Skip to content

All content is available under the Open Government Licence v3.0, except where otherwise stated.

To view this licence, visit:
https://nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3

or write to:
Information Policy Team,
The National Archives,
Kew,
London TW9 4DU

or email: psi@nationalarchives.gov.uk.

This publication is available at:
https://hmiprobation.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk.

© Crown copyright

An inspection of probation services in Sunderland PDU

Published:

Foreword (Back to top)

This was the first inspection of Sunderland Probation Delivery Unit (PDU) since its establishment, following the unification of probation services in 2021. Encouragingly, our inspection identified several clear strengths in the delivery of probation practice in Sunderland. However, despite these positives, the quality of case management fell short in three of our four core standards.

Due to the overall poor performance in these areas, the PDU has been rated as ‘Requires improvement’. 

Sunderland PDU possessed many of the key ingredients for delivering high-quality services. These included a largely full and experienced staff complement, a cohesive and respected management team, engaged practitioners, and effective partnership working. The strong leadership team has cultivated a supportive and solution-focused culture, earning the trust of both staff and external partners. It has produced an environment in which all feel able to input, make improvements, and challenge each other to improve delivery, with a focus on routine staff development and learning. While this strong organisational approach is a clear benefit, it has not yet delivered the necessary improvements in managing individuals on probation or ensuring community safety, a common theme across our current inspection programme.  

Strategic and operational partnerships, both statutory and non-statutory, were well established and a notable strength. These relationships offer valuable opportunities to enhance casework, better support practitioners, and improve outcomes for people on probation. Engaging people on probation emerged as a particular strength, with evidence of meaningful efforts to build rapport and involve individuals in developing the PDU. Feedback from people on supervision has helped to drive improvements and changes in practice delivery. We were especially encouraged by the targeted work being completed to support neurodiverse individuals.  

Despite the strength of local partnerships, the quality of information received from police about domestic abuse was a persistent area of concern across the cases we reviewed. The regional approach to this area of work appears not to support the PDU sufficiently well and there are still blockages. Even where the quality of information is better, practitioners are not utilising it appropriately to inform their work. 

Overall, we found a service with much of the infrastructure required to support meaningful improvement in the future. We hope this inspection will support PDU leaders in prioritising improvements in risk of harm management, information sharing, enforcement, and reviewing. This will be essential in achieving better outcomes for people on probation and protecting the public. 

Martin Jones CBE  

HM Chief Inspector of Probation  

Ratings (Back to top)

Fieldwork started May 2025Score 5/21
Overall ratingRequires improvement

1. Organisational arrangements and activity

P 1.1 LeadershipGood
P 1.2 StaffingRequires improvement
P 1.3 ServicesRequires improvement

2. Service delivery

P 2.1 AssessmentInadequate
P 2.2 PlanningRequires improvement
P 2.3 Implementation and deliveryInadequate
P 2.4 ReviewingInadequate

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.

Sunderland PDU should: 

  1. improve the quality of the work to assess and review risk of harm, ensuring all available information is accessed and utilised
  2. ensure work is undertaken with police colleagues to manage domestic abuse information sharing, to ensure actual and potential victims are sufficiently protected
  3. review the allocation of staffing across functional teams to ensure all teams have sufficient resources to deliver a high-quality, personalised, and responsive service for all people on probation
  4. ensure effective management oversight is provided with sufficient frequency and recorded in case records
  5. develop practitioners’ confidence and skills in the use of professional curiosity and challenging conversations to identify, analyse, assess, plan, and respond to indicators of risk effectively.

Background (Back to top)

We conducted fieldwork in Sunderland over a period of two weeks, beginning 12 May 2025. We inspected 13 community orders and 16 releases on licence from custody where sentences and licences had commenced during two separate weeks, between 14 October and 20 October 2024, and 28 October and 03 November 2024. We also conducted interviews with 19 probation practitioners. The number of resettlement cases we inspected represented 55 per cent of the overall cases inspected. This is higher than in the last seven PDUs we have inspected, where around 35 per cent of the case inspected are resettlement cases.

Sunderland PDU was the smallest PDU in terms of overall caseload in the North East region. The PDU head had responsibility for prisons in the region, along with engaging people on probation, although these regional elements of work were not included in this inspection.

The PDU worked from a single office in Sunderland and had satellite office arrangements across the city to accommodate the needs of specific groups including women, young people, and those people living on the edges of the city.

There was no court operating in the PDU. Instead, reports were completed in neighbouring courts including Newcastle Combined Court, South Tyneside Magistrates’ Court, and Gateshead Magistrates’ Court. 

The area reported high levels of need in relation to homelessness and neurodiversity. Domestic abuse was a significant feature across the PDU caseload. Reoffending and unemployment rates were consistent with regional trends.

At the time the inspection was announced, Sunderland PDU had a caseload of 568 people on probation who were subject to community sentences and 338 people who were being supervised on licence from prison. In total, 264 individuals were being managed in custody before release.

In early 2024, in response to significant workload pressures, and with full consultation of staff, the PDU reconfigured its structure. Work was delivered across six functional teams. The caseload was broadly split between a community-based team, a resettlement team, a women’s team, two Professional Qualification in Probation (PQiP) teams, and a team supervising men aged between 18 and 25.

Commissioned rehabilitative services (CRS) were provided by the Thirteen Group for accommodation support and St Giles Wise for finance, benefits, and debt support. Changing Lives delivered services for women from female-only venues, which enabled delivery of services in partnership with probation staff from the women’s team. Ingeus provided personal wellbeing services, and dependency and recovery services for males navigating drug and alcohol treatment services. To enhance relationships with young people, Ingeus also worked alongside the young people’s functional team to improve the service and encourage engagement away from probation in appropriate community venues.

At the time of our inspection, the Probation Reset policy was in place. This meant that an individual’s contact with their probation practitioner was suspended for the final third of their supervision period. In cases where contact had been suspended after more than eight weeks of supervision, we applied our core standards and took a proportionate approach in making inspection judgements. We used an adjusted set of standards where contact had been suspended within eight weeks of supervision or less. Nine of the 29 cases we inspected were subject to Probation Reset, with four having the adjusted PDU standards applied.

1. Organisational arrangements and activity (Back to top)

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

 Strengths: 

  • The PDU was led by a strong senior leadership team. Staff described the head of service as visible, pragmatic, approachable, and compassionate. The head was also realistic and informed about the key pressures and areas of improvement for the PDU, and the impact of the pace of change on staff and middle managers. The head of PDU knew the staff group and was well informed about the key strengths and challenges of individuals at all grades.  
  • The head of PDU demonstrated an innovative approach and was keen to ensure national and regional changes were appropriately adjusted to suit the needs and circumstances of the PDU. Suggestions made in the PDU had been adopted at a regional level, and improved processes for home visits had been taken up nationally. They demonstrated a detailed and strategic knowledge of delivery across teams. Leaders in the PDU were confident in making improvement suggestions when regional and national policy guidance was received.  
  • There were strong strategic and operational delivery relationships with partners and key stakeholders across Sunderland. The head of PDU sat on several boards to drive improvements in service delivery for people on probation. There was confidence in the leadership and contributions made by the PDU under these arrangements.  
  • The PDU culture was warm and promoted openness. Staff across all grades were positive regarding their ability to feed ideas into managers and senior leaders about change and providing constructive challenge when things were not working well. In our survey, 22 out of 26 respondents indicated they considered that the culture of the PDU promoted openness and constructive challenge. The use of the staff engagement forum ‘SPRUCE UP’ promoted staff ownership and engagement in developing the PDU, and an opportunity to recognise staff for their suggestions and contributions.  
  • PDU leaders in Sunderland recognised and utilised diversity data to inform and drive service improvements. They had taken a deliberate, strategic, and informed approach to meeting the diverse needs of some protected characteristics. The delivery model had been adapted to better meet the needs of young people and women. Leaders had used a profile and needs analysis to develop strengths-based approaches to working with people on probation. This included collaboration with community hubs, CRS providers, and people on probation.  
  • The PDU had a well-established engaging people on probation group. Changes had been made to how the PDU carried out its work, particularly around induction appointments, following feedback from people on probation. This meant people on the group felt valued and had a sense of purpose.  
  • The leadership team were strong advocates of co-location and collaborative partnership working. This had driven up referrals, delivery, and positive outcomes for people on probation. Although there were gaps in the use of services to address issues of harm, in over half of inspected cases local services were engaged to support desistance. This was well supported by appropriate office space.  

Areas for improvement: 

  • The strengths evidenced in the leadership approach across the PDU were not translating into the delivery of a high-quality service for all people on probation. This was shown in our case inspection findings for keeping people safe, especially across assessment and reviewing activity. The quality of this work was affected by factors that included ineffective management oversight. This was despite staff being enabled to work effectively and being aware of the priorities for the PDU.  
  • The individual feedback given to probation practitioners about deficits in cases individually and collectively was not being internalised for use in future work. There was a disconnect in how staff responded to the learning, and they were not routinely embedding it into their practice.  
  • The PDU had not done enough to ensure that police domestic abuse checks were providing sufficient information about incidents of concern. Probation practitioners were routinely having to go back to the police for more information. This was wasting time and slowing down the flow of information sharing. Consequently, we saw insufficient analysis of risk to actual and potential victims in assessments and work by practitioners to keep people safe. This issue had been escalated both locally and regionally, but limited improvements had been achieved. A regional role had been established to drive improvements in terms of information sharing with both police and children’s services. In common with other areas in the region, information sharing agreements were in place with Northumbria Police, but this was not leading to improvements locally. This approach took responsibility away from the PDU for this area of work. With the existing and well-developed relationships locally, and the high significance of domestic violence in the area, the PDU was perhaps better placed to improve this crucial area of work.
P1.2 StaffingRating
The leadership of the PDU enables delivery of a high quality, personalised, and responsive service for all people on probation.Requires improvement

Strengths:  

  • Staff were enthusiastic, and many indicated their commitment to stay within the PDU. This meant that there were solid levels of experience in most staff groups. We found an embedded process for staff development which included learning from Serious Further Offences and other reviews. Staff were enabled to contribute to the working of the PDU and many described feeling heard and supported by managers. Staff development days were routinely held and included input from a range of internal and external speakers. People on probation were also enabled to attend these events to co-produce training and learning. We found particularly strong practice where learning from a child safeguarding practice review was well utilised to inform staff, share learning, and involve other agencies.  
  • There was clear evidence that staff were supported in their professional development. Staff were encouraged and supported to attend training in areas of personal interest and to take on responsibilities beyond their usual remit, often through lead roles, to broaden their experience and skills.  
  • Middle managers were given freedom to innovate around specialist areas, utilising their experience and drawing on enthusiasm and interest which promoted engagement. The PDU head had the regional lead for engaging people on probation and had a clear focus on initiatives aimed at strengthening work with people on probation.  
  • The PDU actively fostered a culture of openness and transparency. The head of PDU maintained a strong presence, which staff found valuable because it enhanced communication and provided a sense of support.  

Areas for improvement:  

  • At the time of the announcement of the inspection, staffing levels were sufficient for many staff grades. However, there were gaps in probation officer grade resource, At the time of inspection, six members of the team were absent due to maternity leave and a further three staff were on long-term sick leave. Across all grades, the PDU had an average of 14.8 sickness days per annum, which was higher than the region overall. This provided a real challenge for the PDU as to how they were able to cover this work, when the posts were not backfilled. 
  • Management oversight in our case inspections did not routinely support practitioners in their work, nor focus sufficiently well on the needs of the case. In 19 of 28 cases we inspected where it was needed, management oversight was found to be insufficient, ineffective, or absent. While we saw evidence of robust and routine performance management in other evidence, such as management and supervision notes, this was not evident in the inspected cases. Where there was some evidence of management oversight, actions set were not routinely being followed up, and therefore not actioned by probation practitioners. 
  • The functional teams model was not resourced adequately and in accordance with the volume of work within each team. This was impacted by staff absences from the teams and meant that probation officer grades within the community teams were holding cases that could, and should, be managed by probation service officer grades. In contrast, probation practitioners in the custodial-focused teams were disproportionality impacted by the volume of national initiatives designed to reduce prison numbers. We found some evidence that the performance between teams reflected this anomaly, though there were small numbers inspected within each team. If not appropriately adjusted, this had the potential to lead to resentment among team members.  
  • Core administrative functions were a frustration for staff. Administrative functions, other than reception duties, were undertaken by staff outside of the PDU in a series of regional hub arrangements. This led to poor communication between practitioners and administrative staff and we were told that it particularly impacted on enforcement action. This was supported by what we found in case inspections. In 10 of 19 cases where enforcement action was needed, it had not been taken in an appropriate or timely manner. 
P 1.3 ServicesRating
A comprehensive range of high-quality services is in place, supporting a tailored and responsive service for all people on probation.Requires improvement

Strengths: 

  • Referral routes for CRS were clear. Practitioners routinely used CRS to support the needs of people on supervision. In 16 of 20 cases we assessed as requiring such services, people had been referred and work commenced. Staff talked of a positive experience with the majority of CRS providers. Although, in common with other PDUs, staff were sometimes frustrated about the accommodation provision. CRS staff were embedded within the PDU and provided services at both the main Sunderland office and satellite hubs.  
  • Relationships with substance misuse resources were well developed. Managers had regular liaison with drug and alcohol treatment provider Change, Grow, Live (CGL), supported by health staff and justice staff. However, this had not translated into case management. In 40 per cent of the cases inspected, we found there were unmet needs in relation to drug use. 
  • Although there were no Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA) Level 2 or Level 3 cases in our case sample, we saw evidence of appropriate use of MAPPA in other evidence provided. Level 2 meetings were chaired by police. Partnership working between the PDU and management of sexual offenders and violent offenders (MOSOVO) police colleagues was collaborative and effective. 

Areas for improvement: 

  • Practitioners lacked confidence in delivering toolkits and structured interventions. Our case inspection provided limited evidence that meaningful interventions to keep people safe were being delivered.  
  • Accredited programme completion rates needed to improve. For accredited programmes for individuals convicted of sexual offences, only 28.6 per cent had been completed. For accredited programmes other than for individuals convicted of a sexual offence, only 42 per cent had been completed.  
  • Mental Health Treatment Requirements (MHTRs), Drug Rehabilitation Requirements (DRRs) and Alcohol Treatment Requirements (ATRs) were underutilised. Access to these services was not fully developed in the PDU or understood by practitioners. This was a missed opportunity to provide appropriate interventions for those with substance misuse and mental health needs

Diversity and inclusion (Back to top)

Strengths: 

  • In over half of the cases we inspected, practitioners were building on the strengths of the person on probation and enhancing protective factors. That meant practitioners were often being responsive to past trauma, neurodiversity, and other personal characteristics.   
  • There were specific teams to meet the needs of both women and men aged between 18 and 25. Most women were seen in locations outside of the main office in Sunderland, often co-located with other service provision. This supported the needs of women well. 
  • Engaging people on probation was a strength of the PDU and was supported by the region and staff across all grades. Participants had monthly forums, there was strong engagement from practitioners with people on probation, and clear examples of how suggestions were translated into practical solutions. 
  • Leaders responded meaningfully to neurodiverse people on probation. They had engaged with staff and people on probation and used their feedback to make improvements to the probation office. A specific neurodiverse interview room had been completed and was utilised well. Resources, such as fidget toys, were also provided in all other interview rooms to support the engagement of neurodiverse individuals. Further work included working with a neurodiverse person on probation to develop a virtual tour of the building.  

Areas for improvement: 

  • There was no seconded probation officer based in the local youth justice service (YJS). Although the PDU had worked with the YJS to support transitions through use of the 18–25 team, there was no seconded probation officer. The statutory responsibilities were being met by a financial contribution to YJS. This had been agreed between the PDU and YJS and, given that there were very small numbers of transitions, appeared to support the needs appropriately. 
  • While we only inspected three females in our case sample, we found that not all women on probation were being referred to the CRS provider. This was potentially a missed opportunity to engage and support women with additional services to enhance desistance and reduce risk.  
  • Despite the work taking place between probation staff and providers of women’s services, we saw the same deficiencies in work to address risk of serious harm. Practitioners did not always understand the complexities of women as both victims and perpetrators. 

2. Service delivery (Back to top)

P 2.1 AssessmentRating
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 questionPercentage ‘Yes’
Does assessment focus sufficiently on engaging the person on probation?59%
Does assessment focus sufficiently on the factors linked to offending and desistance?79%
Does assessment focus sufficiently on keeping other people safe?28%
  • Analysis of desistance factors in offending was sufficient in most cases. In 79 per cent of cases we reviewed, the strengths and protective factors of the person on probation were identified and analysed. Practitioners drew on additional sources to identify concerns, such as substance use and health needs, and understood how these factors could affect reoffending and desistance.  
  • In all but one of the 12 summary judgements in our case inspections, work delivered by probation officers was assessed more positively than that of staff of other grades. However, there is a caveat in that we inspected just six cases that were managed by probation service officers, not including those training to be a probation officer. We found 16 of 18[2] assessments completed by probation officers appropriately identified and analysed offending-related factors, compared to two out of four for probation service officers. Assessments completed by probation service officer grade staff failed to consider all available information and did not focus on an individual’s strengths and protective factors. However, work completed by probation officers was not always sufficient. When considering the assessment of risk of harm overall, we found only seven out of 20 cases supervised by probation officers where this was sufficient, and none of the six cases for probation service officers. 
  • Practitioners were not always fully interrogating or verifying information about people on probation in their risk assessments. We found they were sometimes over-reliant on incomplete information from pre-sentence reports. This meant that at the start of supervision with people on probation, practitioners often did not have a clear enough understanding about risk of harm.  
  • Practitioners also failed to demonstrate appropriate levels of professional curiosity in other areas of assessment. This was particularly evident in their consideration of an individual’s past behaviour and information from other agencies used when completing their assessments. We found this was done well in only 12 of 29 cases. It was particularly weak in cases managed by probation service officers, where we considered only two of six cases had demonstrated sufficient professional curiosity.  
  • We inspected 12 cases where the assessed risk of harm was high or very high. Across all 12 measures, these cases were assessed as sufficient more often than for medium risk cases. Positively, in 21 of 27 relevant inspected cases, consideration of victims’ needs was sufficient, regardless of the grade of staff or risk level, and it was consistent across both probation officers and probation service officer grades.  
P 2.2 PlanningRating
Planning is well-informed, holistic and personalised, involving actively the person on probation.Requires improvement

Our rating[3] 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 questionPercentage ‘Yes’
Does planning focus sufficiently on engaging the person on probation?69%
Does planning focus sufficiently on reducing reoffending and supporting desistance?83%
Does planning focus sufficiently on keeping other people safe?55%
  • We found that plans were routinely of a better and more consistent quality than assessments. Practitioners knew what plans needed to focus on, despite not fully considering information in their case assessments. This was particularly the case for planning to support people desisting from offending, which was the area assessed most positively across all stages of sentence delivery. The PDU would do well to seek to understand the disconnect. In many cases practitioners knew what needed to be done with those they were supervising, despite assessments not fully including all information.  
  • In 20 of 29 cases, plans were sufficient in how they engaged the individual and most (23 of 29 cases) focused well on offence-related needs. In over half of inspected cases, plans appropriately focused on factors that, if delivered, would address issues of harm presented. When plans were delivered well, we found practitioners who had identified interventions and produced plans that were realistic, sequenced and reflective of individual need. Planning activity consistently focused on the most important factors to reduce an individual’s risk of further offending and build on their strengths and protective factors. Plans also clearly outlined how the requirements of the sentence would be delivered and by whom.  
  • Despite good relationships with staff working for organisations supporting people on probation, in over a third of cases where it was important to do so, practitioners failed to consider information from other agencies in their planning activity. It was a recurring theme throughout our inspected cases that, even when information was gathered, it was not appropriately absorbed into planning for risk management activity. There were missed opportunities for practitioners to have a more comprehensive picture of the risk factors of the individual under supervision, and ultimately to protect the public. 
  • In most cases, risk management plans were not appropriately personalised or robust. Practitioners were not routinely considering and analysing information against the risk of harm presented by an individual or how this should feed into future planning activity.  
P 2.3. Implementation and deliveryRating
High-quality well-focused, personalised, and coordinated services are delivered, engaging the person on probation.Inadequate

Our rating[4] 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 questionPercentage ‘Yes’
Is the sentence or post-custody period implemented effectively with a focus on engaging the person on probation?59%
Does the implementation and delivery of services effectively support desistance?48%
Does the implementation and delivery of services effectively support the safety of other people?41%
  • Despite the services available in the PDU, practitioners did not engage and employ them often enough for the benefit of people under supervision. The strong relationships with partnership agencies reported at strategic and operational levels were also not always supporting those under supervision to access services. This was particularly the case when considering individuals who required support with thinking and behaviour, where we found that just nine of 25 cases that needed support had received it. It was a similar picture for drug and alcohol services, where less than half of people who needed these interventions had received them. 
  • The compliance of individuals, and the enforcement approach taken by probation practitioners, was an area of concern found in our case inspections. In 10 of the 22 cases where there was a risk of potential non-compliance, this was not addressed appropriately. Subsequently, in over a quarter of cases, the commencement of the requirements of the supervision was delayed due to compliance. Similarly, in a quarter of cases, delivery of work to address offending was not undertaken due to compliance issues. This carried on throughout the duration of supervision and we found that where enforcement action was not taken when it could have been in 10 of 19 relevant cases. The PDU needed to grip enforcement action and improve processes, including administrative actions which were undertaken by a regional team.  
  • Given the challenges in staffing that the PDU had experienced, largely because of maternity leave, it was positive to find that almost two-thirds of the inspected cases had been supervised by just one probation practitioner throughout the period of supervision. Practitioners worked flexibly with individuals and were aware of their personal circumstances in 80 per cent of the inspected cases.  
  • The use of home visits was effective in the majority of cases, which provided evidence that the new process implemented by the PDU was improving practice. PDU leaders should ensure that information gathered during these visits is appropriately integrated into all aspects of the management of the cases. 
  • Work by practitioners to keep people safe from harm throughout the duration of the period of supervision was the weakest area of sentence delivery, and only 12 of 29 cases were sufficient. Too many appointments lacked any meaningful discussion and resulted in cursory contact with those under supervision. When critical information was disclosed, for example about relationships, there was often no exploration or action taken. The work in cases managed by probation service officers was particularly poor, with just one of six cases considered sufficient overall for implementation and delivery of work to address harm. 

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

Our rating[5] 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 questionPercentage ‘Yes’
Does reviewing focus sufficiently on supporting the compliance and engagement of the person on probation?48%
Does reviewing focus sufficiently on supporting desistance?33%
Does reviewing focus sufficiently on keeping other people safe?32%
  • Overall, the reviewing of cases was the least sufficient part of sentence management and lower than assessment, planning, and implementation. Practitioners did not see the value of, or appropriately prioritise, reviewing their work and what needed to happen next to support the needs of those they were supervising and to protect the public. This is, perhaps, unsurprising given the poor scores in implementation. In the absence of appropriate levels of delivery, practitioners did not understand the benefit of reviewing to progress cases. 
  • Most crucially we found when new information relating to risk of harm was received, this was not appropriately integrated into risk management plans. Reviewing of risk management plans was insufficient in six of 19 relevant cases. 
  • The quality of reviews was slightly worse for resettlement cases compared with community cases, where only four of 15 relevant cases inspected focused sufficiently on keeping other people safe. In just over half of the cases we inspected, information was too often missing and practitioners had failed to identify fully and address, factors related to risk of harm.
  • Reviewing was not sufficiently informed by input from other agencies. In relation to work to support people to change, this was insufficient in 13 out of 25 relevant cases. Despite the good relationships with other agencies found in other areas of this inspection, practitioners were not seeking or receiving input from other agencies often enough to ensure that their reviews accurately reflected the assessment of an individual’s desistance and risk to others.

Data annexe (Back to top)

Sunderland PDU Data Annexe
(XLSX, 145 KB)

Press release (Back to top)

Sunderland Probation Delivery Unit “has many of the key ingredients” to deliver high-quality services, despite rating of ‘Requires improvement’

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 Wendy Martin, 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 findings relating to cases 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

[3] The rating for the standard is driven by the score for the key question, which is placed in a rating band. Full data and further information about inspection methodology is available in the data annexe.

[4] The rating for the standard is driven by the score for the key question, which is placed in a rating band. Full data and further information about inspection methodology is available in the data annexe.

[5]The rating for the standard is driven by the lowest score on each of the key questions, which is placed in a rating band, indicated in bold in the table.