An inspection of Probation Services – North East region
Foreword (Back to top)
Our inspection of the North East probation region highlighted strengths in leadership and we found evidence of progress in response to efforts to improve the quality of service delivery. Though, as seen repeatedly in recent inspections, this improvement activity did not translate into sufficient delivery of services to keep people safe in enough of the cases inspected.
The region was therefore rated ‘Requires improvement’ overall, although the results for the region in general, in particular the work on desistance and engagement, were the best seen so far across this programme.
The regional leadership team (RLT) was well respected and experienced, and this undoubtedly contributed to some of the positive findings, and culture, we saw. Leaders had strong relationships with key partners and had made efforts to ensure that the region had a good work ethos. Staff we met were highly motivated and committed to delivering the best possible service. However, the quality of work to protect the public was a concern.
The assessment of risk of harm was sufficient in only 35 per cent of cases we inspected overall, and this figure was lower, at 33 per cent, in relation to the implementation and delivery of services to keep people safe. Although practitioners routinely requested information about domestic abuse and child safeguarding from the police and children’s social care services, too often this lacked the detail needed to analyse risk of harm sufficiently. Leaders needed to maximise the strength of their relationships with key partners to drive improvements in the quality of information received and subsequently ensure that practitioners considered all available information and all victims, both direct and indirect, in assessments of risk to other people.
At the time of our inspection, the staff vacancy rate across the region was eight per cent and, while sentence management practitioners described their workloads as largely manageable, vacancies in court, enforcement, and unpaid work teams were affecting the quality of work that could realistically be delivered across those teams.
The strategic intention to achieve a culture of inclusivity was driven by visible and open leadership. The approach to wellbeing fostered a safe working culture and excellent staff engagement, which resulted in innovation and empowered staff across all grades. The work to collaborate with people on probation was well established and had achieved tangible results, and there was a commitment to the equity, diversity, and inclusion strategy that was making a difference to the work with people on probation.
Given the dedication of senior managers across the North East, I know they will be disappointed by the overall rating of ‘Requires improvement’, although several of the approaches in the region provided excellent examples of effective practice. Through sustaining its commitment to innovation, working with key partners to improve information sharing, and remaining committed to continuous improvement, the North East can achieve a positive trajectory to improve outcomes for people on probation and keep people safe.
Martin Jones
HM Chief Inspector of Probation
Ratings (Back to top)
| Fieldwork started July 2025 | Score 8/24 |
| Overall rating | Requires improvement |
1. Organisational arrangements and activity
| R 1.1 Leadership | Requires improvement |
| P 1.2 Staffing | Requires improvement |
2. Service delivery
| R 2.1 Public protection | Inadequate |
| R 2.2 Desistance | Requires improvement |
| R 2.3 Court work | Inadequate |
| R 2.4 Unpaid work | Requires improvement |
| R 2.5 Resettlement | Requires improvement |
| R 2.6 Victim work | Outstanding |
Executive summary (Back to top)
Introduction
The North East is one of the 12 regions of the Probation Service in England and Wales. Along with Yorkshire and the Humber probation service region and several prisons, it is part of the wider North East, Yorkshire, and the Humber area executive director (AED) area of HM Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS). Probation services were delivered across seven probation delivery units (PDUs) in total across the region. All PDUs within the region were inspected between April and July 2025.
The Regional Probation Director (RPD) and Head of Operations were both very experienced senior leaders within the region, with a well-established senior leadership team, although senior management resources were stretched. At the time we announced the inspection, the head of operations was covering the RPD role, without additional resource. There was additional absence in the RLT throughout the inspection period, impacting on the resource available to provide strategic oversight.
The region managed an overall caseload of 8,616 people in the community, of whom 5,558 were serving community sentences and 3,058 were on licence from prison, with a further 2,959 people currently in prison. The region had 1,169 (full-time equivalent) staff in post, with an overall vacancy rate of eight per cent against the target staffing figure. Services operated across three police force areas, 12 local authorities, 10 magistrates’ courts, and three Crown Courts.
A full range of Commissioned Rehabilitative Services (CRS) was available in the region. Providers included the Thirteen group for accommodation; St Giles Wise and Ingeus for personal wellbeing; St Giles Wise for finance, benefit, and debt; and Ingeus for dependency services. Women’s services were provided by Changing Lives in Cleveland and Northumbria, and St Giles Wise in Durham. Services for drug and alcohol treatment and support were funded in partnership with local authorities.
At the time of inspection, the North East region was continuing to implement several new national policies, at pace, aimed at reducing prison capacity as well as targeting probation resources to the initial part of an individual’s supervision in the community. This included the embedding of Probation Reset,[1] the continued release of some prisoners at the 40 per cent point in their sentence (standard determinate sentence 40 (SDS40),[2] implementing the presumptive risk assessed recall review, for recalled offenders, and delivering Impact for low and medium risk of serious harm offenders in the community.
Methodology
We conducted fieldwork in each PDU across the North East between 28 April 2025 and 29 July 2025. We reviewed 292 cases, of which 183 were subject to a community sentence and 109 were subject to release on licence. From each of these cases, we collated data for our public protection and desistance ratings. We also conducted 250 interviews with probation practitioners. We reviewed 204 court reports and 102 cases subject to resettlement provision. We inspected 31 unpaid work (UPW) cases and 29 statutory victim cases from across the region where community sentences and licences had started between 23 September and 29 November 2024.
1. Organisational arrangements and activity
R1.1 Leadership
Leadership in the North East was impressive across many areas of delivery. We found that senior leaders were committed to delivering high-quality services and ensuring a good work ethos. Despite the many strengths identified, the challenges that remained were having a direct impact on the quality of service delivery, resulting in an overall rating of ‘Requires improvement’.
There was a clear and well-communicated strategic vision that was focused on public protection, supported by relevant business plans and inclusive leadership. Senior leaders were proactive in engaging staff, simplifying messaging, and managing the impact of significant national change.
In an effort to focus practitioners’ time on the most important aspects of their work, the RPD commissioned a review of processes to reduce complexity and improve efficiency. This review, developed in direct collaboration with PDU staff, aimed to identify the top 10 over-mechanistic and time-consuming processes.
Termed the ‘Back to Basics’ approach, the first process addressed home visiting and proved so successful, in terms of staff time saved, that the revised process was subsequently rolled out nationally by the Chief Probation Officer in July 2025.
The approach empowered staff of all grades to have ownership for improving processes and drove a problem-solving culture. Additional investment in workforce development, such as targeted recruitment, risk assessment training, and support for probation officer trainees, reflected a commitment to improving service quality. Staff surveys indicated a positive culture of openness, psychological safety, and recognition, and there were strong efforts to embed equity, diversity, and inclusion into operational delivery.
Collaborative work with people on probation was a notable strength, with structured forums and co-production informing improvements in reception and office environments, induction, and other processes. Integrated offender management (IOM) was particularly effective, supported by strong police partnerships and access to targeted interventions. Resettlement efforts were also strengthened through improved links between prison and community offender managers. A learning culture was evident, with mechanisms to share best practice and lessons learned across functions.
However, persistent challenges limited the impact of these efforts on the quality of casework. While some progress had been achieved, information sharing with the police and children’s social care services remained inconsistent, particularly in relation to domestic abuse and safeguarding, and posed a significant barrier to improving the quality of work to keep people safe. Staffing gaps in the community integration team and underused co-commissioning opportunities further hindered progress against strategic objectives. Although the region’s quality assurance mechanisms were providing senior leaders with useful insights into development needs and delivery risks, the feedback of this work to practitioners was not used to its full potential to support development, and was inconsistently applied across the PDUs.
R1.2 Staffing
The region had a well-structured ‘people plan’ which focused on recruitment, retention, wellbeing, leadership, and inclusivity. Regional corporate services demonstrated a strong commitment to delivering this plan, supported by strategic and tactical workforce planning that enabled a swift response to staffing needs. Leaders took a genuine interest in mitigating work-related stress and had fostered a psychologically safe environment. Wellbeing and safety were prioritised through initiatives such as Respect training and the Unacceptable Behaviour Change programme, and staff we spoke to described their wellbeing and safety as being adequately supported.
The Professional Qualification in Probation (PQiP) was actively supported through regionally tailored programmes for trainees and newly qualified officers. These included structured face-to-face sessions and extended mentoring, covering key areas of probation practice. Staff attrition was below the national average overall, although administrative roles showed a higher turnover, and prompted the creation of a bespoke induction programme for administrators. Most staff we spoke to found workloads to be manageable, although there were peaks in demand, and they attributed a strong team culture and collaborative ethos to their ability meet the workload demand overall.
Despite these strengths, supervision of probation practitioners in the community did not consistently translate into sufficient service delivery, particularly in regard to public protection. Management oversight was lacking in a considerable proportion of cases and was too often driven by processes such as initial allocation or recall, and not prompted by relevant changes in the risk or circumstances of people on probation that needed management advice and attention This affected the quality of risk assessments and safe placement delivery, for those undertaking UPW. Court teams faced staff shortages and high workloads, compounded by outdated workload measurement systems, which hindered accurate demand assessment and resource allocation.
Although there were efforts to promote career development, including progression days and leadership engagements, just under half of surveyed staff (60 out of 123) felt that their potential was being recognised and nurtured.
2. Service delivery
2.1 Public protection
The region had prioritised improving assessment and planning, with some notable progress across several PDUs. However, work related to public protection and keeping people safe was still the weakest scoring area overall, with many cases lacking sufficient delivery of protective measures.
Assessments often failed to incorporate all available information, such as previous convictions and records from other agencies, limiting practitioners’ ability to understand risks fully. Access to police information on domestic abuse varied by location, with Stockton and Hartlepool, Redcar, Cleveland and Middlesborough, and Durham and Darlington generally receiving more sufficient information. Child safeguarding information across the region was notably less sufficient, with just over half of requests yielding adequate responses. Although most enquiries, for both domestic abuse and safeguarding information were being made routinely, practitioners still struggled to obtain the level of detailed information needed for thorough risk assessments.
While risk classification was generally accurate, identifying actual and potential victims – especially children and family members – was less consistent. Consequently, many plans lacked appropriate interventions, and victim protection was sufficient in fewer than half of relevant cases. Multi-agency collaboration was limited, particularly in domestic abuse and safeguarding contexts, and only just over half of multi-agency public protection arrangements (MAPPA) cases showed coordinated oversight involving partner agencies, such as the police.
2.2 Desistance
Assessment and planning for desistance was the strongest area of work and reflected the recent quality improvement efforts. Practitioners were generally effective in identifying factors linked to offending, while also recognising individuals’ strengths and protective factors. In most cases, sentence plans successfully prioritised key needs and connected people on probation with relevant services to support rehabilitation.
However, these strengths did not consistently carry through to service delivery. Although access to CRS was broadly positive, with many receiving strengths-based support, the interventions delivered often failed to address the most critical reoffending risks. Delivery of plans lacked proper sequencing, key needs were prioritised in plans but not sequenced in practice, and too few individuals received sufficient support. Outcomes were notably poorer for those subject to Probation Reset, with limited services available to help sustain desistance after sentence suspension.
2.3 Court work
Court reports generally demonstrated sufficient engagement and desistance work, with practitioners considering personal circumstances and diversity in most cases. Advice to court was typically well informed, with 90 per cent of reports analysing factors linked to offending and appropriate proposals offered.
However, the quality of reports varied across PDUs. Report authors were hindered by poor-quality information from the police and children’s social care services. Many police checks lacked context, and victim details were often redacted, which limited their usefulness. Only half of the reports used all available sources, which contributed to an overall ‘Inadequate’ rating. Durham and Darlington PDU stood out because of the quality of domestic abuse information being received from the police, being sufficient in 96 per cent of cases inspected, and this was then being used in most instances. The quality of checks and processes related to the safeguarding of children was a concern across the region, with missed enquiries and limited professional curiosity, which led to an over-reliance on defendants’ self-reported contact with children.
There were some structural issues impacting quality improvement, and regional leaders had launched a review of court and enforcement work to focus on reducing inefficiencies and improve delivery. Staff vacancies were at 12 per cent across the regional court teams, and gaps in training and the absence of a reliable workload measurement system further hindered report quality. This meant that there was too little time available to follow up on missing information when needed.
2.4 Unpaid work
The implementation of UPW was a strength, with prompt inductions that supported engagement. Practitioners explored personal circumstances and protective factors in most cases, which helped tailor requirements to individuals’ needs. A wide range of group and individual placements was available for both men and women, offering opportunities for skills development and community reparation.
Despite these positives, risk assessment and planning required improvement, particularly in relation to safeguarding concerns involving children, substance misuse, and domestic abuse. Placement suitability was a concern in several cases, with risks to staff and others not always managed properly. Communication between sentence management practitioners and UPW supervisors needed strengthening, to ensure an ongoing risk review and safe delivery of requirements.
2.5 Resettlement
The quality of work to prepare individuals for release and manage risk varied significantly across PDUs. While practitioners supported individuals’ needs and delivered work to support desistance in over two-thirds of cases, key risk of harm issues were missed in some PDUs.
Regional leaders had established good links with their counterparts in local prisons and there had been a focus on improving the quality of resettlement work through better communication between prison and community-based staff. This supported sufficient handovers taking place in most cases we inspected, where relevant, but vital intelligence about behaviour and risk while in custody was not always shared. Information sharing between prison-based staff and the community practitioner was assessed as sufficient in just 58 per cent of cases. Limited contact with people in preparation for their release from prison further hindered the overall effectiveness of pre-release work.
South Tyneside and Gateshead, Stockton and Hartlepool, and Redcar, Cleveland, and Middlesbrough PDUs demonstrated the strongest resettlement work. In these areas, critical needs – such as housing, substance misuse treatment, and mental health support – were addressed, and risks to others were managed through multi-agency collaboration, ensuring safer transitions from custody to the community.
A new resettlement model with dedicated teams was being trialled in some PDUs but had not impacted positively on the cases we inspected. National prison capacity pressures and the related changes in policy, such as SDS40 and end of custody licence schemes, had increased workloads and shortened release planning timelines, further challenging the delivery of effective resettlement support.
2.6 Victim work
Initial contact with the victim was made at an appropriate time in almost all cases we inspected. Victim liaison officers (VLOs) were passionate about ensuring that victims were given clear information about the scheme, and what they could expect through the different points in a sentence, to enable them to make an informed choice about whether or not to participate in it.
Information from witness care units was often incomplete and lacked sufficient detail to support VLOs in making initial contact. Managers were working with witness care unit colleagues to improve the quality of information on referrals, and VLOs described effective relationships with family liaison officers and witness care unit staff in order to arrange handovers, undertake three-way joint visits to victims, and gather any relevant missing information to support initial contact.
Communication between VLOs and practitioners was consistently effective. VLOs shared relevant information about the victim with practitioners, and in most relevant cases practitioners had provided VLOs with appropriate and timely information about the management of the person on probation. This collaboration ensured that victims’ views were considered in release planning, with safety consistently prioritised.
Recommendations (Back to top)
As a result of our inspection findings, we have made a number of recommendations that we believe, if implemented, will have a positive impact on the quality of probation services.
North East region should:
- work with police forces across the region to improve the quality of police information sharing, to inform court reports and case management risk assessments, planning, and the management of people on probation
- improve the quality of court reports to inform sentencing, ensuring that domestic abuse and safeguarding information is used effectively
- work with children’s social care services to protect children from the harm related to offending behaviours; specifically, this should include effective information sharing, joint planning, and improvements to joint work to protect children from harm
- improve the quality of work to assess, plan for, manage, and review risk of harm
- ensure that all MAPPA Level 1 cases have sufficient management oversight and that there is an appropriate focus on information exchange with other agencies to inform risk assessment and review
- ensure that robust quality assurance of sentence management is in place, and used by all PDUs to drive improvement activity
- review UPW sentence management arrangements, to address the deficiencies identified in assessments and ensure that these are accurate and inform safe placement allocation.
HMPPS should:
- ensure that sufficient resources are allocated to the region, to enable effective and timely Serious Further Offence reviews
- ensure that workload capacity percentages, within the workload measurement tool, are updated to reflect the revised Probation Workforce Transformation timings.
Background (Back to top)
The North East is one of the 12 regions of the Probation Service in England and Wales. Along with Yorkshire and the Humber Probation Service region and several prisons, it is part of the wider North East area of HM Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS). Probation services were delivered across seven probation delivery units (PDUs) in total across the region: Newcastle upon Tyne; Northumbria and North Tyneside; Gateshead and South Tyneside; Sunderland; Stockton and Hartlepool; Redcar, Cleveland, and Middlesborough; and Durham and Darlington. All PDUs within the region were inspected between April and July 2025. The North East region is vast in size, and complex, with a mix of large, urban deprived areas as well as rural, dispersed smaller towns. The regional management arrangements include the delivery of UPW, accredited programmes, and victim liaison services across the region.
The region works across three police force areas – Northumbria, Cleveland, and Durham – and 12 local authorities. There are 10 magistrates’ courts, three Crown Courts and six approved premises.
At the time of announcing the inspection, the head of operations was also acting RPD, covering a period of absence for approximately six months. Both the RPD and head of operations were experienced and established senior leaders, with a well-established senior leadership team.
The region managed an overall caseload of 8,616 people in the community, of whom 5,558 were serving community sentences and 3,058 were on licence from prison, with a further 2,959 people currently in prison. The region had 1,169 (full-time equivalent) staff in post, with an overall vacancy rate of eight per cent against the target staffing figure.
A full range of CRS was available in the region. Providers included the Thirteen group for accommodation; St Giles Wise and Ingeus for personal wellbeing; St Giles Wise for finance, benefit, and debt; and Ingeus for dependency services. Women’s services were provided by Changing Lives in Cleveland and Northumbria and St Giles Wise in Durham. Services for drug and alcohol treatment and support were funded in partnership with local authorities.
At the time of inspection, the North East region was continuing to implement several national policies, at pace, aimed at reducing prison capacity as well as targeting probation resources to the initial part of an individual’s supervision in the community. This included the embedding of Probation Reset, SDS40, implementing the presumptive risk assessed recall review, for recalled offenders, and delivering Impact for low and medium risk of serious harm offenders in the community.
1. Organisational arrangements and activity (Back to top)
| R 1.1. Leadership | Rating |
| Regional leadership drives the delivery of a high quality, personalised, and responsive service for all people on probation. | Requires improvement |
Strengths:
- The regional vision and strategy underpinned a headline of ‘Doing the right thing to keep people safe’. Leaders had taken a simplified approach in consultation with staff, and delivery plans streamlined complicated messages.
- AED, regional, and PDU business plans were aligned and set out clear objectives, based on needs analysis data, and performance, audit, and inspection information. Regional and PDU staff across all levels understood the priorities of their work.
- The leadership team was experienced and driven to improve the quality of delivery. Undeterred by frequent policy changes, significant pressures, and feeling overwhelmed over the last 12 months, staff had undertaken scoping activities that enabled them to have a better understanding of barriers to delivering high-quality public protection work. This work informed the ‘Back to Basics’ initiative, which was a key component of regional improvement activity. This included effective cross-grade staff engagement that was inclusive and helped to manage the impact and pace of national change on regional staff.
- The RLT had recruited to several roles outside of the target operating model to address gaps in service delivery and was dedicated to driving high-quality delivery. This included additional PQiP senior probation officers to support the increased number of trainees, and a band six effective practice lead to deliver identified activity in coordinating and delivering improvement tasks, as agreed by the effective practice strategic board. The first of these tasks included the design and delivery of risk assessment and planning training to over 500 probation practitioners to improve quality.
- The work to ‘engage people on probation’ (EPOP) had progressed steadily since the last inspection. The region had prioritised delivery of the North East EPOP action plan through dedicated leadership and a committed team. There was an established structure to gather the views of people on probation, with accountability for PDU heads to ensure that the forums were outcomes driven. We saw examples of collaboration and co-production with people on probation that had informed improvements in service delivery – for example, with office environments and induction processes.
- Strong partnerships at both a strategic and operational level meant that IOM was effective and was achieving impressive reductions in reoffending across the region. Excellent relationships with the police supported timely information sharing for IOM nominals, and a commitment from key partners included providing access to interventions which supported the model and outcomes.
- Senior leaders were visible and prioritised engaging with staff across the region. In our regional staff survey, 73 per cent of respondents said that the culture promoted openness, constructive challenge, and idea sharing, and these findings were echoed in our PDU surveys.
- Leaders aimed to build staff competence, confidence, and psychological safety. We found a collaborative and innovative culture where senior leaders’ skills were trusted in lead roles, and middle managers and practitioners were empowered to solve problems.
- There was a well-developed vision and strategy for equity, diversity, inclusion, and belonging (EDIB), supported by a delivery plan which included prioritising work to address disproportionality. The strategy was connected to operational delivery, with a direct focus on reducing offending and keeping people safe. This was resulting in some promising practice in relation to engagement and desistance in the casework.
- Equity monitoring and analysis were provided to PDUs and senior leaders twice yearly, supporting their understanding and ability to tailor service delivery to local needs. Recent data improvement work had strengthened the accuracy of information on the diversity, protected characteristics, and needs of people on probation, ensuring that decisions were based on a reliable evidence base.
- The approach to change management considered overall impact and was inclusive of staff. In our survey, 76 out of 126 respondents said that when there were changes to service delivery, the impact was assessed sufficiently and appropriate action was taken. We saw examples of this in action, including the home visit policy and Probation Reset delivery models.
- Function heads had a devolved budget for reward and recognition, with guidance about using it equitably and fairly. Staff told us that they received reward and recognition, from both peers and managers. In our staff survey, 82 out of 122 respondents indicated that they felt valued for the work that they did.
- The region was proactive in supporting a positive operating culture and had delivered four sets of training from the Unacceptable Behaviour Change programme. This promoted inclusion across offices and was designed to help enable individuals to raise concerns and address inappropriate actions and behaviours when needed.
- Unpaid work delivery had been reorganised into a regional delivery model and this had improved agility and collaboration in being able to deliver services across the region. Daily planning and a proactive approach to managing the resources available helped reduce the stand-down rate and improve successful completions. There was a wide range of placements available, resulting in a positive community impact.
- Probation leads were part of governance arrangements and strategic meetings to drive improvement in resettlement work. Work to strengthen community offender managers’ links with prison offender managers had taken place. This was in recognition of the need to strengthen information exchange for people being released from prison and improve resettlement plans.
- There were mechanisms to support a learning culture of continuous improvement, including the learning from when things went wrong. The Performance and Quality network on the intranet consisted of a continuous improvement dashboard that collated relevant learning, toolkits, and workshops, and other learning materials were also produced to support the dissemination of this learning. A network of effective practice leads was in place across every function.
Areas for improvement:
- While there were strong partnerships with criminal justice agencies, opportunities to maximise the potential of these relationships had been underused in some instances. This included continued issues with addressing barriers to good-quality information sharing with the police and children’s social care services, and with the co-commissioning of services bespoke to regional and local needs.
- There had been improved access to police and children’s social care services information over the last 18 months. However, the quality of information received in relation to domestic abuse and child safeguarding remained a concern. More needed to be done to resolve this significant business risk at a senior level. Regional leaders and their counterparts across other agencies were working together to improve the quality of information sharing during our inspection, but this had not impacted on the overall quality of the cases we inspected.
- Staffing issues in the community integration team had hindered the progress that could reasonably be achieved. There was a lack of resilience in the team, which meant that there were gaps in the interface with PDU heads, and the ability to deliver against the AED and regional business plan objectives. In addition, co-commissioning opportunities with partners were not always fully used.
- While there was a sufficient range of services available for people on probation, the contract management of these services was not robust. This impacted on addressing key deliverables linked to offending and risk of harm in the community, including drug and alcohol interventions.
- Despite the range of activity aimed at driving up quality, this had not resulted in sufficient improvements in service delivery, specifically in relation to the management of risk of harm. Not all practitioners received timely and meaningful feedback from regional case audit tool assessments completed on their cases. In addition, there was an inconsistent approach to the way that PDUs welcomed and used the quality development officer resource. This undermined the potential of this input to support improvements in the work to keep people safe.
- There was a detailed risk register, with mitigations for each identified risk. Where appropriate, these risks were managed via regional plans, AED and business plans, as well as by function – that is, the UPW plan. However, this register did not include the gaps in information sharing relating to domestic abuse and safeguarding, despite regional leaders knowing that there were limitations to the current processes, and the negative impact on the quality of public protection work as a consequence.
- The quality of assessments, enforcement action, and the management of suspensions all impacted on the quality of UPW delivered. The performance of standalone UPW teams within PDUs varied and there had not been learning shared across the region to drive improvements.
- In the previous 12 months, only 36 per cent of those with an accredited programme requirement to address sexual offending, and 41 per cent of those needing any other offending behaviour programme, had successfully completed these requirements. Delivery models across the region varied and this impacted on consistency. While programme teams felt supported, there was a high level of demand for programme delivery, and the start of a new programme had increased administrative tasks, while reducing the preparation time needed to ensure high-quality delivery.
| R 1.2 Staffing | Rating |
| Staff are enabled to deliver a high-quality, personalised, and responsive service for all people on probation. | Requires improvement |
Strengths:
- There was a comprehensive ‘people plan’ in place that was aligned to the national workforce objectives, and included targets relating to recruitment and retention, wellbeing, staff development, confident and inspiring leadership, and creating a diverse and inclusive workforce. The corporate services team was driven to deliver against this plan and had achieved measurable progress.
- Workforce planning arrangements were robust and informed by reliable, up-to-date information. The structure included monthly strategic workforce planning, with future horizon scanning and planning of resource allocation, as well as weekly tactical operations planning meetings that enabled a responsive approach to workforce and organisational needs. This included a willingness to recruit outside of the Target Operating Model (TOM), to adapt to requirements to meet individual needs across the region.
- Leaders were committed to creating a culture of psychological safety that was intended to support resilience and address stress in the workplace. Staff across a range of grades, roles, and teams (both at regional and PDU level) described feeling ‘safe’ from a psychological perspective.
- Respect training and the Unacceptable Behaviour Change programme were delivered to staff, and the strategy was underpinned by a wellbeing action plan, forum, and regional single points of contact. In our survey, 88 out of 122 respondents felt that sufficient attention was paid to their wellbeing.
- In addition, most respondents felt that sufficient attention was paid to their safety, with 101 out of 123 responding positively to the question on this issue. All business managers and most senior administrative officers had completed the Institute of Occupational Safety and Health Managing Safely qualification.
- The learning and development team was complementing the national learning for trainee probation officers and there was a framework of support for trainees which included a programme of face-to-face learning events covering a range of topics across probation practice.
- A Newly Qualified Officer programme had also been developed, which gave the opportunity for learning in topics such as parole, MAPPA, and working with those convicted of sexual offences, and included an extension of the practice tutor assessor support for the first four months (and continued two-monthly where needed).
- Staff attrition overall was below the national average (10 per cent), at 8.1 per cent. Activity to understand attrition and make the region a good place to work were prioritised. A bespoke induction programme for administrative staff and an accompanying local induction handbook had been developed, in recognition of this staff group having the highest rate of attrition, at 12.5 per cent.
- In our survey, 67 per cent of respondents said that the workload was either very or quite manageable at a regional level. A strong culture of teamwork and willingness to pull together underpinned this view.
Areas for improvement:
- Supervision was held on a frequent basis for 76 per cent of regional staff who completed our staff survey, and 71 per cent said that it enhanced the quality of their work. However, this did not translate into the delivery of high-quality services, specifically relating to public protection.
- Management oversight was insufficient, ineffective, or absent in 71 per cent of UPW cases and 69 per cent of statutory victim cases. This related to an absence of recorded oversight, apart from at initial allocation. In UPW cases, this impacted on the quality of risk assessments and safe delivery of placements.
- Staff vacancies across court teams (12 per cent) had resulted in high workloads. This was exacerbated by the lack of meaningful workload measurement within courts, which meant that the overall demand was not fully evidenced because of outdated workload measurement figures. Although this was beyond the control of the region, with responsibility sitting with national leads, it was impacting local delivery
- While we saw several positive examples of staff promotion, and the rollout of career progression days, with senior leaders engaging staff to promote growth within the organisation, just under half of the respondents to our survey (60 out of 123) said that the potential of staff was identified and developed.
Diversity and inclusion (Back to top)
- There was a well-developed vision and strategy for EDIB, supported by a delivery plan which included prioritising work to address disproportionality. The strategy was connected to operational delivery, with a direct focus on reducing offending and keeping people safe, and impressive progress had been achieved against the delivery plan.
- Equity monitoring and analysis were provided to PDUs and senior leaders twice yearly, supporting their understanding and ability to tailor service delivery to local needs. Recent data improvement work had strengthened the accuracy of information on the diversity, protected characteristics, and needs of people on probation, ensuring that decisions were based on a reliable evidence base.
- While the diversity of staff in the region was not representative of that of the caseload, a programme of training and staff engagement events promoted cultural competence and deepened staff knowledge of diversity issues. Case inspections showed that the assessment and planning of work with individuals were consistently strong, taking account of diversity and personal circumstances, contributing to better engagement and outcomes.
- By understanding the protected characteristics and diversity of people on probation, the region had commissioned relevant training to support practitioners in delivering probation services in an accessible way, and with confidence. Practitioners had a strong understanding of the importance of being responsive to the strengths and protective factors of people on probation to support desistance and reduce risk of harm to other people. Our case inspection found strengths in the analysis, planning and delivery of services.
- The EDIB board measured the progress made against the EDIB plan at a senior level of governance, and this plan linked to operational delivery, with an emphasis on delivering EDIB activity as business-as-usual across all of the organisation. We saw this during the inspection, with diversity characteristics being asked about in most cases and then considered by practitioners, in terms of building and maintaining a relationship with the person on probation.
- There was a well-established women’s model in the region. All PDUs had women-only reporting facilities and there were co-located women’s hubs that provided a holistic offer of support and interventions away from the main probation offices. There were excellent relationships with CRS providers for women, HMP Lowe Newton to support women on release from prison, and other local services across all PDUs.
- UPW delivery included women-only and neurodivergent groups and individual placements.
- The region had devised a ‘sentence management strategy for young people’, which set out the approach to working with young adults and care experienced people. We found some strengths in the work with young adults across the region, and in some PDUs there were dedicated practitioners who worked in a responsive way to meet the needs of young adults. Relationships with youth offending teams were strong and there were approaches to working with young people who were transitioning from youth services, with effective information sharing.
- Most PDUs had developed the environment to try to provide better support for neurodivergent people on probation. Feedback about reception areas and interview rooms had been obtained from people on probation and offender personality disorder pathway staff, with recommendations.
Areas for improvement:
- A quarterly disproportionality report formed part of the EDIB strategy group agenda. There was also a link into regional EPOP work, to ensure that the voice of people on probation was included in the disproportionality discussions and service commissioning. Despite the positives seen, in terms of data collection and the strengths of the EDIB leads, the region had not worked closely enough with local partners to explore whether services for diverse needs could be jointly commissioned.
- Despite the positives seen in terms of data collection and the strength of the EDIB leads, the region had been unable to leverage co-commissioning opportunities with partners to meet diverse needs, where it was reasonably required.
2. Service delivery (Back to top)
| R 2.1 Public protection | Rating |
| High-quality, personalised, and responsive services are delivered to protect the public. | Inadequate |
Our rating[3] for public protection is based on the percentage of cases we inspected being judged satisfactory against four key questions and is driven by the lowest score:
| Key question | Percentage ‘Yes’ |
| Does assessment focus sufficiently on keeping other people safe? | 35% |
| Does planning focus sufficiently on keeping other people safe? | 48% |
| Does the implementation and delivery of services effectively support the safety of other people? | 33% |
| Does reviewing focus sufficiently on keeping other people safe? | 34% |
In the previous 12 months, the region had focused quality improvement activity on assessment and planning work, and there was evidence of progress within some PDUs. While we found cases where work to keep people safe was delivered sufficiently, this was not evidenced in enough cases and public protection was the poorest area of work across all inspection standards.
Assessments were not informed by all available sources of information in too many cases. Previous convictions, probation records and assessments, and information held by other agencies working with the person on probation were not always considered. This was a missed opportunity for the practitioner to be professionally curious and investigate gaps in the information known to them and access additional information through available sources.
Access to high-quality police information that related to domestic abuse varied across the region, with more sufficient information received in response to checks within Stockton and Hartlepool; Redcar, Cleveland and Middlesborough; and Durham and Darlington PDUs. Child safeguarding information was even less sufficient, with just over half of the requests made returned with sufficient information. While the region had made some progress with accessing key information, and enquiries were completed in most cases when needed, further work was needed to ensure access to detailed information essential for the robust assessment of risk of serious harm.
While practitioners’ classification of risk was sufficient in most cases (262 of 292), the identification of actual and potential victims needed improvement in 118 of 279 cases. This usually related to failing to identify and consider wider victims, such as children or parents exposed to domestic abuse or substance misuse. As a result, too few plans included the necessary interventions and safety planning. Attention to protecting victims was a concern and was judged as insufficient in over half of the inspected cases (160 of 262 relevant cases).
The implementation and delivery of services was generally not sufficient to keep people safe. We found limited multi-agency working, including gaps in the sharing of information in relation to domestic abuse and safeguarding, and a requirement to coordinate better the involvement of other agencies in managing and minimising risk of harm. There was a similar finding in MAPPA cases, where just over half of cases (38 of 72) had evidence of a coordinated multi-agency oversight, including joint working with the police.
| R 2.2 Desistance | Rating |
| High-quality, personalised, and responsive services are delivered to promote desistance. | Requires improvement |
Our rating[4] for desistance is based on the percentage of cases we inspected being judged satisfactory against four key questions and is driven by the lowest score:
| Key question | Percentage ‘Yes’ |
| Does assessment focus sufficiently on the factors linked to offending and desistance? | 76% |
| Does planning focus sufficiently on reducing reoffending and supporting desistance? | 72% |
| Does the implementation and delivery of services effectively support desistance? | 51% |
| Does reviewing focus sufficiently on supporting desistance? | 50% |
Assessment and planning for desistance was the strongest area of work and reflected the region’s quality improvement efforts. Practitioners typically identified offending-related factors and recognised individuals’ strengths and protective factors. In 72 per cent of cases, sentence plans effectively prioritised key needs and connected people on probation with appropriate services to support their rehabilitation.
However, these strengths did not follow through into the implementation and delivery of services. Access to services delivered by CRS providers was positive; almost three-quarters of people who needed a CRS service had been offered it, with 63 per cent benefiting from strengths-based support. However, in too many cases the services failed to target reoffending effectively. Key needs were prioritised in plans, but not sequenced in practice, with sufficient services delivered in too few cases where needed.
Outcomes were poorer for those people on probation subject to Probation Reset, with just seven of 19 cases accessing services likely to support desistance, and limited services were engaged to support people on probation to sustain desistance once their sentence had been suspended.
Positive relationships between practitioners and programme facilitators, supported by co-location in PDU offices, had enabled timely starts and information sharing in 26 of 38 relevant cases. General offending behaviour programmes had had a completion rate of 41 per cent before being phased out for the new Building Choices programme, and current delivery was aligned with the nationally directed risk-based prioritisation process. The region had made progress with the rollout of the new programme, supported by continuous recruitment and the development of programme facilitators. This included a focus on their confidence to work with people convicted of sexual offences. Completion rates for sexual offending behaviour programmes had decreased from 43 per cent to 36 per cent in the 12 months prior to our inspection.
| R 2.3 Court work | Rating |
| The pre-sentence information and advice provided to court supports its decision-making. | Inadequate |
Our rating[5] for court work is based on the percentage of cases we inspected being judged satisfactory against one key question:
| Key question | Percentage ‘Yes’ |
| Is the pre-sentence information and advice provided to court sufficiently analytical and personalised to the individual, supporting the court’s decision-making? | 41% |
Regional leaders had prioritised improving court work and launched a six-month ‘Back to Basics’ review in March 2025, focused on streamlining enforcement processes between sentence management and enforcement teams, to reduce unnecessary tasks and improve quality-focused work.
Engagement and desistance work in court reports was sufficient, and similar to findings from casework. Most reports engaged defendants effectively, with practitioners considering personal circumstances and diversity in 79 per cent of cases and assessing motivation and readiness to change in 73 per cent. Advice to court included an analysis of factors linked to reoffending in 90 per cent of cases, and appropriate proposals were made in most instances (171 of 199).
The quality of advice and reports to court varied across PDUs, often reflecting the quality of information received from the police and children’s social care services. Police enquiries often lacked context, providing numerical data only, and victim details were sometimes redacted, limiting their value to report authors. Even when adequate information was available, it was not consistently used. Overall, only half of reports drew on all available sources, such as probation records and information from other partner agencies, contributing to the ‘Inadequate’ rating.
Arrangements to obtain high-quality information on domestic violence were more effectively supporting court report authors in Durham and Darlington than in other PDU’s in the region. Police information there was sufficient in nearly all cases (27 of 28), and report authors had used the information to inform 22 of 25 relevant reports. However, when considering this issue across all of the PDUs, poor-quality information and its inconsistent use in relation to the safeguarding of children had lowered the quality of reports. We found too many in which checks regarding the safety of children had been missed or lacked professional curiosity in relation to what defendants reported about their contact with children. Despite some limitations due to the quality of risk information obtained, report writers demonstrated their understanding of risk to others and the risk factors linked to the index offence, and both were considered in most reports (160 of 202 relevant reports).
Checks to make sure that people could safely be given curfew requirements without posing a risk to family members, partners, or children residing with them were not routinely considered; 17 of 43 curfew requirements had not been informed by domestic abuse or safeguarding checks to confirm their suitability, although a number of these may have been made directly by magistrates, without obtaining probation reports.
Regionally, the court team had a 12 per cent vacancy rate, with gaps at probation officer and probation services officer (PSO) grades affecting workloads. While recruitment was under way to fill PSO roles, training and experience gaps remained as barriers to quality. The lack of a reliable system to measure workloads – an issue nationally – meant that court officers were often working above capacity, with tasks taking longer than accounted for via the current workload measurement allocated to them. Workload demand limited report authors’ capacity to follow up on checks when there was missing information, and the lack of reliable workload measurement left managers unable to assess workloads accurately.
| R 2.4 Unpaid work | Rating |
| Unpaid work is delivered safely and effectively, engaging the person on probation in line with the expectations of the court. | Requires improvement |
Our rating[6] for unpaid work is based on the percentage of cases we inspected being judged satisfactory against four key questions and is driven by the lowest score:
| Key question | Percentage ‘Yes’ |
| Is the assessment and planning of unpaid work personalised? | 58% |
| Do arrangements for unpaid work maximise rehabilitative elements and support desistance? | 84% |
| Is unpaid work delivered safely? | 52% |
| Is the sentence of the court implemented appropriately? | 71% |
Development of a new and consistent UPW model across the region had been prioritised to drive improvements, as identified by senior leaders. UPW PSOs had been integrated into PDU structures, overseeing key process to drive the quality of delivery. We found the arrangements and implementation of UPW to be a strength but work to assess risk and implement requirements safely needed improvement.
Staff were working to support the engagement and compliance of people on probation with UPW requirements. Practitioners had explored individuals’ personal characteristics and circumstances at the start of the order in just over two-thirds of cases and had assessed strengths and protective factors in most cases to gain an understanding of an individual’s needs. Requirements began promptly, with UPW staff consistently delivering a thorough induction that clearly outlined expectations, rules, and attendance instructions to support successful completion.
There was a range of suitable options for group and individual placements for both men and women, providing opportunities to gain a range of employment-related skills and qualifications, as well as reparation with local communities. Overall stand-down rates were low, at 1.5 per cent, but staff sickness had impacted service delivery in some parts of the region.
Despite attention to personal circumstances and needs, assessment and planning to ensure that work placements were personalised and identified and addressed factors relating to risk of serious harm, were sufficient in only 58 per cent of cases. These gaps included the lack of professional curiosity about known children linked to people on probation. Enquiries with children’s social care services were not followed up to verify or report risks in some cases, and this was especially concerning where there were known substance misuse and domestic violence concerns.
Too many cases were allocated to unsuitable placements, leading to poorly managed risks (including to staff), racially motivated behaviours, and, in one case, concerns regarding risk of sexual harm. The digital assessment tool was completed before the full risk of harm assessment, a nationally mandated process, and we found cases where risks to other people had not been communicated to UPW staff following completion of the full assessment. Communication between sentence management practitioners and UPW supervisors needed improvement to support placement suitability and an ongoing review of risk and ensure safety.
Despite the strengths of work to support implementation of the requirement, there had been barriers, including complicated enforcement hub processes, to appropriate enforcement action being taken in 10 of 19 relevant cases.
| R 2.5 Resettlement | Rating |
| Resettlement work is timely, personalised, and coordinated, addressing the individual’s resettlement needs and supporting their integration into the community. | Requires improvement |
Our rating[7] for resettlement is based on the percentage of cases we inspected being judged satisfactory against one key question:
| Key question | Percentage ‘Yes’ |
| Is resettlement timely, personalised, and coordinated, and does it address key resettlement needs and support the individual’s integration into the community? | 53% |
The quality of work to prepare individuals for release and manage risk varied widely across PDUs and required improvement overall. Where resettlement was effective, practitioners had identified and addressed the needs and risks of people in prison pre-release, appropriate prison-based services had been delivered, and critical information about behaviour and risk in custody had been shared promptly between prison and community staff. This had supported risk analysis and planning, timely three-way handovers, and sufficient contact between people in custody and their probation practitioners, to promote engagement and inform release plans.
Practitioners had supported individuals’ needs on release and helped reduce reoffending in just over two-thirds of cases. However, in some PDUs, key risk of harm issues had been missed too often. Although handovers took place in 23 of 36 relevant cases, information between prison and community offender managers was not shared in 58 per cent of these cases, and we saw evidence of limited pre-release contact with individuals.
Gateshead and South Tyneside; Stockton and Hartlepool; and Redcar, Cleveland, and Middlesborough PDUs were delivering the most effective work to support release from prison. Key risk of harm issues had been identified and addressed sufficiently in most cases and, where resettlement needs had been identified, services had been delivered in prison, prioritising the most critical needs. This meant that critical needs, such as finding suitable accommodation, accessing drug and alcohol treatment, or obtaining mental health support, had been arranged. Critically, identified risks to children and other people had been assessed and managed through multi-agency liaison and referrals to support people making the transition from prison to the community safely, with the best possible opportunity to stop offending.
As part of the regional improvement activity some PDUs were trialling an alternative model with dedicated resettlement teams; this was due to be evaluated but, overall, we did not see better resettlement outcomes in those trial areas. The volume and pace of change due to the national prison capacity issues, which included SDS40 and the end of custody licence scheme, had impacted all probation practitioners’ workloads, reducing the timescales in which effective pre-release planning could be completed. This was more acute for those practitioners in dedicated resettlement teams who were allocated only prison release cases.
| R 2.6 Statutory victim work | Rating |
| Relevant and timely information is provided to victims of a serious offence, and they are given the opportunity to contribute their views at key points in the sentence. | Outstanding |
Our rating[8] for victim work[9] 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 initial contact with victims encourage engagement with the victim contact scheme and provide information about sources of support? | 83% |
| Is there effective information and communication exchange to support the safety of victims? | 100% |
| Does pre-release contact with victims allow them to make appropriate contributions to the conditions of release? | 100% |
The victim contact scheme enabled victims of serious sexual and violent offences who had opted into the scheme to receive support from the regional victim liaison team. Initial contact with victims had been made at an appropriate time in nearly all inspected cases, with VLOs showing a strong commitment to ensuring that victims received clear information about the scheme, helping them to make an informed choice about whether to participate.
Information provided by police witness care units was often incomplete, limiting VLOs’ ability to tailor initial contact to victims’ needs and characteristics. Managers were working to improve referral quality, and VLOs described productive relationships with family liaison officers and witness care staff, which supported joint visits and helped fill information gaps.
Communication between VLOs and sentence management practitioners was consistently effective. VLOs shared relevant victim information, and, in most cases, practitioners had reciprocated with timely updates on probation management. This collaboration ensured that victim views were considered, and safety was prioritised in release planning.
Despite the strengths in communication between VLOs and sentence management practitioners, MAPPA Level 1 processes did not involve VLOs sufficiently. We found no evidence of VLOs participating in, or contributing to, MAPPA Level 1 reviews in six of seven relevant cases. VLOs had also not been involved in multi-agency risk assessment conference processes in any of the relevant inspected cases. Positively, our inspection did not identify gaps in information sharing or victim safety planning. However, the inclusion of VLOs in these crucial multi-agency risk management procedures would have strengthened the work in the region and ensured that the potential for gaps in information sharing was managed.
Learning from Serious Further Offences (Back to top)
Serious Further Offences (SFOs) in the region were dealt with in the SFO and complaints team within the performance and quality unit. There were two senior operational support managers leading the team, eight reviewing managers (6.4 full-time-equivalent), and one administrative officer. An additional administrative officer had been recruited during our inspection, in recognition of the demands of the role. A total of 26 SFO reviews had been received during February 2024 and February 2025. Twenty-five reviews had been quality assured by HMPPS, and seven of which were also quality assured by HM Inspectorate of Probation.
The region had taken action to manage SFO review allocations, and there was no formal backlog. This had been achieved through the immediate allocation of new reviews, which meant that reviewing managers were allocated six or seven reviews that needed continual reprioritisation using an internal prioritisation process, and deadline extensions. This meant that there was a functional backlog within individual workloads, although at a lower level than in other regions.
Reviewing managers faced high workloads due to increased SFO notifications, and they described challenges with fair work allocation, and competing demands affecting continuity and the timeliness of reviews. This was compounded by delays in accessing national training and concerns about the quality of training, which further hindered staff in producing high-quality reviews.
Out of 25 SFO reviews quality assured, 20 were rated as ‘Requires improvement’ and five as ‘Good’. Common issues included limited analysis, the implications of underestimation of risk of serious harm were not always clear, a failure to include all relevant learning in action plans, and the accessibility of SFO reports for victims was hindered by excessive length, repetition and lack of clarity. There was a structured countersigning and quality assurance process was in place, and the region had introduced weekly feedback meetings and monthly development days to improve quality, although the impact of these initiatives was not yet evident at the time of our inspection.
The region prioritised learning from when things went wrong, which included participation in multi-agency learning events and had adapted insights from these events to improve its own processes; this included the production of a seven-minute briefing to share learning from SFOs. A continuous improvement dashboard supported tracking and analysis of learning from SFO reviews and informed the decisions of the region’s effective practice strategic board concerning where to target improvement activity.
Progress on previous recommendations (Back to top)
| Previous recommendation | Action taken and impact | Categorisation | Improvement still required? |
| From previous probation inspections | Summarise action taken and impact | Sufficient progress / Some progress/ No progress | Yes/no If yes, consider repeating the recommendation |
| Ensure accommodation support services provide an effective service that meets the needs of people on probation. | CAS 3 accommodation available, with good utilisation of bed space and established move on processes. CRS provider, the Thirteen group, was well regarded and, although operating within the contract, was providing a tangible support service. Its staff were co-located with, and accessible to, practitioners and people on probation. Availability of accommodation was still under-resourced. | Some progress | Yes |
| Ensure that PSOs have sufficient skills, knowledge and experience to adequately assess, plan, work with and review risk of harm to others. | L&D were offering sessions for PSOs within suitable PQiP workshops to improve the standard of their work. However, this had a low uptake rate. PSOs were undertaking Gateway to Practice, and National Vocational Qualification Level 3 qualifications were being delivered by the region. | Some progress | Yes |
Annexe 1 (Back to top)
The tables below show the ratings for each of the standards in the PDUs that were inspected in the Probation Service – North East region.
Key:
O = ‘Outstanding’
G = ‘Good’
RI = ‘Requires improvement’
I = ‘Inadequate’
Engagement
| PDU | Assessment | Planning | Implementation | Reviewing |
| Newcastle Upon Tyne | G | G | RI | RI |
| Gateshead & South Tyneside | G | RI | O | G |
| Sunderland | RI | G | RI | I |
| North Tyneside & Northumberland | G | G | RI | RI |
| Stockton & Hartlepool | O | RI | G | G |
| Redcar, Cleveland & Middlesbrough | G | RI | G | RI |
| County Durham and Darlington | RI | RI | RI | G |
Desistance
| PDU | Assessment | Planning | Implementation | Reviewing |
| Newcastle Upon Tyne | G | RI | I | I |
| Gateshead & South Tyneside | O | O | RI | I |
| Sunderland | G | O | I | I |
| North Tyneside & Northumberland | G | G | RI | RI |
| Stockton & Hartlepool | O | G | RI | RI |
| Redcar, Cleveland & Middlesbrough | G | G | I | G |
| County Durham and Darlington | G | G | I | RI |
Public protection
| PDU | Assessment | Planning | Implementation | Reviewing |
| Newcastle Upon Tyne | I | I | I | I |
| Gateshead & South Tyneside | I | RI | I | I |
| Sunderland | I | RI | I | I |
| North Tyneside & Northumberland | I | RI | I | I |
| Stockton & Hartlepool | I | RI | I | I |
| Redcar, Cleveland & Middlesbrough | I | RI | I | I |
| County Durham and Darlington | I | I | I | I |
Data annexe (Back to top)
Effective Practice Spotlight: North East region (Back to top)
Effective Practice Spotlight: The Probation Service – North East Region
Press release (Back to top)
Further information (Back to top)
Full data from this inspection and further information about the methodology used to conduct this inspection is available in the data annexe.
A glossary of terms used in this report is available on our website.
This inspection was led by HM Inspector Lucy Jones, 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 refers to a national policy decision where probation supervision will be suspended two-thirds of the way through the probation period, unless exemption criteria is met
[2] SDS40 provides that prisoners will be automatically released on licence after having served 40 per cent of their sentence instead of 50 per cent.
[3] The rating for the standard is driven by the aggregate scores from PDUs for the key questions, 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 aggregate scores from PDUs for the key questions, which is placed in a rating band, indicated in bold in the table. Full data and further information about inspection methodology is available in the data annexe.
[5] The rating for the standard is driven by the aggregate score from PDU and unpaid work case inspections, which is placed in a rating band, indicated in bold in the table. Full data and further information about inspection methodology is available in the data annexe.
[6] The rating for the standard is driven by the lowest score on each of the key questions, from unpaid work cases inspected during regional fieldwork, which is placed in a rating band, indicated in bold in the table. Full data and further information about inspection methodology is available in the data annexe.
[7] The rating for the standard is driven by the aggregate data from resettlement cases in PDU inspections, giving a score for the key question, which is placed in a rating band, indicated in bold in the table. Full data and further information about inspection methodology is available in the data annexe.
[8] The rating for the standard is driven by the lowest score on each of the key questions, from eligible cases inspected as part of regional fieldwork, which is placed in a rating band, indicated in bold in the table. Full data and further information about inspection methodology is available in the data annexe.
[9] Statutory victim work relates to the activity by the region in relation to the victim contact scheme. This provides victims with the right to support from the Probation Service for the duration of the sentence, where the perpetrator of a violent or sexual offence is sentenced to 12 months in prison or more.