Dynamic Inspection of Public Protection in North West region
Chief Inspector’s judgement (Back to top)
This inspection of the North West Probation Service’s public protection work identified some improvements in mechanisms designed to keep people safe. Since our last inspection of the region in 2023, leaders had made considerable efforts to improve information sharing with both children’s services and the four police services across the region. Improvements were noticeable, especially in relation to arrangements with the police, although information from children’s services still required further clarity in around a third of the cases we looked at.
Senior leaders had ensured that a strong focus had remained on their public protection responsibilities, with work identified in our last inspection having been built upon further, including that relating to serious organised crime and to the national offender personality disorder (OPD) pathway. The recent reorganisation of probation delivery units (PDUs) and creation of a dedicated court team had also seen an improvement in court work and clearer PDU alignment.
Overall, although we saw some examples of well-managed cases, some shortfalls remained, particularly in relation to case assessment and work relating to the implementation and delivery of provision to keep people safe. In too many cases, insufficient analysis of information, a lack of professional curiosity, and limited liaison with other agencies to obtain a full picture of the person on probation undermined effective practice, despite clear guidelines and training from leaders and managers.
With over a third of all cases in the North West managed under multi-agency public protection arrangements (MAPPA), there had been a strong push to improve both the timeliness and quality of this work. However, our own analysis found some deficits in Level 1 reviews as well as in liaison with partner agencies.
Across the region, a significant shortfall of probation officers (POs) and probation services officers (PSOs), with attendant high caseloads, hampered improvements in practice, as did the levels of inexperience of some staff. However, leaders were aware of this, and working hard to focus activity on priority areas, such as public protection, and to support staff through both training and personal development and, where possible, more directly – for example, by the development of the referral hub in Merseyside.
Despite some clear guidance, training, and support for practitioners, in too many cases we found shortfalls in the key building blocks of practice to keep people safe. While high workloads and staffing shortfalls compounded this, there remained a need for leaders and managers across the region to take a robust approach to striking the balance between supporting practitioners to develop confidence and experience, while holding them accountable for the work they were doing.
Context (Back to top)
This inspection focused on the delivery of public protection work across the North West probation region. Inspectors examined a sample of 94 cases, conducted interviews with 85 practitioners, and held focused discussion groups with representative managers from probation and partner agencies working alongside them. The work concentrated on four core areas: assessment; planning; implementation and delivery; and review, with particular consideration given to the effectiveness of arrangements for keeping people safe.
At the time the inspection was announced, the region was supervising approximately 27,680 people, supported by around 2,059 staff in post. Around 70 per cent of the caseload was managed in the community, and 36 per cent of cases were assessed as presenting a high or very high risk of serious harm. Case management activity included significant volumes of cases involving domestic abuse (46 per cent) and serious organised crime.
At the time of the inspection, the North West probation region was organisationally complex and geographically extensive, covering areas with a high population density alongside large rural localities. It extended to the Scottish border in the north, the Pennines in the east, the Irish Sea to the west, the West Midlands in the south, and Wales in the south-west. During 2025, a regional reorganisation had reduced the number of PDUs from 13 to 11, enabling a strengthened central focus on court work and the establishment of a regional court team.
The region was structured into two subregional areas, Cumbria & Lancashire and Cheshire & Merseyside, with each aligned to the accompanying police forces of Cumbria, Lancashire, Merseyside, and Cheshire. Across the region, there were 26 local authorities, including unitary, metropolitan, top-tier, and second-tier. The regional court team serviced 23 courts, comprising nine Crown Courts and 14 magistrates’ courts. There were 26 unpaid work sites across the area.
The population of the region was diverse, encompassing multiple ethnicities. While most of the population lived in urban centres, there were marked contrasts across the region: Merseyside contained densely populated urban communities, whereas Cumbria was predominantly rural. Deprivation affected large sections of the population, although this was uneven, and the region also included areas of significant affluence.
Staffing was a significant challenge, with an average vacancy rate of 23 per cent for POs, varying across PDUs and with Merseyside particularly affected. The number of PSOs in post had declined recently as a result of a combination of factors, including many joining the probation trainee programme. In addition, a substantial proportion of the workforce had been in post for two years or less, resulting in comparatively high levels of inexperience within PDUs.
The region had also been managing sustained pressure associated with the implementation of multiple national policy changes, introduced to address workload pressures across the Probation Service and the Prison Service. These included Probation Reset, prison early release schemes, Impact, and changes to recall policy. Regional leaders were alert to the likelihood of further change linked to the Independent Sentencing Review (May 2025) and the potential for additional demand in the year ahead.
Inspection commentary (Back to top)
We saw shortfalls in casework in all four key questions relating to the management of risk. Shortfalls were of particular note in relation to assessment, where we considered fewer than 40 per cent of cases to be sufficient, although planning was far better, with over 60 per cent of cases meeting our standard of sufficiency. We also noted some shortfalls in both implementation and delivery, and reviewing.
Shortfalls in casework were often similar to those we have seen elsewhere. Too often, practitioners did not sufficiently analyse the information available to them about the person on probation or focused almost exclusively on the present conviction without considering how previous patterns of behaviour might affect future risk and activity. In fewer than half the cases we looked at did the practitioner either draw sufficiently on available sources of information or identify clearly any risks of harm to others. Although planning was better, some cases lacked detail and/or bespoke approaches to keep people safe. Across all four of our key questions, there was often insufficient engagement with other agencies or services involved directly or indirectly with the person on probation.
This was disappointing as regional leaders had placed a strong strategic focus on public protection, centred largely around their two-year public protection delivery plan. A reflection of this was the recent reorganisation of the region to create a dedicated court team, alongside the merging of two smaller PDUs to create 11 instead of the previous 13. This had enabled a clearer structure for the two senior leadership teams (Cheshire & Merseyside and Lancashire & Cumbria) to meet local needs while still linking to the operational practice board and North West regional board. There had also been a positive impact on the work of courts, where we found that, in 48 out of the 53 court reports we reviewed, an appropriate proposal had been made to support public protection, and that enforcement action had been taken, where necessary, in 28 out of 40 relevant cases.
Since the last inspection of the North West in 2023, considerable work had also been undertaken to build better models of information exchange with both the police and children’s services. During that inspection, we noted ‘significant backlogs’ in relation to information requests to the police, including ‘over 1,300 outstanding requests across Merseyside’. In the current inspection, it was encouraging to note that there had been no such delays, and in all the cases we reviewed where an enquiry had been made to the police at the beginning of an order regarding domestic abuse, information had been received. There was a similar picture in relation to safeguarding enquiries made to children’s services, although in three cases no information had been received.
Across all four counties in the North West, there were clear methods for obtaining enquiry information. In many parts of the region, this involved either direct access, including across parts of Lancashire, or direct funding from the service, such as in parts of Cumbria and Cheshire. Of particular note was the innovative automated domestic abuse information-sharing scheme in Merseyside. The system automatically generated information to probation practitioners when there was a domestic abuse incident relating to a person on probation they were managing. Consequently, information was available to the practitioner immediately after an incident took place, rather than having to wait for an enquiry, which could be several months later. The scheme was being expanded across the region and it was hoped that other forces would adopt it in the near future. Work was also ongoing to expand the range of information covered to include all police incidents.
Despite information generally being exchanged, in around a third of the cases we looked at where an enquiry to children’s services was needed, insufficient information in relation to that enquiry had been received and practitioners had not followed this up effectively to seek clarity. This appeared largely due to a lack of confidence or knowledge about how to do so, compounded, at least in part, by the existence of multiple top-tier local authorities in subregions (four in Cheshire, two in Cumbria, three in Lancashire, and five in Merseyside) potentially confusing processes. However, there were escalation routes across each of the 14 social services and guidance was available to staff.
To support improvements in information exchange, clear guidance had been produced to support staff. This included the ‘WHAT’ safeguarding guidance, which offered unequivocal and clear direction as to how information should be managed and recorded. Furthermore, the regional quality development and assurance framework 2025/2026 focused specifically on the ‘Start Well, Deliver Well, and End Well’ initiative which had been in place throughout 2025, focusing specifically on assessment and planning – offering a ‘back to basics’ approach to reflect the relative inexperience of many staff, and an opportunity to emphasise the importance of the quality of work. In our survey of staff, almost 99 per cent of 338 respondents said that they knew what was meant by public protection, and 85 per cent that they knew what the region and their PDU wanted them to prioritise in relation to public protection practice.
Across the region, 34 percent of practitioner caseloads were managed under MAPPA arrangements. Internal audits in April 2023 and again in 2024 had identified shortfalls in both the quality and timeliness of some of this work. As a result, a strategic priority was determined to improve both elements, supported by the creation of a deputy MAPPA coordinator post, beyond the region’s target operating model, with a specific focus on improving probation practice. This had led to practice development sessions over the previous 12 months for over 350 probation practitioners, along with two-day MAPPA development days for newly qualified officers. Strategically, this work was managed through the operational practice board. As a result of the renewed focus, the region had seen a 23 per cent improvement in the timeliness of community order initial MAPPA reviews, and an improvement in the timeliness of Level 1 reviews from 77 per cent in April 2025 to 85 per cent in February 2026. Regional Case Assessment Tool (R-CAT) findings also reflected an improvement in quality, with cases that were MAPPA eligible generally scoring better than those that were not.
In our own cohort of cases, we found a more variable picture. Of the 28 MAPPA cases we reviewed, only half (14) showed evidence of coordinated multi-agency oversight, although all the cases we reviewed had been managed at Level 1.
Overall, MAPPA Levels 2 and 3 cases appeared to be managed reasonably well. Partner agencies we spoke to reinforced this view and saw no indication that low staffing levels or staff inexperience had impacted on the quality of work undertaken. Level 1 reviews were more nuanced and arrangements varied across subregions. The region had introduced detailed and helpful instructions for staff completing Level 1 reviews, but more recently this had been seen as a guide rather than mandated practice. We saw considerable variations in the quality of the reviews in our cases.
Work with victims was generally managed well. Victim liaison officers were based in subregions, with appropriate links to PDUs and practitioners. Despite generally good relationships between practitioners and victim liaison staff, it was not clear if victim liaison officers were consulted consistently in relation to MAPPA Level 1 reviews.
Staff vacancy rates across the region were high. PO vacancies averaged 23 per cent, but there were considerable variations, with levels in Merseyside over 34 per cent. PSO vacancies averaged around 27 per cent, largely because of the number going on to the Professional Qualification in Probation (PQiP) training. PSO vacancy levels were compounded further by delays in the national vetting process. At the time of the inspection, there were 37 PSOs awaiting vetting clearance. The knock-on effect of such high levels of vacancies was high workloads for practitioners. For POs this saw average workload management scores of 105 per cent. Low staffing levels and high workloads were concerns echoed by many practitioners we interviewed. However, we were encouraged to note that the public protection team, including staff dedicated to MAPPA and those working with victims, did not carry significant vacancies.
Low practitioner staffing levels were compounded by relative inexperience. In particular, this was a concern with PSOs, where 29 per cent had less than a year’s experience and over half had no more than three years’ experience. At the time of the inspection, 11 per cent of POs were in their first year post-qualification. The region recognised these limitations and had developed a range of ongoing support for newly qualified POs, including workshops and reflective practice sessions. Similarly enhanced support for PSOs, specifically in relation to public protection work, included additional protected learning sessions and wider development sessions. Nevertheless, PO shortfalls meant that mentoring and shadowing opportunities for newly qualified staff were often limited.
Practitioners’ mandatory public protection training completion levels were reasonably good and further input was available locally, both in subregions and PDUs, especially via local authorities and police services. In our survey of 312 respondents, 218 (70 per cent) said that their learning and development needs in relation to public protection were met and, of 309 respondents, 229 (74 per cent) said that a culture of learning and continuous improvement was promoted actively.
The regional approach to quality improvement had focused on developing further the ‘Start Well’ model initiated during 2024/2025. In this, core activity was identified, depending on individual roles and supported by sufficient ‘flex’ to enable PDUs to focus on their specific needs, identified locally. The model was supported through findings from R-CAT audit data, with over 600 R-CATs completed with one-to-one follow-up sessions in the preceding 12 months. Quality development officers offered ongoing support both to PDUs generally and, where appropriate, to individuals, to support development. In the previous 12 months, such support had been used in 36 cases through Serious Further Offence review action plan activity.
Based on needs gleaned through the offender assessment system (OASys), the range of services across the North West to address desistence, reduce reoffending, and, by extension, support public protection were reasonable. Home visits were undertaken in nearly two-thirds of relevant cases we looked at and we determined that the level and nature of contact by the probation practitioner with the person on probation were sufficient to manage and minimise the risk of harm in over 70 per cent of the cases we reviewed. However, disappointingly, we also found that the involvement of other agencies in managing and minimising the risk of harm was sufficiently well coordinated in only half of the relevant cases we looked at. Broadly, when practitioners had worked with partner agencies and services, the management of the case was generally better managed; this was demonstrated, in particular, with work with women, where contact with community partners was facilitated widely.
Commissioning processes were robust. Following concerns about performance, the region took back part of the Commissioned Rehabilitation Service accommodation contract, separating pre-release and immediate post-release work from community-based provision, which it now ran in-house. The model appeared to work well, with over 1,800 referrals picked up pre-release and a further 560 from the community in the six months to April 2026.
As a direct response to low staffing levels and associated high workloads, the region had set up a pilot referral hub in Sefton PDU to manage referrals to community services (estimated to be four and a half hours per case). It was hoped that this would leave practitioners free to focus more attention on public protection work. As a result, referrals to the personal wellbeing commissioned service rose by 42 per cent. The hub was then extended to cover Merseyside. It was planned to incorporate the whole region by the end of 2026.
At our last inspection, we noted the Resettle intensive intervention and risk management service for, mostly, long-term prisoners returning to the community. The programme had continued to operate effectively and was now an invaluable resource available for men across the whole region, while still based in Merseyside. Around 140 people had now been through the programme. The initiative was part of the wider, national, OPD pathway, which had itself been extended across each of the subregions of the North West. The service also offered the potential for probation practitioners to receive a few (four to five) consultation and support sessions in relation to people on probation who met the screening criteria, although, disappointingly, few practitioners made use of this facility.
The service’s work with partner agencies in relation to serious organised crime in the region had developed well. The initial pilot across Lancashire and Merseyside had resulted in a substantial (80 per cent) increase in the number of probation services enquiries and awareness of the work being undertaken. Since February 2026, the model had been extended across the region, helping to support practitioners to make informed and pragmatic judgements about managing risk within the context of, sometimes, covert information sharing.
Our review of casework and related interviews with 85 practitioners helped us to identify some broad traits concerning how cases were managed generally. In the cases where sufficiency was greatest, practitioners were more likely to engage and liaise with partner agencies, share information consistently, and consider colleagues as helpful to them in managing risks, including work with women’s services, the police, children’s services, and other providers of commissioned services. This also facilitated a greater likelihood that information would be analysed effectively. These practitioners were also more likely to seek information actively when it was lacking, and to chase other agencies for it where necessary. They were more likely also to see casework as a joint responsibility. By contrast, in cases that we considered least sufficient, the practitioner was less likely to engage partner agencies or consider them as a useful source of support, and information sharing was more variable. Practitioners were also more likely to be frustrated about not getting the information they wanted, or needed, but were often unlikely to seek it themselves. These cases were often managed passively, in contrast to a proactive approach by practitioners in the better cases.
The level of experience was often a factor in the management of cases, although not always. Some very inexperienced staff were managing their cases well. Many staff emphasised their high caseloads and the shortfall of staff in the region, but the more effective practitioners were more likely to see this as a reason to work with others, rather than seeing this as a reason for not undertaking a task. The more positive practitioners appeared more likely to be solution focused rather than externalising the shortfalls.
Regional recommendations (Back to top)
1. Ensure that probation practitioners are supported in developing the confidence and ability to manage complex caseloads alongside competing demands.
2. Ensure that probation practitioners are supported in developing the confidence and ability to engage effectively with external partner agencies.
3. Ensure that when there are shortfalls in the quality and usefulness of information received from partner agencies, especially children’s services, practitioners know how to seek clarification and/or escalate the concern.
4. Ensure that MAPPA Level 1 reviews are of sufficient quality and consistently seek the views and engagement of partner agencies also involved with the person on probation.
HMPPS recommendations (Back to top)
5. Reduce delays in vetting and address workforce instability by implementing streamlined and more regionally responsive recruitment processes.
Scoring (Back to top)
| Key question | Percentage ‘Yes’ |
| Does assessment focus sufficiently on keeping other people safe? | 38% |
| Does planning focus sufficiently on keeping other people safe? | 62% |
| Does the implementation and delivery of services effectively support the safety of other people? | 46% |
| Does reviewing focus sufficiently on keeping other people safe? | 53% |
Follow-up activity (Back to top)
In line with the recommendations identified, a range of follow-up activity will take place. HM Inspectorate of Probation will work with the region to identify what can be done to guide and support their work, increase knowledge and confidence, and provide a solid foundation for further improvement. The Inspectorate will also seek to share what effective practice looks like by drawing upon inspection findings, identify blockers to progress, and highlight opportunities to improve accountability.
Key contextual facts (Back to top)
| Number of people supervised (on 30 September 2025)1 | 26,298 |
| MAPPA-eligible offenders (on 31 March 2025)2 | 9,362 |
| Victim satisfaction performance SL021 (April 2024 – March 2025)3 | 88.5% |
| Staffing level (staff in post full-time-equivalent (FTE))4 | ||
| Senior probation officer (SPO) | Probation officer (PO) | Probation services officer (incl. PQiP) |
| 91% | 77% | 105% |
| Average caseload at the point of inspection (FTE) | ||
| PO | PSO (excl. PQiP) | PQiP |
| 33.81 | 47.51 | 32.40 |
| Recall rates (in the 12 months prior to inspection) | 25.03% |
| Average rehabilitation activity requirement (RAR) wait time (in the 12 months prior to inspection) | Not available |
| Percentage of RAR days completed (in the 12 months prior to inspection) | 72% |
| Percentage of accredited programme requirements completed for individuals convicted of a sexual offence (in the 12 months prior to inspection) | 63.78% |
| Percentage of accredited programme requirements completed for individuals not convicted of a sexual offence (in the 12 months prior to inspection) | 46.25% |
| Risk of serious harm classification of inspected cases | ||
| Low | Medium | High/very high |
| 6% | 60% | 34% |
Data annexe (Back to top)
Press release (Back to top)
“Shortfalls remain” in public protection measures in the North West region of the Probation Service
Further information (Back to top)
This inspection was led by HM Inspector Keith McInnis, supported by a team of inspectors and colleagues from across the Inspectorate. We would like to thank all those who helped plan and took part in the inspection; without their help and cooperation, the inspection would not have been possible.
Footnotes (Back to top)
- https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/offender-management-statistics-quarterly. ↩︎
- https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/multi-agency-public-protection-arrangements-mappa-annual-reports. ↩︎
- https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/community-performance-annual-update-to-march-2025. ↩︎
- Workforce data included in this report comes from internal management information and some of the data has been derived from a different data source to the published HMPPS Workforce Statistics bulletin and accompanying Probation Officer Recruitment Annex. The Inspectorate needs access to the latest data available and internal management information is deemed the best source to allow this. As such, there could be discrepancies between the data in this report and that contained in the publication. ↩︎