An inspection of probation services in Redcar, Cleveland and Middlesbrough PDU

Foreword (Back to top)

The Redcar, Cleveland and Middlesbrough Probation Delivery Unit (PDU) demonstrated a number of strengths, particularly a commitment to understanding how best to engage and work with the multiple disadvantages experienced by people on probation in the local area. The PDU demonstrated partnership strengths through several multi-agency arrangements and work with strategic partners in court, prisons, and the police to target the cohorts of people requiring higher levels of intervention. However, strategic partnerships had not yet had sufficient impact on more efficient information-sharing arrangements to support staff delivering frontline services. This was reflected in our inspection of casework, which was disappointing.

Overall, the rating for this PDU was ‘Requires improvement’.

We were impressed by the unwavering positivity and commitment by staff across all grades. They were supervising a caseload of people who often had long-term multiple complex needs, and their outlook was commendable. This resilience was driven by the head of service who was visible, transparent, and passionate. However, the PDU was not fully resourced at all levels and staff were feeling the pressure, with limited capacity to share the load.

Despite some progress against recommendations from our last inspection in 2022, we still found some under-investment in training and support for probation service officers. We saw no difference in their levels of commitment, passion, and capabilities, but they had inequitable access to training to support their work to manage risk. Whilst we saw far more cases where practitioners were accessing information from partner agencies during this inspection, they were not always identifying potential victims and assessing the risks posed to them. The PDU should prioritise high-level conversations with partners to agree on the routes to accessing information and what is required, seeking support from the region to do so.

It was encouraging to find that, following our recent joint targeted area inspection on younger children exposed to domestic abuse, action had already been taken to strengthen relationships with the South Tees Safeguarding Children Partnership. Shortcomings found in operational work were reflected in the cases we inspected of women on probation, specifically the risk they posed to children. It was of course early days in these efforts, and had been not enough time to see a positive impact on children and victims of domestic abuse during our inspection fieldwork.

The PDU leadership understand what is needed on strategic partnerships, protecting vulnerable victims, training for staff, and the needs of the people they supervise. Efforts have been made to support staff and recognise their commitment and value they bring. Overall, Redcar, Cleveland, and Middlesbrough PDU is capable of addressing many of the issues identified during this inspection, and we wish it well in doing so.

Martin Jones CBE 

HM Chief Inspector of Probation

---

Ratings (Back to top)

Fieldwork started June 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.

Redcar, Cleveland and Middlesbrough PDU should:

1. make arrangements with police and social care to enable swift and unhindered access to intelligence about domestic abuse perpetrated by people on probation
2. ensure a targeted approach to upskilling and training probation services officers (PSOs) is in place to enable them to deliver effective case management of people on probation
3. carry out an analysis of people on probation and develop a strategy for addressing their complex and diverse needs.

---

Background (Back to top)

We conducted fieldwork in Redcar, Cleveland and Middlesbrough over the period of two weeks, beginning 23 June 2025. We inspected 28 community orders and 16 releases on licence from custody where sentences and licences had commenced during two separate weeks, between 28 October and 03 November 2024 and 16 December and 22 December 2024. We also conducted 37 interviews with probation practitioners.

Redcar, Cleveland and Middlesbrough is one of seven PDUs in the North East region. The PDU delivers probation work across three main probation offices, with two in Middlesbrough and another in South Bank. In addition to this, there are five community hubs across the area, allowing people on probation to report into a multi-agency environment. A caseload of 870 people on probation were subject to community sentences and 480 people were being supervised on licence from prison. In total, 514 individuals were being managed in custody before release.

The regional court team provide pre-sentence reports for both Teesside Magistrates’ and Crown Courts in Middlesbrough. Reports relating to the intensive supervision court(ISC) pilot were written by specialist staff in the PDU. There are no prisons within the PDU area and two approved premises. It falls under the area covered by Cleveland Police.

The PDU is in the southernmost point of the region, and covers the towns of Middlesbrough and Redcar, plus surrounding rural and coastal areas. At the time the inspection was announced, the population of Middlesbrough was 152,650, and 137,938 across Redcar and Cleveland. The proven reoffending rate in Middlesbrough was the highest in the region at 39.6 per cent, with Redcar and Cleveland at 31.2 per cent. The PDU comes under the governance of two local authorities, Middlesbrough Council, and Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council.

The head of the PDU had been in post for around nine months prior to the inspection and oversaw all key areas of strategy and operational delivery. The deputy head of PDU focused on specific initiatives, such as electronic monitoring and the ISC. Staffing was relatively stable, with probation service officer (PSO) and senior probation officer (SPO) posts being close to fully filled. However, only 77 per cent of probation officers were in post and reception was operating with half the target staffing.

Commissioned rehabilitative services (CRS) were provided by Changing Lives for women on probation, the Thirteen group for accommodation, and St Giles wise for personal wellbeing. Services to support those with drug and alcohol needs were provided by Middlesbrough ACT (Accessing Change Together) and We are With You in the Redcar and Cleveland area. The PDU had also developed arrangements with Ingeus to deliver education, training, and employment services through the local Creating Future Opportunities (CFO3) hub. For the PDU’s progress against previous recommendations, see the end of this report.

---

1. Organisational arrangements and activity (Back to top)

P 1.1. Leadership	Rating
The leadership of the PDU enables delivery of a high quality, personalised, and responsive service for all people on probation.	Good

Strengths:

• The PDU had a clear vision which staff across all grades completely accepted. There was a strong culture of support, with a focus on engagement of staff and people on probation. That was reflected in the way in which practitioners were working with people on probation.
• The head of PDU was relatively new in post but had implemented several important changes to service delivery. These had included moving the management of unpaid work requirements to a dedicated team, which had improved their commencement and completion and provided some workload relief to practitioners.
• Proposed changes to service delivery were grounded in consultation with local and regional staff, as well as people on probation. Monthly PDU management meetings were enabling a clear flow of information from a national and regional perspective into the PDU.
• Work with strategic partners, including the local Police and Crime Commissioner’s office, had commenced to understand the complex nature of cases managed by the PDU. Leaders understood the multiple disadvantages faced by people on probation in the area and the associated challenges for services. They had the insight and ability to improve service delivery in principle and, given the opportunity, would do so.
• There was a widespread and unwavering commitment from staff across all grades to integrity, supporting each other and people on probation. This had resulted in multiple specialist roles to meet complex needs. The PDU had aligned the correct people to the correct roles, and there was some encouraging work to address the interconnected complex needs of people on probation.
• Middle managers had oversight of cases at allocation and during supervision with practitioners. Practitioners largely felt managers had sufficient knowledge of the caseload to support day-to-day operations. Overall, access to reflective discussion was having a positive impact on staff morale and resilience.
• The head of PDU was universally well regarded by staff, and considered to be visible and approachable. In the short time since she had been appointed, she had focused on understanding the staff group and reviewing important areas of service delivery, such as drug rehabilitation requirements. This had created a foundation for addressing weaker areas of operations, and was driving confidence and resilience amongst staff in the PDU.
• Some work to understand the views and experiences of people on probation had been carried out. Senior leaders had commissioned research to gather an overview of a person on probation’s journey through their sentence, alongside further research to understand the demographic profile of the local community. These initiatives were supported by both the region and head of PDU to give people on probation a voice and include them in strategic and operational change. Practitioners were making pragmatic decisions about risk management to involve people on probation meaningfully in engagement events. Feedback from people on probation was largely positive, which aligned with work to engage them meaningfully.

Areas for improvement:

• The PDU’s strategy was not sufficiently risk-focused, and this was reflected in the casework we reviewed. The plan for training and staff development was not grounded enough in public protection. Actual work carried out by practitioners to keep other people safe and reduce risks for victims through bespoke risk assessment, plans, and management was consistently problematic.
• Since the current head of PDU had been appointed, strategic partnerships with police and children’s social care had been rejuvenated, but there had not yet been conversations to improve access to good quality information. Leaders had not fully recognised or acted on the potential risk to service delivery because children and vulnerable victims were not being sufficiently safeguarded.
• Senior leaders had access to regular needs analyses by the equality, diversity, and inclusion team, but more needed to be done to improve this area of practice. Practitioners were not always analysing potential inequity relating to protected characteristics or diverse backgrounds. In our inspection of casework, practitioners did not always consider how the profile of the local community might affect engagement by people on probation and what tailored approaches would help that.
• Two-thirds of cases we inspected did not have effective management oversight. This included the absence of oversight on high-risk and complex cases, and risk assessments being countersigned when there were clear errors and omissions.

---

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:

• Staff had access to regular development days which incorporated lived experience from people who had previous involvement in the criminal justice system. They were co-facilitated by practitioners, which helped to ensure the events were inclusive and peer-led. Wider training was also available, particularly for staff in specialist roles. This included training on dealing with cases of stalking, domestic abuse, and brain injury in women, and trauma-informed approaches to sentence management.
• Several staff had access to career development opportunities and promotion. Several PSOs had recently been appointed to train as probation officers (POs) on the Professional Qualification in Probation (PQiP) programme. Four probation officers had also been promoted to become senior probation officers (SPOs).
• Retention of probation officers was high and very few were leaving HM Prison and Probation Service. Most staff reported feeling valued and supported, which reflected the positive working culture and low attrition at PO grade.
• Newly qualified POs and those in training were well supported by the PDU. Practitioners had access to case consultations with two separate managers and a practice tutor assessor (PTA). PTAs held monthly support sessions for newly qualified officers to build on their training and consolidate it with their current caseload and experiences. These sessions included focus on work with life-sentenced prisoners, parole hearings, and serious organised crime, which was helping to prepare inexperienced practitioners for the demands of their role.
• Innovation was a characteristic of this PDU. Staff were encouraged to offer suggestions and were supported to develop them where appropriate. As an example, a PSO with experience of substance misuse work was collaborating with senior leaders and third sector organisations to increase the intensity and content of drug rehabilitation requirements.  

Areas for improvement:

• There was a lack of training and support for PSOs outside of staff development days. This was reflected in the quality of work by PSOs in the cases we inspected. PSO work to assess, plan, and manage risk of harm to others was much less frequently sufficient that that carried out by their PO colleagues. PSOs were mostly highly committed and motivated, but their potential was not being fully harnessed.
• Not all staff viewed their workload as manageable. The degree of complexity in the caseload was leading to unpredictable fluctuations in workload for some staff. Reception desks were frequently understaffed across all offices in the PDU, leaving one person to greet people arriving for appointments, inform practitioners, and deal with phone calls, messages, travel warrants, and paperwork.
• Probation officer posts were only 77 per cent filled, which meant they were working with high caseloads. The PDU had taken on 13 trainees in the last year, which was bolstering numbers but not to the extent that it covered the gap in qualified POs working with higher risk people on probation. Understaffing was felt more keenly by some practitioners due to some long-term sickness absences, sometimes requiring them to cover cases. Unsurprisingly, the majority of staff who responded to our survey described staffing as insufficient.

---

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

• Senior leaders had a strong understanding of the needs of the local community. Cases managed by the PDU were characterised by high complexity, multiple disadvantage, and intergenerational substance misuse. The local area also had some of the highest rates in the country for shop thefts, sexual offending, and violent crime. In response to this, there were several multi-agency initiatives, working with specific cohorts. These included high-risk domestic abuse cases, high-risk registered sex offenders, integrated offender management, intensive supervision court cases, high-risk cases with electronic monitoring, women on probation, and those subject to drug treatment requirements and the offender personality disorder (OPD) pathway. There were also commissioned arrangements with the Cleveland Police and Crime Commissioner to operate a deferred prosecution scheme for individuals convicted of acquisitive and antisocial crime who had a significant gap in offending.
• The PDU was taking part in a pilot to implement an intensive supervision court (ISC), aimed at providing a robust and rehabilitative alternative to short custodial sentences. Regular reviews and accountability were provided by two consistent Crown court judges who had driven the initiative from the start. There were also dedicated police officers, analysts, drug treatment and mental health providers, and electronic monitoring staff to support the multiple appointments and requirements. The scheme aligned strongly with the needs of people on probation in this area, and the positive outcomes were seen in focus groups and in our casework inspections.
• Work to engage women on probation and build on strengths and protective factors was working successfully and was evident in case inspections. There was a commitment to working with women differently from men and that was evident across all grades, from senior leaders to administrators.
• Eight reporting centres were open across the PDU, including some multi-agency community hubs for low and medium-risk people on probation. Women were also able to access probation offices and unpaid work without men being present, and specific arrangements had been made for their release from prison to ensure continuity and engagement with the PDU.

Areas for improvement:

• Work by practitioners working with women on probation to safeguard children and vulnerable victims was of a poorer quality than equivalent work with men. Practitioners did not always consider the risks posed by women on probation to their children because of their lifestyle and relationships.
• Less than half the cases we inspected were sufficient in supporting people to desist from offending. Many people on probation did not fit into priority cohorts, but had notably entrenched and complex needs, often going back to childhood. Commissioned rehabilitative services did not always respond appropriately to people on probation who were leading chaotic lives. Our casework inspections found that these cases had multiple unmet needs.

---

Diversity and inclusion (Back to top)

Strengths:

• Almost all staff who required reasonable adjustments were receiving them. Middle managers also demonstrated knowledge and a commitment to understanding what staff needed to work safely and inclusively.
• Aside from gender, the workforce was reflective of the local community. Practitioners had a clear understanding of the multiple disadvantages people on probation were experiencing.
• Practitioners were delivering constructive work to engage women on probation in their sentences. Women reporting to all offices were able to do so without men present, and there were unpaid work placements run for women only. Strong strategic arrangements with HMP Low Newton meant there was a focus on preparing women for release from custody and making the transition as smooth as possible.

Areas for improvement:

• Despite strong work to engage women, the approach to understand and manage the risk they posed was of poorer quality than that taken to men on probation. Case inspections showed there was often a lack of attention to assessing the risk posed to the children of women on probation, and the risk to others associated with their complexities. Examples included risk to children through exposure to domestic abuse, substance misuse, and verification of safe contact with children not in their care.

---

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[1] 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?	70%
Does assessment focus sufficiently on the factors linked to offending and desistance?	68%
Does assessment focus sufficiently on keeping other people safe?	30%

• In most cases, practitioners engaged sufficiently with the person on probation while forming their assessments. Consideration of personal circumstances was a feature in over two-thirds of cases we looked at. We saw examples of practitioners offering travel warrants to people living in rural areas, enabling them to attend their appointments. Multi-agency hubs also maximised opportunities to link people on probation with partner agencies. 
• Only half of cases we inspected involved the appropriate consideration of diversity, protected characteristics, and identity on a person’s likelihood of complying and engaging with their sentence. This was disappointing considering the complexity of the caseload, where intersecting disadvantages were likely to have made sustained engagement challenging. 
• Barriers to accessing good quality information from children’s services to assess risk to children was a weakness in the PDU. Fifty per cent of cases requesting information received a sufficient response. Other responses lacked appropriate detail to support practitioners to make an accurate assessment. This had a knock-on effect on the overall assessment of risk to the public, with under a third of cases meeting the required standard. 
• Obtaining quality police information to analyse risks for domestic abuse was a more positive picture, with more than two-thirds of cases we looked at having obtained sufficient information from the police. Over half of assessments where information was obtained contained analysis of this information; more could be done to push this into a reasonable majority of cases.
• Assessments of the factors linked to people on probation desisting from crime were stronger than risk assessment work overall. Over two-thirds of cases we inspected demonstrated that staff understood the person they were supervising and had identified the right factors related to offending.
  

---

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

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

Key question	Percentage ‘Yes’
Does planning focus sufficiently on engaging the person on probation?	61%
Does planning focus sufficiently on reducing reoffending and supporting desistance?	73%
Does planning focus sufficiently on keeping other people safe?	50%

• Engagement of people on probation during planning was a strength. Over half the cases we looked at involved the person on probation in planning the work and activity to be completed during their sentence. Most cases planned a frequency of reporting of the most appropriate type, such as face-to-face office visits, group sessions or phone calls. This enabled individuals to complete the requirements of their sentence.
• Planning to reduce reoffending and support desistance from crime was particularly strong, with three-quarters of cases setting out the most appropriate interventions and work with agencies to reduce reoffending. Nearly two-thirds of cases incorporated plans to build on the strengths and support which the person on probation already possessed. This reflected the PDU focus on relational practice.
• Practitioners did not consider the protected characteristics and diverse needs of people on probation sufficiently when planning how the sentence would be completed. This was also an oversight at assessment stage. The PDU could focus more on this at the earliest stage to ensure it was a fundamental part of planning to work with the individual.
• Two-thirds of cases we inspected set out the restrictive controls that were proportionate and available to manage risks posed by the person on probation. Examples included curfews, restrictive orders, and exclusion zones.
• Fifty per cent of cases did not plan for all relevant risk factors and prioritise those which were most crucial. This was linked to practitioners not always being able to access sufficient information at assessment stage to allow them to identify all potential victims and risk factors.       

---

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[3] 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?	68%
Does the implementation and delivery of services effectively support desistance?	45%
Does the implementation and delivery of services effectively support the safety of other people?	32%

• People on probation did not receive enough help to stop offending in over half the cases we looked at. Almost two-thirds of relevant cases did not receive sufficient work to address their needs in the areas of family and relationships. Over half of cases we inspected did not receive sufficient work to address drug misuse or attitudes, thinking, and behaviour. Furthermore, services were not engaged to support people to achieve long-term stability and remain out of the criminal justice system after their sentence had ended. Practitioners made many referrals to commissioned rehabilitative services, but the services delivered were not always at the level of continued engagement needed for people on probation who lived chaotic lives and needed long-term help for stability. 
• Some foundational aspects of public protection work took place. Around three-quarters of cases we looked at had had a home visit, and most people on probation were seen at a frequency that was suited to their risks and needs. However, around half of cases did not involve sufficient information sharing with police and social care to safeguard children and victims of domestic abuse. We found a much more positive picture where police colleagues were embedded in a process or initiative. For example, the majority of MAPPA (multi-agency public protection arrangements) cases we inspected involved sufficient interagency information sharing. 
• There was some positive work on preparing prisoners to be released. In a reasonable majority of cases we looked at, sufficient work had been completed before the individual’s release to address the risk of harm they posed to others and to support them to reintegrate into the community.   

---

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

Our rating[4] 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?	63%
Does reviewing focus sufficiently on supporting desistance?	67%
Does reviewing focus sufficiently on keeping other people safe?	42%

• Most practitioners reviewed cases methodically at appropriate points to consider the effectiveness of the work with people on probation. We saw engagement, compliance, and reoffending reviewed sufficiently in most cases we looked at. People on probation were mostly involved in discussions to review their progress, and this was documented sufficiently. This supported our findings that practitioners in this PDU were engaging people on probation effectively, involving them in work and discussions that affected them. 
• Practitioners were not considering and using information from partner agencies to inform their reviews often enough. This was even less so in cases where information from partner agencies was required to review risk to the public and potential victims. We saw sufficient work to draw on this information and review it in only a third of cases.
• Because of barriers to obtaining child safeguarding information at the start of sentences, practitioners did not know which children required safeguarding and from whom. This had a secondary effect on actions taken later in the sentence, including during the reviewing stage.    
• There was far less review of risk information for women on probation, and we saw sufficient reviewing activity in just one case. Practitioners did not always have the necessary, challenging, and risk-focused discussions in sessions with women on probation.
• The quality of reviews was higher for people who had been released from custody than those serving community sentences. Reviewing of new risk concerns was sufficient in around two-thirds of resettlement cases, compared with under a third of community 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 Donna Waters, supported by a team of inspectors and colleagues from across the Inspectorate. We would like to thank all those who participated in any way in this inspection. Without their help and cooperation, the inspection would not have been possible.

[1] 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 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.