An inspection of probation services in Swansea Neath Port Talbot 

Foreword (Back to top)

The Swansea Neath Port Talbot Probation Delivery Unit (PDU) inspection found evidence of strong and impressive leadership, a positive culture, and a clear commitment to staff learning and development and wellbeing. This was recognised through robust governance arrangements, strengths in partnership relationships, and feedback from staff across all grades. While the head of service had only been in role since January 2025, her positive footprint had been felt across the PDU by staff and partners. The PDU championed, and was involved with, innovative projects to bring about improvements for people on probation and staff. It was pleasing to see that leaders were able to evidence the positive outcomes of these local initiatives and innovations.

The PDU had experienced challenges in the last 12 months, with high staff sickness rates and vacancies. Despite this, across our casework inspections, we saw some promising work to engage people on probation and encouraging work on desistance, especially at assessment and planning stages. This was driven by a clear understanding of the profile of the PDU caseload, proactive engaging people on probation (EPP) activity, established specialist teams such as the women’s team, and strong co-location arrangements with service providers.

Despite leaders taking decisive action to focus on activity to increase the quality of public protection practice, the work to keep the public safe was the weakest area of practice across all our standards, consistent with the findings of all our recent PDU inspections. In several cases, essential information had not been gathered from social services or the police and this weakened attempts to keep partners and children safe from abusive behaviour.

As we see too often, when PDU staff received information that indicated a risk of harm to actual and potential victims, they did not always follow it up or use it effectively to assess and manage risk. Several important factors contributed to this, including ineffective information sharing processes and procedures with children’s social services and police, an inexperienced practitioner group whose learning needs were not fully understood, and ineffective management oversight.

As a result of our findings, despite the positive progress made in some areas, the PDU has been rated as ‘Requires improvement’ overall.

While there is further work to do to improve the quality of work to keep people safe, the PDU has the necessary enablers in place to achieve high quality service delivery. I have no doubt that the PDU can build on these results to continue to make improvements.

Martin Jones CBE

HM Chief Inspector of Probation

---

Ratings (Back to top)

Fieldwork started July 2025

Score 4/21

Overall rating

Requires improvement

1. Organisational arrangements and activity

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

2. Service delivery

P 2.1 Assessment	Inadequate
P 2.2 Planning	Inadequate
P 2.3 Implementation and delivery	Inadequate
P 2.4 Reviewing	Inadequate

---

Recommendations (Back to top)

As a result of our inspection findings, we have made a number of recommendations that we believe, if implemented, will have a positive impact on the quality of probation services.

Swansea Neath Port Talbot PDU should:

1. improve the quality of the work to assess, manage, and review risk of harm, ensuring that practitioners access and use all available information
2. ensure effective management oversight is provided to enhance and sustain the quality of the work with people on probation and to keep people safe
3. ensure all practitioners have a clear and consistent understanding of how often, and in what circumstances, they should complete domestic abuse enquires with police, including the difference between reportable incidents and police enquires
4. make arrangements with the police and children’s services to ensure sufficient information sharing to identify actual and potential victims accurately and to inform the quality of assessment and management of people on probation 
5. conduct a learning analysis to understand the skills and knowledge of the practitioner group and implement a system to ensure gaps in learning are met
6. 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 Swansea Neath Port Talbot PDU over the period of two weeks, beginning 28 July 2025. We inspected 39 community orders and 17 releases on licence from custody where sentences and licences had commenced during two separate weeks, between 16 December and 22 December 2025 and 06 January and 12 January 2025. We also conducted 55 interviews with probation practitioners.

The PDU is one of six within the Wales probation region. It has one office (West Glamorgan House) based in the city centre, one magistrates’ court, and a Crown Court. There is one approved premises in the PDU and one public sector prison (HMP Swansea). The PDU is served by the South Wales police force and covers two local authority areas: Swansea and Neath Port Talbot.

Swansea and Neath Port Talbot has a combined population of 394,553 people. In Swansea, 8.6 per cent of residents identify as being from an ethnic minority background, compared with 3.4 per cent of residents in Neath Port Talbot. The PDU manages a caseload of approximately 2,136 people on probation and in prison, which is 16.1 per cent of the caseload in the Wales probation region. Violent offences are the most common offence type, making up 30.5 per cent of the Swansea Neath, Port Talbot PDU caseload. The second most common offence is drug possession and supply (8.8 per cent). The PDU holds the highest percentage of females on their caseload across the region, at 12.3 per cent.

Commissioned Rehabilitative Services (CRS) were provided by The Nelson Trust for women’s services, by St Giles Wise group partnership for personal wellbeing and finance, benefit and debt advocacy, by The Forward Trust for accommodation support and by Third Sector Consortium (3SC) for services to support neurodiverse people. Forward Trust provided support for those with drug and alcohol needs and the PDU had commissioned additional services for people on probation from BrainKind, who support individuals after experiencing a traumatic brain injury.

At the time of inspection, the Probation Reset policy was operational.[1] Seven of the 56 cases we inspected were subject to Probation Reset, with two having the adjusted PDU standards applied.[2]

Swansea Neath Port Talbot PDU was previously inspected in January 2022, when it was rated ‘Inadequate’. The inspection noted the Covid-19 pandemic and closure of the probation office, due to the discovery of asbestos, had led to a more limited service since March 2020. Progress made against previous recommendations can be found at 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 was led by a strong leadership team. Senior leaders were viewed as proactive, driven, and supportive by probation staff and by partner organisations. The working relationship between the head of service and deputy head was strong, with a shared ambition to do what was best for the PDU, its staff, partners, and people on probation. Senior and middle managers were approachable and responsive to staff needs and strong peer-to-peer support created a positive culture. An open-door policy was being promoted and ensured the leadership team were visible and regularly speaking to staff. The head and deputy head of service were realistic and informed about the key pressures and areas of improvement for the PDU.
• The leadership team had a clear understanding and structured plan to drive up public protection practice. As a result of findings from regional case auditing activity, Wales Auditing Tool (WAT), the PDU had increased its focus on improving practice to keep people safe and this was driven by leaders. This had included workshops on risk responsivity and risk of harm. Leaders had set up a staff working group, the ‘keeping people safe taskforce’, to focus on activity to keep partners and children safe and had made the decision to focus assurance activity on keeping people safe. All staff understood that a key PDU priority was keeping people safe.
• There were sufficient governance arrangements in place to monitor and manage sickness, relay operational messages, and track performance. There were monthly sickness meetings with the head of service, senior probation officers (SPOs), and the human resource (HR) business partner. This ensured that formal attendance processes were managed robustly. The deputy head held a monthly performance meeting with SPOs. This focused on performance trends and delivery, and it was driving promising performance across key performance indicators. A monthly PDU managers’ meeting provided an opportunity to share key operational messages.
• Relationships with partners at strategic and operational level were strong. The head of PDU had forged well-established relationships with key strategic partners which supported cohesive multi-agency responses to meet the needs of the local community. For example, a high number of drug-related deaths in the area led to the creation of the intensive multi-agency panel (IMAP). This safeguarding forum discussed individuals most at serious risk of harm or death as a result of substance misuse and worked together to reduce the risk of fatal drug poisoning.
• The PDU culture was warm and promoted openness. Staff at every level had regular, meaningful opportunities to share views, raise concerns, and feed ideas into managers and senior leaders about change and provide constructive challenge when things were not working well. A strong emphasis was placed on two-way communication, with a focus on listening, responding, and embedding shared learning across the PDU. This positive culture was driven by the leadership team and was built on the premise that all staff are equally respected and have a valued contribution to make.
• Leaders were fully aware of the profile of the people on probation in the PDU. This supported leaders to deliver a tailored response to meet the needs of people on probation, working in partnership with internal and external stakeholders. For example, specialist teams had been created including the complex treatment team which managed all cases subject to an Alcohol Treatment Requirement (ATR), Drug Rehabilitative Requirement (DRR) or Mental Health Treatment Requirement (MHTR), and the women’s team. In response to a local health needs assessment of people on probation, the PDU had developed a co-located blood borne virus and sexual health screening clinic project with NHS staff at the probation office.
• PDU leaders were committed to supporting innovation to drive efficiencies and effective practice, and support staff development and wellbeing. The PDU was piloting an artificial intelligence (AI) transcription tool, which had reduced the note taking burden for practitioners. The PDU had created an ‘Aspiring Leaders Academy’ for practitioners who wanted to move into leadership and, in response to staff suggestions, it had secured funding for a staff activity room to support staff wellbeing.
• Staff wellbeing was a priority for the PDU. The PDU had an active staff-led committee who drove local wellbeing activity. This included organising fundraising for the PDU foodbank, promoting awareness of mental health issues, and signposting staff to wellbeing support services. In response to high volumes of deaths of women on probation, leaders organised face-to-face reflective confidential support sessions for staff who managed the women’s team. Mental health allies were active in the PDU, and supervision routinely included discussion about personal wellbeing. The PDU had fully embedded the ‘human factors’ approach, a central strand of a learning organisation model, which had been adopted by the region. There were check-in meetings each morning across all grades, including court teams, and a daily protected hour when SPOs were available for case consultations. These were central to operational delivery. The checklist agenda included workload, team activity, wellbeing, and potential issues that may develop during the day. These meetings allowed for tasks to be allocated or reallocated where necessary. This had created a team-working culture and allowed for two-way communication which supported active problem-solving and timely responses to critical operational matters. Staff stated that they valued the human factors approach which led them to feel listened to and supported with their wellbeing.
• Engaging people on probation (EPoP) activity was driven by a dedicated and passionate EPoP lead and champions, and it was driving changes in service delivery. For example, in response to feedback from people on probation that they did not feel safe in the probation office reception, a new intercom and access system had been installed to reduce tailgating. This supported the safety of both staff and people on probation. There were plans to set up a women’s forum as part of the EPoP plan, which was positive as the PDU had the largest proportion of women on their caseload in the region.

Areas for improvement:  

• Not all staff felt that appropriate attention was paid to staff safety, particularly those who worked in the Neath Port Talbot teams. Only 20 out of 39 respondents to the staff survey indicated that sufficient attention was paid to staff safety. Staff who worked in the allocated office space at Dyfodol (substance misuse provider) in Neath, reported that their location in the building and the absence of CCTV left them feeling more vulnerable. It was positive that leaders had put forward a business case to look at acquiring more office space in the Neath Port Talbot area.
• Not enough progress had been made against all the recommendations from the previous inspection. This was demonstrated in the quality of the work specifically focussed on keeping people safe, which remained insufficient in case work and management oversight. 
• Efforts by probation leaders to work with police and children’s safeguarding services to resolve barriers to quality information sharing had not yet resulted in sufficient improvements. However, there was an ongoing commitment to address these limitations. Direct access to systems for probation was being progressed by social care and was being reinstated by police. 

---

P 1.2 Staffing	Rating
The leadership of the PDU enables delivery of a high quality, personalised, and responsive service for all people on probation.	Requires improvement

Strengths:

• At the time of the inspection announcement, the PDU was fully staffed at SPO grade (103 per cent), and had 94 per cent of probation officers in post.
• PDU leaders were actively managing workloads in response to local pressures. SPOs used a local case allocation spreadsheet to make decisions about case allocation. This included considering the volume and type of cases survey, 24 of 27 respondents indicated that they had the appropriate knowledge, skills, and experience for the cases they were allocated.
• Probation officer shortages were being addressed through trainee probation officer recruitment and returner initiatives. People had been recruited into probation service officer and case administrator vacancies. At the time of inspection candidates were currently going through vetting. Those practitioners who were involved in the AI transcription pilot reported this service had a significant impact on reducing notetaking time.
• The PDU had demonstrated a commitment to ensure the workforce adequately reflected the diversity of the local population. The PDU had undertaken outreach work to encourage applications from diverse sections of the community. As a result, at least 20 per cent of new starters recruited between 2023 and 2025 identified as Black, Asian or from a minority ethnic background.
• Staff were supported to progress professionally across all grades. The PDU had supported the internal career progression of four probation officers to SPO and one senior administrative officer to business manager. Eight probation service officers had moved to train to be probation officers, and four case administrators had progressed to probation service officer or onto probation officer training. This supported the PDU to retain local skills and knowledge.
• PDU leaders promoted a positive culture of learning and continuous professional development. Middle managers had spoken positively about attending the ‘Leading and Managing as an SPO’ programme. Managers had opportunities to attend HR training sessions on management policy and procedure, to increase confidence in completing key HR tasks such as performance management and absence management. There were shadowing opportunities for all staff and line managers were having discussions with staff about career progression.
• The PDU had created dedicated time and activities to support learning and development of staff. Protected learning days provided space for professional development and learning in response to local needs, staff suggestions, and findings from quality assurance. The PDU had a designated quality development officer (QDO), who had delivered monthly themed sessions and team-based workshops to meet locally identified needs and regional priorities. Monthly QDO drop-in sessions were also available for staff, including case administrators. The PDU had a local effective practice Microsoft Teams channel that all staff could access.

Areas for improvement:

• Efforts by leaders to improve the quality of the work to keep people safe had not translated into the delivery of a high-quality service for all people on probation. This was shown across all aspects of our case inspection findings for keeping people safe. This indicated that leaders needed to gain a better understanding of the learning needs of practitioners, especially in relation to their confidence and knowledge of public protection work.
• There were pressures for SPOs with their time, which was impacting their ability to provide effective management oversight that enhanced and sustained the quality of the work with people on probation. SPOs managed practitioners, attended partnership meetings, and had lead roles. In addition, the daily morning checklist and protected hour for SPOs resulted in a high volume of informal case discussions with practitioners. A higher level of day-to-day support and oversight was required due to high numbers of inexperienced practitioners. SPOs acknowledged that they were having multiple conversations a day and, combined with their workload, this meant they did not always have time to record case discussions. This was evidenced in our casework, where only nine out of 51 relevant cases had effective management oversight recorded.
• Staff were receiving supervision. However, the frequency varied, depending on their role. Just under half of the respondents to our staff survey considered their supervision to be sufficient and frequent. Supervision was supplemented by both the daily morning checklist and protected learning hour for SPOs. However, these activities should not be a substitute for formal supervision, which allows for more targeted, in-depth work discussions. Only 20 out of 39 respondents to our survey felt that their supervision enhanced the quality of their work. Regular supervision that supports the quality of practice was especially important given the PDU had an inexperienced workforce and it would help managers to understand the learning needs of their staff.
• At the time of the inspection announcement, the average days lost to sickness per year across the PDU was 14.8 days, which was high. The average working days lost to sickness for probation officers was 17.3 days. This was largely a result of long-term staff sickness related to mental health and long-term health conditions. This had resulted in caseloads being re-allocated, putting additional pressure on practitioners. In our inspection of casework, 20 per cent of cases had had three or more probation practitioners since the start of their licence or order.
• At the time of the inspection announcement, the PDU had staffing gaps at probation service officer and case administrator grade, with 87 per cent of probation service officers and 86 per cent of case administrators in post. This meant that case administrators and practitioners could not fully benefit from the pod model, where case administrators are allocated to sentence management teams, as they had to cover more than one team.
• Protected learning days were not meeting the needs of all staff. Staff reported that the topics were not always relevant to their role or learning needs, and the activities were not always delivered in a way that supported staff learning styles. If leaders had a better understanding of the learning needs of all staff this would help them to target activities at areas where staff lacked confidence or where there were gaps in knowledge. This was especially important as the PDU had an inexperienced workforce, with half of the PDU workforce having less than five years of service.

---

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:

• There was evidence of diverse and flexible services to meet some identified risk and needs. The PDU had co-commissioned the traumatic brain injury service through BrainKind, a charity which works with practitioners to support individuals who have experienced a traumatic brain injury​, the Drive Project domestic abuse programme, which works with individuals causing harm in their relationships to prevent abusive behaviour and protect victim-survivors, and ethnic minority services​, provided by bthechange, which offered mentoring support for people who identified as Black, Asian or minority ethnic. For people with neurodiverse needs, the PDU had access to Commissioned Rehabilitative Service (CRS) Neurodiversity, provided by Third Sector Consortium (3CS), which offered one-to-one coaching sessions.
• The PDU had a sustained partnership with The Nelson Trust, who delivered a holistic female-only service at a local women’s hub. The hub provided trauma-informed support, advice, and interventions to meet individual need. This included access to safe spaces, emotional health and wellbeing sessions, and a sexual health clinic. The Nelson Trust had an outreach service for women residing outside of Swansea, offering appointments to women at the Dyfodol (substance misuse) office in Neath and at Thrive Women’s Aid office in Port Talbot.
• The complex treatment team had developed strong working relationships with the DRR, ATR, and MHTR treatment providers co-located with the team. This had supported timely commencement and completion of treatment. Between April 2022 and March 2025, over 80 per cent of ATRs and DRRs commenced treatment within three weeks of it being given, and 38 per cent of MHTRs commenced treatment within six weeks of it being given. At the time of the inspection fieldwork, treatment providers stated that there were no current waiting lists for ATRs or DRRs.
• There were strong relationships with CRS providers. Several commissioned services and other local services were co-located within the PDU. This included local forensic psychology, offender personality pathway (OPD) colleagues, police and CRS Neurodiversity service. The co-location of these services provided the optimal arrangement for probation practitioners to build robust working relationships that encouraged collaboration, effective information sharing, and referrals. CRS providers did not report any waiting lists for their services.
• There were examples of effective collaboration and joint working between probation and other service providers. For example, working relationships between police, probation, and other agencies led to effective integrated offender management (IOM) delivery, supported by co-location. This enabled timely and consistent information sharing, with Wales Integrated Serious and Dangerous Offender Management (WISDOM) demonstrating a collaborative, integrated approach to reduce the risk of harm posed by high risk of harm offender groups. A concentrator model was in place with IOM practitioners managing all IOM cases. 
• The regional Centralised Operational, Resettlement, Referral and Evaluation (CORRE) team was embedded in the PDU. The CORRE team supported practitioners with sentence planning activity for people on probation. CORRE staff reviewed the risk and needs of people on probation with practitioners, identified suitable interventions, and completed referrals. The majority of practitioners reported a positive relationship with CORRE staff. The work of CORRE supported the ‘Start Right’ agenda, which promoted swift provision of services and interventions at the start of a person’s sentence. In the 12 months ending May 2025, CORRE had completed 94 per cent of all sentence plans. In this same time frame, CORRE completed 95 CRS referrals and 31 referrals to other interventions for people on probation, including Structured Interventions, Restorative Justice and TBI services.
• Leaders had used diversity data to identify and address disproportionality, supporting better outcomes for people on probation. For example, the PDU identified that people on probation aged between 50 and 59 years of age were less likely to be employed. In response, the PDU ran a careers fair aimed to support this cohort of people on probation. This resulted in positive outcomes, including six job offers, one job interview, and 12 offers of training.
• Services were delivered in appropriate and accessible locations for the majority of people on probation. Most of the locally commissioned services were located within easy travel distance of the Swansea probation office. Unpaid Work (UPW) offered work placements across the whole geographic area of the PDU. It also offered a ‘pick-up’ service for people on probation who could not access public transport. Programmes operated cross PDU programme placements. This meant a person on probation may be able to attend a programme at an office in another Welsh PDU if they lived closer to that location. Some services, for example CRS accommodation, were utilising the office space at Dyfodol for appointments with people on probation.

Areas for improvement:

• Current information sharing processes and procedures between probation and children’s social services and police impacted on the quality of work to keep people safe. Children’s social services provided only basic details about children known to them and redacted police information meant practitioners were unable to fully understand and safeguard partners and children.
• The challenges with information sharing with police were further impacted by probation staff having an inconsistent understanding about when domestic abuse enquiries should be completed, with some practitioners over-reliant on ‘reportable incidents’.[3] This inconsistency in understanding, combined with a lack of professional curiosity and ineffective management oversight, resulted in a lack of proactive information requests when there were ongoing or new risk concerns in relation to partners and children.
• Not all people on probation who were assessed as having problems related to their offending were being referred to CRS for help and support and some were being referred but not completing the intervention. As of June 2025, at least a third of people with an identified accommodation, finance, or emotional wellbeing need did not have a relevant CRS referral. Between April 2024 and May 2025 less than half of people on probation who started an intervention with CRS accommodation, CRS finance benefit and debt, CRS personal wellbeing and CRS women’s services completed the intervention. This meant that those people with an identified need were not always having this need addressed.
• At the time of the inspection, mental health treatment requirements were available but there was a waiting list of 19 people on probation. The longest time an individual had been waiting to commence the requirement was nine weeks. The long wait increased the likelihood of disengagement.
• Although there were available services to support people on probation with personality disorder, these were underutilised. Between January and August 2025, there were 302 people on probation identified as being suitable for the OPD pathway, however only 35 per cent of people were referred. This meant probation practitioners were not receiving specialist advice to understand the person on probation’s behaviour, presentation, and problems in relation to their personality.
• Services and pathways for Black, Asian and minority ethnic people on probation were limited. Referrals into the Ethnic Minority Service were minimal, however the service had only recently been extended to the PDU. The service was not currently co-located at the probation office and not all practitioners had knowledge of it, which highlights the need to increase awareness to support an increase in referrals.

---

Diversity and inclusion (Back to top)

Strengths:

• The PDU offered flexible and inclusive delivery models to support
  Welsh-speaking people on probation, including Welsh language induction packs and the option to speak with a Welsh-speaking probation practitioner.
• The PDU had relevant data to understand the profiles of their workforce and people on probation. The PDU head attended the regional disproportionality taskforce where relevant diversity information was used to drive improvements.

• The PDU had an equality plan that aligned with the regional equality plan. This provided clear, consistent messaging that enabled a common understanding by staff of the key priorities in relation to diversity and inclusion.
• The PDU offered emergency provisions for people on probation in need. The EPoP single point of contact had begun working with a charity who provided essential toiletries, called ‘dignity packs’, to the PDU for individuals released to emergency accommodation or who were in need. The women’s team had collected toiletries and clothes which could be accessed by women on probation in need.
• Our casework showed that at the start of their sentence people on probation were routinely asked about their protected characteristics. Diversity needs were considered in sentence delivery in 80 per cent of cases inspected.   
• We saw higher quality practice across all our standards in the work completed with women on probation. This was supported by strong, embedded women’s services available via The Nelson Trust’s centre. Provision of crèche facilities for children was in development at the women’s centre. The probation office also offered women-only reporting times. They had specialist women concentrators, who had strong links with women’s services, which supported staff to deliver a gender-specific, trauma-informed approach.
• Children transitioning to probation were supported by probation officers based in both Swansea and Neath Port Talbot youth justice services. This facilitated an effective and timely system by which children were identified and transferred to probation. The PDU had an identified link SPO to support seconded staff.

Areas for improvement:

• The proportions of male and female staff in the PDU workforce did not reflect the proportions in the caseload: 82 per cent of staff identified as female compared with 15 per cent of people on probation. This was consistent with the proportions nationally and was largely related to national recruitment. This meant that most people on probation were supervised by female practitioners. Where a person on probation needed to be managed by a male practitioner, there were fewer officers that they could be allocated to.  
• Apart from Ethnic Minority Services, there were no other specialist services available for Black, Asian or minority ethnic communities. This service was underused.

---

2. Service delivery (Back to top)

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

Our rating[4] for assessment is based on the percentage of cases we inspected being judged satisfactory against three key questions and is driven by the lowest score:

Key question	Percentage ‘Yes’
Does assessment focus sufficiently on engaging the person on probation?	79%
Does assessment focus sufficiently on the factors linked to offending and desistance?	71%
Does assessment focus sufficiently on keeping other people safe?	34%

• Practitioners positively engaged with people on probation at the start of their sentence. In just under three-quarters of cases (41 out of 56) the person on probation was meaningfully involved in their assessment and it was evident that their views had been taken into account.
• In 80 per cent of cases inspected, practitioners had identified and analysed key factors linked to reducing an individual’s risk of further offending.  
• The system for sharing information with children’s social care provided basic details about child safeguarding concerns. Practitioners did not always ask for further necessary details in relevant cases. As a result, in two-fifths of relevant cases (20 out of 49) practitioners did not use information sufficiently in assessing child safeguarding risk. This meant that assessments did not always set out and analyse the risks to all children.
• A reliance on ‘reportable incidents’ combined with a lack of professional curiosity led to practitioners not seeking information from police to understand the risk people on probation posed towards partners and ex-partners. In 20 per cent of cases information was not requested from police. We found that in three-fifths relevant cases (30 out of 51) practitioners did not use information sufficiently in assessing risk relating to domestic abuse.
• Assessments did not always set out and analyse the risks to all actual and potential victims.

---

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

Our rating[5] for planning is based on the percentage of cases we inspected being judged satisfactory against three key questions and is driven by the lowest score:

Key question	Percentage ‘Yes’
Does planning focus sufficiently on engaging the person on probation?	68%
Does planning focus sufficiently on reducing reoffending and supporting desistance?	68%
Does planning focus sufficiently on keeping other people safe?	43%

• Where planning was most effective, people on probation were being engaged in drawing up sentence plans with the practitioner. There were discussions about the work that would be completed during their sentence and how this would be delivered. Practitioners were taking account of personal circumstances of the individual which may affect their engagement and compliance. This included scheduling probation appointments around childcare responsibilities and employment.
• Collaborative discussions with the CORRE team supported practitioners to review the risk and needs of people on probation and identify suitable interventions to address the most critical factors linked to offending behaviour. In 73 per cent of cases, planning activity consistently focused on the most important factors in reducing an individual’s risk of further offending. Plans also clearly outlined how the requirements of the sentence to reduce reoffending and support the individual to stop offending would be delivered, and by whom. 
• In more than half of the relevant cases inspected (29 out of 55) there was insufficient planning to address factors related to an individual’s risk of harm and prioritise those factors that were most critical. We saw examples where practitioners had not considered how all victims would be safeguarded, including family members, children, and current and future partners, nor had they identified interventions to address risk of harm factors.
• Too often plans to manage risk of harm did not draw on the knowledge, expertise, and plans of other agencies, such as the police and social services.

---

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[6] 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?	71%
Does the implementation and delivery of services effectively support desistance?	50%
Does the implementation and delivery of services effectively support the safety of other people?	34%

• Practitioners consistently focused on developing and maintaining an effective working relationship with people on probation. In 87 per cent of cases, practitioners worked flexibly with individuals, taking account of their personal circumstances. This included offering telephone appointments and home visits in response to employment, childcare commitments or mental health crises. Practitioners were also responsive to diversity needs, including adapting one-to-one intervention material to meet neurodiverse needs.
• In 34 out of 38 relevant cases, requirements of the sentence started promptly or at an appropriate time but people on probation had not completed enough work to address key factors related to their offending behaviour. In only 57 per cent of cases, practitioners delivered the services most likely to reduce reoffending and support desistance.
• Concerningly, practitioners only gave enough attention to protecting actual and potential victims in 13 out of 51 relevant cases. Practitioners did not always address current risk to victims or respond to new information linked to risk, such as individuals entering a new relationship.
• Practitioners did not work effectively with the police and social services to protect partners and children. Practitioners did not routinely seek further necessary information from children’s social services or police in response to ongoing or new risk concerns, for example a new partner having children. This meant practitioners were unable to fully understand and safeguard partners and children. Redacted police information brought additional challenges for practitioners in understanding who was at risk and why.

---

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

Our rating[7] 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?	79%
Does reviewing focus sufficiently on supporting desistance?	54%
Does reviewing focus sufficiently on keeping other people safe?	41%

• Reviewing was most effective when people on probation were meaningfully involved in reviewing their progress and engagement. This included collaborative discussions about the individual’s progress and issues of non-compliance, with different methods of engagement used to promote compliance such as sending easy-read appointment letters and holding appointments at the office space at Dyfodol. In the majority of relevant cases (36 out of 43), practitioners completed an appropriate review as a formal record of actions to implement the sentence. This included breach reports and formal assessment reviews.
• Practitioners were not routinely responding to significant changes in an individual’s circumstances, for example increased alcohol misuse, new offending behaviour, or changes in relationship status. Practitioners identified and addressed changes to factors linked to an individual’s further offending in 27 out of 44 relevant cases.
• Practitioners did not pay enough attention to reviewing risk of harm to keep people safe. Reviews identified and addressed changes in factors related to risk of harm in only 14 out of 43 relevant cases. Practitioners did not consistently and appropriately respond to information related to the risk posed by the person on probation. For example, information received in reportable incidents, changes in accommodation, and starting or ending an intimate relationship when risk was likely to have increased.
• Practitioners did not liaise sufficiently with partner agencies, including social services, mental health services, substance misuse services, and the police, to gather further information in order to protect potential and actual victims.  
  

---

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 Hannah Darby, 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] Probation Reset mandates that supervision of a person on probation, who is eligible according to certain criteria, will be suspended at the two-thirds point of their sentence. These measures aim to target resources at the start of supervision in the community.

[2] In cases where contact had been suspended after more than eight weeks 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 supervision or less.

[3] A reportable incident is a new piece of information held by police in respect of people on probation. This information may be significant event or may be an update to information already known to probation. Reportable incidents (RIs) is a semi-automated process for the exchange of probation caseload data and police incident data.

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

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

[6] The rating for the standard is driven by the 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.

[7] 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.

---