An inspection of probation services in North Wales PDU

Foreword (Back to top)

North Wales Probation Delivery Unit (PDU) was led by strong and capable leaders, who had well-established strategic relationships with other agencies involved in the lives of people on probation. That had led to mostly effective work on the frontline to engage with people on probation and support them to change.

However, the assessment and management of risk of harm was not effective enough overall, and as a result the PDU was rated as ‘Requires improvement’.

The Head of Service had established a positive footprint across the PDU and was recognised across all probation locations and with every partner agency as an influential and respected leader within North Wales. Members of the senior leadership team were all approachable, visible, and caring. Staff were at the centre of the North Wales PDU approach, and were highly responsive to the individual needs and diversity of people on probation.

North Wales PDU covers a vast geographical area, including a complex landscape of urban and rural areas. However, leaders had been able to actively promote and establish a single identity across the PDU, making staff feel part of a family where everyone had their part to play. This collective identity and responsibility had no doubt aided the PDU’s ability to respond to challenges, such as the deployment of Wrexham and Flintshire staff to HMP Berwyn to support induction for recent fixed term recall (FTR48) releases.

The PDU had taken a deliberate, strategic, and informed approach to diversity. The North Wales disproportionality action plan, Welsh language provision and rural communities strategy plan all identified key actions the PDU had implemented to meet the diverse needs of its communities. North Wales PDU is a bilingual team and delivers all probation services through Welsh or English language. It was going beyond its statutory duties and ensuring Welsh language was promoted and celebrated.

There was recognition that the quality of information sharing for the safeguarding of children and women at risk of domestic abuse was an area that needed further improvement. More work was needed to ensure probation staff were always asking for the right information, in the right way, to understand and manage risk accurately. Meaningful activity was taking place to improve that, and some improvements had been achieved. Probation leaders needed to explore all options with their counterparts in the police and social services to improve the flow of information sharing.

Leaders were realistic and well-informed about the important areas requiring improvements and accepted that there was more to do. They had done well to create a common understanding across all grades that keeping people safe was a priority. That was a good foundation to work from, and the PDU’s success in achieving effective support to people on probation in other respects bodes well for its future. North Wales PDU can be confident that by continuing to focus on protecting people from harm and improving the consistency of high-quality work, it has every chance of making the improvements identified as necessary in this report. 

Martin Jones CBE 

HM Chief Inspector of Probation

---

Ratings (Back to top)

Fieldwork started September 2025

Score 10/21

Overall rating

Requires improvement

1. Organisational arrangements and activity

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

2. Service delivery

P 2.1 Assessment	Requires improvement
P 2.2 Planning	Requires improvement
P 2.3 Implementation and delivery	Requires improvement
P 2.4 Reviewing	Requires improvement

---

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 Wales PDU should:

1. ensure that processes for obtaining domestic abuse and child safeguarding information are clear, and that responses contain sufficient detail to support the assessment, planning, and management of risk of harm to others
2. liaise with the police and children’s social care teams to resolve the issues with the quality and timeliness of responses to domestic abuse and safeguarding enquiries
3. improve the efficacy of work with people on probation before they leave custody and upon release, including the availability of services for them
4. develop practitioner confidence and skills in the use of professional curiosity to identify, analyse, assess, plan, and respond to indicators of risk effectively
5. provide practitioners with the knowledge and experience necessary to ensure there is sufficient analysis to improve the quality of work to keep people safe.

---

Background (Back to top)

We conducted fieldwork in North Wales PDU over a period of two weeks, beginning 01 September 2025. We inspected 56 community orders and 21 releases on licence from custody between 20 and 26 January 2025 and 03 and 09 March 2025. We also conducted 67 interviews with practitioners.

The Probation Reset policy was in use during this inspection. Of the cases we inspected, 11 out of 77 were subject to Probation Reset; eight of these had had the adjusted standards applied, which meant that their supervision was suspended for the final third of their supervision period.

North Wales is one of six PDUs within the Wales probation region. The PDU has offices in Caernarfon, Colwyn Bay, Wrexham, and Flint and a satellite office in Pwlheli, with additional reporting arrangements across the PDU using local police stations in Llangefni, Holyhead, Bangor, Dolgellau, Blaenau Ffestiniog, and Rhyl and Llandudno. The population of North Wales at the time the inspection was announced was estimated to be 697,115. North Wales had a caseload of 2,660 at the date of inspection announcement. The most common offence type was violence, comprising 31.55 per cent of the overall PDU caseload, slightly higher than the regional average.

North Wales PDU covers a large area, comprising urban and remote rural communities. The PDU is served by North Wales police force and covers six local authority areas: Ynys Mon, Gwynedd, Conwy, Denbighshire, Flint, and Wrexham. There are two approved premises within North Wales and one prison, HMP Berwyn in Wrexham, none of which are led or managed by the PDU. There are Crown courts in Caernarfon and Mold, and magistrates’ courts in Wrexham, Mold, Caernarfon, and Llandudno. The PDU had 108 per cent of staff in post across all grades at the time of our inspection, and was almost fully staffed at senior probation officer (SPO) and probation officer (PO) grades.

The North Wales region maintains a strong sense of Welsh identity and has more Welsh-language speakers (including Welsh as first language) than other areas of Wales. North Wales PDU is a bilingual team and delivers core probation services through Welsh or English language.

Nacro provided commissioned rehabilitative services (CRS) for accommodation support. St Giles Wise provided personal wellbeing and finance, benefit, and debt services. The Nelson Trust provided women’s services. Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board had recently taken over provision of services to support those with drug and alcohol needs. North Wales PDU had also developed arrangements with local services to supplement regionally commissioned services. These included BrainKind, supporting individuals who have experienced traumatic brain injury, and Third Sector Consortium (3SC), who support people with neurodiversity needs.

---

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:

• A strong, stable, and cohesive senior leadership team guided North Wales PDU. They had clearly defined roles and responsibilities, were supportive of each other, constructive in professional challenge, and focused on solving problems as they arose. Leaders maintained and promoted a clear strategic vision. They understood and responded to the needs of their staff group and the challenges they faced.
• The Head of Service was, without exception, held in high regard by staff, partners, and people on probation. He was an influential and respected leader who had a positive influence, including on directing the way agencies worked together. This was especially evident in relation to engaging staff, driving learning, and promoting development within probation and externally with other agencies involved in criminal justice.
• Effective management structures enabled the leadership team to manage most of the work delivered by the PDU robustly. Senior leaders had worked effectively with SPOs and the human resource business partner (HRBP) to reduce staff sickness absence significantly. Senior leaders dedicated a full day every month to their middle managers so that they could pass on important operational messages and listen to their experiences about the implementation of policies operationally.
• A leadership approach informed by the principles of ‘human factors’ was well established. Leaders and practitioners used a structured daily team checklist, which supported active problem-solving and timely responses to critical operational matters. SPOs were able to engage in dedicated learning time, which was helping them to support staff to overcome challenges, promote psychological safety, and improve communication. Staff wholeheartedly subscribed to the human factors approach because it helped them feel listened to, supported their wellbeing, and made them feel valued. Adopting a human factors approach enabled the PDU to address and reduce the daily stressors facing staff, provided space to ensure tasks were allocated appropriately, and allowed monitoring of any ongoing issues or concerns. This had a positive impact on the PDU, improving the quality of practice overall by reducing the frequency of errors.
• Leaders had successfully created a single identity across the PDU, which was a significant achievement considering its large area of rural and urban communities. They had created a collective identity across offices in the PDU, which enabled them to overcome challenges, including the deployment of practitioners from Wrexham and Flintshire to HMP Berwyn to support increasing numbers of people being released after fixed term recall (FTR). 
• The PDU had acted on the findings from internal quality assurance and had a clear improvement plan in place. Leaders had consistently focused their communication on the importance of managing risk posed by people on probation, and almost all staff had a clear understanding of their priorities. Dedicated quality development officers (QDOs) also supported improvement activity within the PDU. Although there was still much to do, improvements in the quality of public protection work had been achieved.
• The head of PDU personally took an active and meaningful interest in the views of people on probation. He chaired a monthly engaging people on probation (EPoP) forum which involved representatives from all offices across the PDU. In response to feedback from people on probation, PDU staff had produced easy-read leaflets to help people who had been sentenced understand what they were required to do.

Areas for improvement:

• Leaders needed to do more to improve the quality of information-sharing arrangements with social services and the police so that practitioners could accurately understand the risk posed by men on probation towards women and children. Plans to enable probation practitioners to access police systems had not yet been finalised. While progress had been made in Denbighshire on improving access to information held by children’s services, more needed to be done in the other five local authorities across North Wales. 
• Middle and senior leaders did not always ensure that practitioners fully assessed risks to all victims in all assessments. Practitioners were not always professionally curious, which affected the quality of work to identify and protect all victims.
• Some staff raised concerns about feeling unsafe, related to the quality of some buildings in the PDU. Insufficient interview space in Flint meant people on probation sometimes waited long periods to be seen, and the risk of violence and aggression was increased as a result. In the Caernarfon office, the room for seeing people who posed a risk to staff did not have a screen or divider. Leaders had raised those issues with the HMPPS estates team, but they had not yet been resolved
• The PDU leadership had chosen not to second practitioners to local youth justice services (YJS), due to longstanding staffing constraints at PO grade. Although youth justice leaders acknowledged that there was constructive liaison and collaboration for transition cases when young people turned 18 and moved into adult services, but this did mean that probation staff were not actively involved in the management of children in the criminal justice system.

---

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

Strengths:

• The staffing position in North Wales was improving, including at grades that had vacancies. The PDU had 108 per cent of staff in post across all grades at the time of our inspection, and was almost fully staffed at SPO and PO grades. It had no vacancies at probation service officer (PSO) grade and only a small number of case administrator posts were unoccupied. This position enabled staff across all offices in the PDU to hold manageable workloads. 
• The PDU anticipated that trainee probation officer recruitment and practitioners returning from outside the PDU would ensure it sustained a full complement of staff. Eight trainee probation officers were expected to qualify in December 2025, and one PO was scheduled to return in September 2025.
• The PDU caseload allocation process and brief daily checklist meetings enabled managers to manage caseloads actively and be responsive in periods of acute pressure on practitioners. These practices also meant that practitioners were able to update and respond to tasks to which they had been assigned. Nearly all the respondents to our staff survey indicated that they were allocated cases for which they had the appropriate skills and knowledge.
• North Wales PDU had undertaken outreach work to encourage applications from diverse sections of the community. This had resulted in an increase in staff identifying as Black, Asian or minority ethnic and had exceeded caseload representations of this demographic. The PDU’s collaboration with S4C to produce ‘Ar Brawf’ (‘On Probation’) had also actively promoted the work of probation throughout predominantly Welsh-speaking local communities.
• Leaders supported staff to progress professionally across all grades. The PDU had supported the internal career progression of four POs to SPO and one senior administrative officer to business manager. Additionally, the PDU reported several staff progressing to specialist regional roles. A significant majority of staff respondents to our survey reported that the PDU promoted a culture of continuous learning and development.
• Learning and development opportunities were available for all grades of staff through various mechanisms, such as protected learning time, group forums, and one-to-one support. PDU leaders encouraged staff to engage with reflective sessions provided by Datrys (Resolve) and worked collaboratively with police colleagues on peer-to-peer learning. Leaders had also commissioned additional bespoke training for reception staff to support their key role as the first point of contact in managing difficult conversations and de-escalation with people on probation. As a result, reception staff had more confidence in engaging with people on probation. Leaders also offered extensive shadowing opportunities so that staff could develop and understand more about the various roles within the PDU.
• Following a successful pilot, the probation operational delivery model was well used. It incorporated small clusters comprising an administrator, PSOs, and POs. This had created an effective structure which promoted collaboration between practitioners and administrative staff, ensuring consistent information flow and shared ownership of activity.
• Leaders had worked effectively to enable practitioners to focus their time on priority cases. They had implemented the ‘final third management’ team, who managed all the Probation Reset cases in response to the programme’s policy changes. The PDU actively promoted the swift start to interventions in accordance with the ‘Start Right, End Right’ initiative. This was supported by evidence in our case inspection data in which 64 per cent of inspected cases delivered services most likely to reduce reoffending and support desistance, with sufficient attention given to sequencing and the available timescales. 
• The PDU had designated quality development officer (QDO) support, conducting internal audits, dip sampling, and delivering monthly themed sessions and team-based workshops to address needs from a local and regional perspective. QDO sessions were also available for staff and provided an additional reflective space for practitioners to discuss cases. The QDO support had led to improvements in the quality of work to keep people safe.

Areas for improvement:

• In the cases we inspected, management oversight was not always clearly recorded, apart from at allocation and in the countersigning of risk assessments. Practitioners selected cases to discuss reflectively with their line managers, but that meant that omissions in safeguarding practice and public protection were not always identified. Additionally, discussions between line managers and practitioners about risk outside of supervision were not always recorded. 
• Leaders, middle managers, and some partners acknowledged that some practitioners lacked confidence and knowledge because they were inexperienced. This was accounting for some of the gaps in keeping people safe, especially in managing the risks of people on probation and consistently following up new information which highlighted concern. The learning needs of staff within the PDU needed to be fully understood to identify gaps in knowledge to support the upskilling of staff, and to direct learning resource effectively.
• The use of volunteers and peer mentors within North Wales PDU was limited but leaders had credible plans to integrate people on probation into the way in which it delivered its business. 

---

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.	Good

Strengths:

• Multi Agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA) were functioning well at Levels 2 and 3. The PDU had introduced a MAPPA Level 1 action plan including guidance, following recommendations from the HM Inspectorate of Probation-led joint thematic inspection. Partnership working between the PDU and police MOSOVO (Management of Sexual Offenders and Violent Offenders) colleagues was collaborative and effective.
• Leaders had used diversity data to support better outcomes for people on probation. SPOs considered diversity when they allocated cases to practitioners, which mostly ensured the service was receptive to individual needs. This was evident in the North Wales PDU rurality plan, offers of supervision in Welsh or English language, and the delivery of women-only reporting centres across most of the PDU. In 94 per cent of inspected cases, sufficient focus was given to maintaining an effective working relationship with the person on probation, taking into account their diversity needs.
• Most sentencers were satisfied with the service delivered by the PDU. Sentencers enjoyed strong relationships with the Head of Service and court team SPO through a well-established sentencer liaison forum. Regular meetings were arranged throughout the year to provide opportunities to share changes in probation policy, seek feedback, and enable swift resolution of any concerns. 
• Leaders understood that most people on probation in North Wales had a disability related to mental health and had commissioned services to support them. Mental health clinics were available in all offices. The PDU had commissioned a service for people who had experienced traumatic brain injury. The PDU also had access to commissioned rehabilitative services (CRS) addressing neurodiversity, provided by Third Sector Consortium (3CS), which offered one-to-one coaching sessions and was supporting effective engagement with people on probation.
• Most women on probation received sufficient support to stop offending. They were able to report to places without men present, and access holistic, trauma-informed, and gender-responsive support. Women being released from HMP Styal were given support before release to support smooth transition from custody back into the community.
• Integrated offender management (IOM) was delivered effectively. Police and probation staff worked together in the same offices, which enabled them to collaborate effectively and share information swiftly. Other agencies such as women’s services and substance misuse providers were also co-located, which promoted joint working on solving problems for people on probation. 
• Most staff had positive relationships with the regional centralised operational, resettlement, referral, and evaluation (CORRE) team. Staff recognised that CORRE supported them to review the identified risk and needs of people on probation, to assist in identifying suitable interventions and completing referrals. The work of CORRE also supported the ‘Start Right, End Right’ agenda. Collaborative discussions between CORRE and new PSOs and staff taking the Professional Qualification in Probation (PQiPs) were particularly valued, helping staff to understand what was available locally. This translated into our casework where most requirements (71 per cent) of the sentence started promptly or at an appropriate time. CRS providers felt that CORRE supported in bringing consistency and quality referrals.
• Practitioners delivered structured interventions, including toolkit sessions, consistently. CORRE usage data in April and May 2025 were the highest in the region by a significant margin. This was consistent with findings in our case inspection rationales. 

Areas for improvement:

• Less than half of people on probation who started an intervention with CRS accommodation, personal wellbeing, and women’s services had completed the intervention, either because they had changed their mind about engaging or because of changes in circumstances. Practitioners were not always sequencing the provision of interventions, which led to people on probation being enrolled on services when they were not always ready to do so.  
• Not enough people with substance misuse problems were accessing treatment in the cases we inspected, partly because substance misuse services had been impacted by a change in commissioned provider in March 2025. The PDU leadership acknowledged that this had required ongoing monitoring and reviewing of the referral process and assurance measures, and had affected referral and completion data. 
• Demand for mental health treatment requirements far exceeded supply, which was leading to delays in services commencing for people on probation. At the point of inspection fieldwork, a significant number of people were waiting for commencement, and so were not accessing the help they needed.

---

Diversity and inclusion (Back to top)

Strengths:

• Leaders proudly promoted and celebrated the use of Welsh language in all the PDU’s business, to the extent that it was the natural way of communicating between staff and with people on probation. All teams had bilingual practitioners. Leaders understood where numbers of Welsh-speaking people on probation were based, and were promoting Welsh language learning through the Welsh Language Scheme.   
• The PDU utilised relevant data to understand the profile and needs of staff and people on probation in North Wales.
• The PDU evidenced a strong commitment to inclusivity, and leaders were widely recognised as authentic and important strategic partners driving improvements for communities in North Wales. Almost all respondents to our staff survey who required reasonable adjustments were receiving them. Middle managers also demonstrated knowledge and a commitment to understanding what staff needed for them to be at work safely and inclusively. 
• In 51 out of 69 relevant inspected cases, practitioners were building on the strengths of the person on probation and enhancing protective factors. Practitioners were often responsive to past trauma, neurodiversity, and other personal characteristics.
• North Wales region maintained a strong sense of Welsh identity and had more Welsh-language speakers (including Welsh as first language) than other areas of Wales. North Wales PDU had a bilingual team and delivered core probation services at any point of sentence through the Welsh or English language – this not only met statutory duties but ensured the Welsh language was proactively provided, promoted, and celebrated.
• The PDU had a long-standing partnership with The Nelson Trust, who delivered holistic trauma-informed, gender responsive support at a local women’s hub. This included access to safe spaces, emotional health and wellbeing sessions, and a sexual health clinic. The Nelson Trust also provided the One Women’s Centre in HMP Styal, where they proactively identified women returning to North Wales, ensuring there was a package promptly in place to support smooth transition from custody to community.

Areas for improvement:

• Although mental health treatment requirements had been implemented in North Wales PDU, the overwhelming positive response had quickly exceeded capacity, leading to delays in service commencement and necessitating a trial hold period on new referrals to minimise waiting lists. At the point of inspection fieldwork, a significant number of people were waiting for commencement, which meant they were not accessing the help they needed.
• CRS personal wellbeing services were available consistently throughout North Wales PDU, but people on probation in remote rural locations were offered telephone rather than face-to-face appointments. Given that over two-thirds of people on the PDU caseload with a disability had a mental health condition, this required further action.

---

2. Service delivery (Back to top)

P 2.1. Assessment	Rating
Assessment is well-informed, analytical, and personalised, involving actively the person on probation.	Requires improvement

---

Our rating¹ 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?	73%
Does assessment focus sufficiently on keeping other people safe?	53%

• Engagement with people on probation at assessment stage was almost always done well by practitioners – 82 per cent of relevant assessments demonstrated sufficient focus on engaging the individual, and in the majority of cases, the personal circumstances of the individual and the impact of these were considered appropriately. 
• Eighty per cent of inspected cases analysed the protected characteristics of the person on probation and considered the impact of these on compliance and engagement. The person on probation was meaningfully involved in their assessment in over three-quarters of all inspected cases.
• Practitioners routinely identified and analysed key factors related to an individual’s offending. Over three-quarters of inspected cases identified and analysed important factors appropriately. This was another strong area of work, where 75 per cent of the cases we inspected had identified and analysed the strengths and protective factors of the person on probation. Probation practitioners in North Wales PDU were able to recognise the underlying factors driving criminogenic needs, as well as setting out what was necessary to support the individual’s desistance.
• Assessments were only sufficiently focused on keeping other people safe in just over half of the cases we inspected. Obtaining good quality and timely safeguarding information was a common problem. As a result, in 29 out of 61 relevant cases, practitioners did not use information sufficiently to assess risk. This meant that not all assessments identified and analysed all safeguarding risks to children.
• Improvements were required to ensure that assessments drew appropriately and sufficiently from all available sources. Practitioners needed to be more professionally curious about the past behaviour of people on probation and analyse it along with information from other agencies. This was judged to have been completed sufficiently in 44 out of 77 cases.

---

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

Our rating² 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?	83%
Does planning focus sufficiently on reducing reoffending and supporting desistance?	79%
Does planning focus sufficiently on keeping other people safe?	52%

• Engagement with people on probation during planning stages was especially strong and reflected practitioner skill in building effective relationships. Planning in 81 per cent of the cases we inspected clearly set out a level, pattern, and type of contact to engage the individual and support the effectiveness of interventions. Practitioners took account of protected characteristics and the personal circumstances of the individual that could affect their engagement and compliance. This included scheduling probation appointments to support neurodiversity, employment, and childcare responsibilities. 
• In over three-quarters of inspected cases, sentence planning to reduce reoffending and support desistance was sufficient. Practitioners engaged often in collaborative discussions with the CORRE team. This enabled them to identify and plan suitable interventions to address the most critical factors linked to the individual’s offending behaviour in 83 per cent of inspected cases. Additionally, in almost three-quarters of relevant cases, plans built on the individual’s strengths and protective factors, reflecting a positive approach to understanding individual needs and demonstrating a strong focus on rehabilitation.
• There were established processes to access safeguarding and domestic abuse information. However, the depth of detail provided was varied, processes were not consistent across all six local authorities, and this impacted on the effectiveness of inter-agency collaboration. As a result, 28 out of 68 relevant cases did not include appropriate links to other agencies involved, limiting the ability to fully understand and coordinate multi-agency responses.
• There was a notable disparity in the focus on reducing reoffending and supporting desistance between different case types. In community cases, 86 per cent demonstrated a clear focus on desistance from crime, compared to only 62 per cent of resettlement cases. This indicated a need to strengthen the consistency of desistance-focused practice across all case types.

---

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

Our rating³ 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?	88%
Does the implementation and delivery of services effectively support desistance?	62%
Does the implementation and delivery of services effectively support the safety of other people?	55%

• Practitioners almost always engaged well with people on probation within North Wales PDU. The majority of sentence requirements started promptly, with practitioners placing strong emphasis on building and maintaining effective working relationships. Diversity needs were considered appropriately in 94 per cent of inspected cases. Practitioners demonstrated high levels of commitment, supporting individuals in completing their sentences. In 97 per cent of cases, they showed appropriate flexibility and responsivity to personal circumstances.
• Practitioners used positive working relationships constructively to address non-compliance. In almost all relevant cases, non-compliance was managed promptly, reducing the need for formal enforcement action. Where enforcement was necessary, sufficient action was taken in 34 out of 41 relevant cases. Furthermore, in 29 out of 35 relevant cases, practitioners took effective steps to re-engage individuals following enforcement, enabling them to continue and complete their sentence. This strong focus on engagement was also evident in cases subject to Probation Reset. In seven out of eight relevant cases, sufficient services were identified to provide appropriate support beyond the period of supervised contact.
• Positive activity to support desistance from crime was taking place, with 52 out of 62 relevant cases offered commissioned rehabilitative services. The nature and level of contact was sufficient to reduce reoffending and support desistance in 71 per cent of cases. Again, practitioners demonstrated an awareness beyond the sentence supervision period, with local services engaged to support and sustain desistance in 40 out of 63 relevant cases. Inspectors reported consistent use of structured interventions with toolkits delivered by practitioners. CORRE usage data in April and May 2025 were the highest in the region by a significant margin. Consistency for people on probation was maintained with 91 per cent of cases allocated to no more than two practitioners for the duration of their order. 
• Practitioners did not make contact with important individuals in the lives of people on probation often enough. Less than half of relevant cases demonstrated sufficient engagement with those who played a significant role in the individual’s life, such as family members or other support networks.
• Only 10 out of 22 relevant medium-risk and 12 out of 20 high- or very high-risk cases involved effective multi-agency working for safeguarding children.⁴ Leaders had an action plan and used a QDO to help practitioners work more effectively with other agencies. Internal audit data indicated that there had been some improvements, but considerably more were still necessary. We saw some effective information sharing for high- and very high-risk cases, typically allocated to experienced practitioners. During our D2 inspection fieldwork, leaders, middle managers, and some partners reflected on the confidence and knowledge of less experienced practitioners, which might have contributed to gaps in safeguarding practice. This was particularly the case in managing the risks associated with the sentence rather than the individual, and in the inconsistent follow-up of new safeguarding concerns.
• This lack of experience also affected the allocation of cases, with more complex cases often assigned to experienced staff, placing additional pressure on them and requiring increased managerial oversight. The learning and development needs of staff within the PDU needed to be clearly understood. Identifying knowledge gaps was essential to support staff upskilling and ensure that learning resources were effectively targeted.

---

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

Our rating⁵ 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?	85%
Does reviewing focus sufficiently on supporting desistance?	76%
Does reviewing focus sufficiently on keeping other people safe?	51%

• Typically, reviewing activity in the PDU was responsive to changes in engagement and compliance. People on probation were meaningfully involved in reviewing their progress and engagement, with written reviews completed in 50 out of 61 relevant inspected cases. This was particularly evident in the high- and very high-risk inspected cases, where 25 out of 29 relevant cases were found to have identified and addressed changes in factors linked to offending behaviour, with the necessary adjustments made to the ongoing plan of work. However, this was significantly different to the medium risk inspected cases, where 22 out of 32 relevant cases were found to have identified and addressed those same factors.
• The PDU ran a pilot diversity surgery for practitioners to increase their knowledge and insight in addressing diversity issues in an evidence-based way via case formulation advice. This pilot had supported practitioners in dealing with complex diversity issues and aligning their own understanding with good-quality case formulation advice. This was a direct collaboration between the PDU and the Wales diversity team. Our case inspection activity evidenced that staff in the PDU largely understood the needs of the people on probation they supervised, and this information was used to inform plans and interventions to address these needs throughout the sentence. Reviewing activity focused sufficiently on building the strengths and enhancing the protective factors of the person on probation in 59 out of 71 relevant inspected cases.
• As with all other stages of casework, reviewing activity to support the safety of other people required improvements. Just under half of relevant cases identified and addressed changes in factors linked to risk of harm. Additional ongoing liaison and collaboration with other agencies was required, as only 37 out of 69 relevant inspected cases demonstrated reviewing activity that was informed by other agencies involved in managing the risk of harm. More meaningful engagement of the individual and key people in their life was needed in reviewing risk of harm, as this had only occurred in 33 out of 63 relevant cases we inspected. Arguably, these findings indicated that reviewing activity was not used to manage risk consistently, and further improvements were required to increase both multi-agency coordination and to engage people on probation meaningfully in reviewing their risk of harm in order to keep people safe. 

---

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 Joy Wilson, 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 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. ↩︎
2. The rating for the standard is driven by the score for the key question, which is placed in a rating band. Full data and further information about inspection methodology is available in the data annexe. ↩︎
3. The rating for the standard is driven by the score for the key question, which is placed in a rating band. Full data and further information about inspection methodology is available in the data annexe. ↩︎
4. The findings relating to medium- and (very) high-risk of serious harm (RoSH) cases have not been subject to a relative rate index analysis, a test used to compare rates of incidence; we report on our findings with that caveat. ↩︎
5. The rating for the standard is driven by the lowest score on each of the key questions, which is placed in a rating band, indicated in bold in the table. ↩︎