressed. This led to insufficient follow-up of actions set for practitioners, such as obtaining detailed information on domestic abuse and child safeguarding. Managers cited workload as a barrier to recording informal discussions, but routine oversight activity, such as countersigning assessments, often failed to identify critical gaps in practice.
| 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:
- A range of commissioned and local services were available to meet the needs of those supervised in this PDU. Leaders collaborated with local partners to address various local priorities.
- There was evidence of recent innovation to address aspects of domestic abuse locally. The Northumbria Stalking Intervention Pilot was developed in collaboration with organisations including the police, NHS and the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner in response to stalking behaviour. All practitioners had been trained to identify relevant behaviours and refer into the pilot scheme for consultation on risk management approaches. This included referral to domestic abuse programmes to support exit planning for those subject to Probation Reset.
- The PDU was working with Northumbria Police on Project Iris, which was a joint pilot designed to improve the management of men who were assessed as posing the highest risk of domestic abuse in the PDU. The initial focus was on the top five perpetrators in each part of the PDU, with a view to expanding in future.
- A range of services were available to support people being released from prison. This included the Oswin Project, which was a third-sector organisation offering employment training in custody and work placements in the community. People on probation being released from prison could also access the CFO Hub and Department for Work and Pensions work coaches for employment support.
- The PDU was seconding a PO to each of the two local youth justice services, and the head of service was actively engaged in the Youth Justice Board. This supported the transition of young people from youth to adult services. Secondees’ workloads were manageable and joint training focused on trauma-informed practice, MAPPA and the management of those convicted of sexual offending. Although the PDU did not have dedicated young adult teams, due to case numbers and geography, efforts were made to allocate transition cases to interested practitioners.
- Dependency and recovery, and personal wellbeing services were provided by Ingeus. The provider was delivering bespoke approaches for people living in rural areas and group work from larger offices. It was co-located with practitioners, and used this to maximise its offer. Communication between practitioners and Ingeus staff was broadly positive. Appropriate information was shared as required, and efforts made to identify relevant cases that would merit referral. The number of inappropriate referrals had reduced, and work began promptly, with no waiting list.
- Each office location offered female-only reporting times, with a hub model adopted to provide a more dedicated offer. Women’s hubs enabled practitioners to be co-located with staff from CRS provider Changing Lives, which delivered a range of support for women. Changing Lives also offered an outreach service to promote access for women in rural communities. Joint case management meetings supported information-sharing and problem-solving. Referrals were at expected levels and staff spoke positively about the outcomes for women.
- Integrated Offender Management (IOM) was operating effectively as part of a model aligned with Northumbria Police. The head of service provided strategic leadership across all PDUs in North and South Tyneside. This model enabled strong strategic and operational relationships. It combined local delivery with central oversight for consistent decision-making and improved resilience. Governance via the Local Criminal Justice Board and subgroups was effective. Leaders were proactive, evidenced by the recent creation of a shared data set to support analysis and resourcing. Practitioners made good use of Project Horizon, a multi-agency forum to tackle acquisitive crime. Practice was broadly sufficient in most of the IOM cases we inspected, with evidence of information-sharing, liaison and joint working.
- MAPPA Level 2 and 3 arrangements were functioning well. MAPPA meetings between agencies involved in managing cases were being held shortly after referrals had been made. Attendance by all partners, including probation, was sufficient. There were good links with local authority and private sector housing providers to find housing for those most in need through this forum. Victim liaison staff were routinely present at MAPPA meetings to share the voice of the victim. Reports and actions were completed by practitioners in a timely way and mechanisms for information-sharing were broadly effective.
Areas for improvement:
- Many services for people on probation were underused. All service providers had taken steps to drive up referral rates by attending team meetings, scrutinising caseloads where possible and liaising at operational and strategic levels, but limited progress had been made. This was attributed to the rate of change facing practitioners and the continual need to include new staff in these events.
- Accommodation provision locally was a challenge. CRS provider Thirteen Housing Group received mixed feedback from practitioners we spoke to from different parts of the PDU. Some staff described good working relationships, and we saw some evidence of appropriate referrals and timely commencement of support. However, there was frustration at what practitioners perceived to be insufficient outcomes.
- Disappointingly, evidence of multi-agency oversight and joint working was evident in just three out of eight MAPPA Level 1 cases we inspected. There was a backlog in Level 1 reviews, which had resulted in these becoming process-driven rather than an opportunity to consider risk management plans in detail. Practitioners were not routinely accessing the ViSOR database, despite there being dedicated staff to provide help to do so. At times, this impeded the effective flow of communication between police and practitioners.
- Use of the psychologically informed consultation service (PICS) for high-risk people on probation with personality disorders was not consistent across the PDU, with Northumberland making better use of this service than North Tyneside. This was despite efforts by PICS leads to promote the service and support staff to identify suitable cases.
- Unpaid work started quickly; however, the rural location and staffing difficulties meant that not enough people on probation routinely completed their allocated unpaid work requirements within 12 months.
Diversity and inclusion (Back to top)
Strengths:
- The community in which North Tyneside and Northumberland PDU operates has a majority White British population. This was reflected in the PDU, where just three per cent of staff and people on probation identified as being from a Black, Asian or minority ethnic background.
- The PDU had analysed the needs of people on probation and identified relevant services for signposting and referral purposes. Leaders understood the profile of people on probation locally through a needs analysis that mapped relevant services and interventions.
- People on probation were generally asked about their protected characteristics at the start of supervision, and 12 out of 18 respondents to our survey of people on probation said that practitioners had taken the time to understand their personal needs during induction. A reasonable majority of the assessments we inspected analysed personal characteristics sufficiently (68 per cent).
- The PDU and its partner agencies had made significant efforts to make buildings and services accessible to people on probation, taking into account the large geographical area and challenging estates. Co-location, rural and multi-agency community hubs and outreach services were all used or in development. There was evidence of in-person prison visits and home visits to promote engagement.
- Leaders had consistently resourced both local youth justice services with
PO-grade staff to support effective transition from youth to adult services. - People on probation accessing personal wellbeing services through Ingeus had been encouraged to take part in a calendar of diversity and inclusion events to increase awareness and mark key cultural and religious dates.
- The Engaging People on Probation Forum was actively scrutinising the protected characteristics of participants in the forum and in broader engagement activity across the PDU to determine any disproportionality in access. This allowed the forum to target minoritised groups and ensure their views were sought out.
Areas for improvement:
- Data was not segmented or analysed well enough by PDU leaders or their strategic partners to identify if people on probation with protected characteristics had equal access to services.
- There was limited evidence that the PDU used information on equity and diversity related to race and ethnicity to inform decisions on commissioning, despite the PDU having local minority communities from Gypsy, Roma, Traveller backgrounds.
- Assessment and planning for women on probation were less focused on protected characteristics than for men. In addition, work to keep people safe was less sufficient for this cohort.
- Victoria House, the main location of the PDU, was on an out-of-town business park with limited public transport options. People on probation found it difficult to get to and hard to find. This was a problem, as it was the main location for delivering accredited programmes, particularly for those requiring evening sessions. PDU and regional leaders had made extensive efforts to improve estates provision for the PDU, given its geography, but this was taking some time to resolve.
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[4] 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? | 72% |
| Does assessment focus sufficiently on the factors linked to offending and desistance? | 74% |
| Does assessment focus sufficiently on keeping other people safe? | 44% |
- Assessment of engagement and desistance was well informed by analysis of relevant factors linked to offending, as well as a good understanding of the person on probation’s personal circumstances and protected characteristics. Assessments were appropriately focused on strengths, with practitioners routinely considering levels of motivation and protective factors on which to build.
- Almost three-quarters of cases (74 per cent) included evidence that people on probation were meaningfully involved in their assessment and had their views considered. This approach promoted engagement and ensured people on probation were clear about the risks and needs to be addressed.
- In more than three-quarters (76 per cent) of inspected cases, assessments were sufficiently informed by available sources of information, including previous assessments and court reports.
- Processes for obtaining domestic abuse and child safeguarding information prevented practitioners from consistently accessing the appropriate level of detail required to make an informed assessment. Domestic abuse information was not requested in six out of 50 relevant cases. Child safeguarding information was not requested in eight out of 49 relevant cases. Separation between practitioners and the regional administrative hub created some barriers to effective communication, resulting in some requests being overlooked.
- Domestic abuse information was received but not sufficient in 30 per cent of cases inspected. Child safeguarding information was received but not sufficient in 13 out of 49 relevant cases. Practitioners were finding it difficult to obtain information from the police when they requested detailed information spanning a timescale beyond 12 months. Responses from children’s social care were often not detailed enough to determine the context in which children were currently or previously involved with that agency. PDU staff did not have access to partner agency systems to support effective information-sharing.
- Even when practitioners obtained information from these agencies, they did not use it consistently when assessing risk of harm. Disappointingly, too few assessments focused sufficiently on keeping people safe. Just 50 per cent of cases we inspected clearly identified and analysed risk of harm to others, and just over half of relevant cases (24 out of 47) lacked sufficient analysis of specific concerns and risks to actual and potential victims.
| P 2.2 Planning | Rating |
| Planning is well-informed, holistic and personalised, involving actively the person on probation. | Requires improvement |
Our rating[5] 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? | 66% |
| Does planning focus sufficiently on reducing reoffending and supporting desistance? | 68% |
| Does planning focus sufficiently on keeping other people safe? | 50% |
- More than two-thirds of plans we inspected meaningfully involved the person on probation. The PDU was working closely with the Engaging People On Probation (EPOP) forum to improve engagement in planning. Its work in this area would benefit from further efforts to develop plans for those cases subject to Probation Reset.
- Plans, particularly those completed by POs,[6] routinely addressed factors linked to reoffending. Consequently, plans set out the necessary requirements and frequency of contact required to deliver the sentence of the court.
- Planning would have been improved by more robust consideration of the impact that protected characteristics, such as disability, might have on people on probation, and what adjustments could be considered to maximise engagement.
- Insufficient information on domestic abuse and safeguarding was available at assessment, which had a detrimental impact on planning to keep people safe. Practitioners did not focus sufficiently on addressing factors linked to harm in 23 out of 46 relevant cases. Plans, especially for women on probation, did not consistently make links to the work of other agencies.
- Planning did not always set out robust actions required to address increasing risk. Encouragingly, however, contingency arrangements were sufficient in nine out of 11 high-risk cases we inspected.
| 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[7] 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? | 62% |
| Does the implementation and delivery of services effectively support desistance? | 64% |
| Does the implementation and delivery of services effectively support the safety of other people? | 42% |
- Sentence requirements, including accredited programmes, began promptly in a large majority of cases (80 per cent). This was supported by an appropriately flexible approach to personal circumstances from practitioners in most of the cases we inspected (93 per cent).
- Practitioners were not maximising services to support desistance and reduce risk of harm. Local services were engaged to support and sustain desistance in only just over half of relevant cases. CRS were offered in 23 out of 30 relevant cases; however, there were numerous examples where people on probation had disengaged and this had not been addressed effectively by practitioners and providers.
- Enforcement practice needed to be better. Appropriate action was taken in only 13 out of 26 relevant cases we inspected. The regional enforcement hub model aimed to promote timely and consistent breach activity. However, relationships between hub staff and practitioners were not always collaborative. Booking hub slots for breach discussions introduced avoidable delays, which had implications for timely fast-track enforcement in at least one high-risk case in our sample.
- Worryingly, sufficient attention was given to protecting actual and potential victims in fewer than half of relevant cases inspected (20 out of 42). There were various examples where practitioners had shown insufficient professional curiosity in seeking information from key partner agencies such as the police and social care. This resulted in deficits in information-sharing and responsivity to emerging risks from people on probation, such as the development of new relationships or deterioration in factors linked to risk.
| P 2.4. Reviewing | Rating |
| Reviewing of progress is well-informed, analytical and personalised, involving actively the person on probation. | Inadequate |
Our rating[8] 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? | 60% |
| Does reviewing focus sufficiently on supporting desistance? | 58% |
| Does reviewing focus sufficiently on keeping other people safe? | 35% |
- Reviewing activity was underdeveloped, with too few people on probation actively involved in reviewing their progress during supervision. Subsequently, opportunities were lost to drive motivation, clarify direction, and reinforce improvement.
- Practitioners did not consistently demonstrate sufficient responsivity to changes in factors linked to offending. In 15 out of 36 relevant cases, reviews lacked input from partner agencies working with the person on probation, including substance misuse services and CRS providers.
- Worryingly, in more than half of relevant cases (25 out of 44), practitioners did not collaborate sufficiently with agencies responsible for managing the risk of harm. This gap in multi-agency coordination meant that practitioners were sometimes working without up-to-date or accurate information, limiting their ability to assess and respond to increased risk to children and vulnerable adults.
- Reviews often failed to identify critical changes in circumstances linked to risk of harm, such as new relationships or further offending. A written review was required before transferring cases eligible for Probation Reset into the Resolution Hub. Without an accurate, up-to-date understanding of dynamic risk factors, that process risked being undermined.
Data annexe (Back to top)
Press release (Back to top)
Further information (Back to top)
Full data from this inspection and further information about the methodology used to conduct this inspection is available in the data annexe.
A glossary of terms used in this report is available on our website.
This inspection was led by HM Inspector Helen Cox, supported by a team of inspectors and colleagues from across the Inspectorate. We would like to thank all those who participated in any way in this inspection. Without their help and cooperation, the inspection would not have been possible.
[1] The Prioritisation Framework is a post-pandemic tool to help regions adapt how they deliver probation services locally according to numbers of available staff.
[2] Probation Reset is a nationally mandated operational policy change and has been implemented to alleviate probation workload pressures in response to prison capacity challenges. 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.
[3] The findings relating to cases assessed as high risk of serious harm have not been subject to a relative rate index analysis, which is a test used to compare rates of incidence. We report on our findings with that caveat.
[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 findings relating to staff grades have not been subject to a relative rate index analysis, which is a test used to compare rates of incidence. We report on our findings with that caveat.
7 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.
8 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.