Dynamic Inspection of Public Protection in the North East region
Chief Inspector’s judgement (Back to top)
This was the 12th and final, regional inspection in our series of short, focused inspections of public protection work. We were encouraged to note some substantial improvements in the North East region, relative to our findings at the last inspection in 2025. Furthermore, this was the only region in this series of public protection inspections where at least half of all cases we examined were evaluated to have sufficiently met all four of our key questions relating to the management of risk. It was also the only region where over 60 per cent of cases were assessed to have sufficiently met our assessment key question and over 65 per cent our planning key question.
There was no silver bullet to explain these improvements. We noted at our last inspection that many systems in place were the right ones and that with continued focus improvements were probable; this is likely the fruition of that work.
There were solid foundations in place, a number of which had been improved upon further since we last inspected. Clearly defined and consistent arrangements for enquiries to both police and children’s services across the region meant that the positive strategic relationships we saw 12 months ago were now starting to manifest as stronger operational practice. Of course there is room for improvement, but the region has built on solid structures. The creation of the public protection board to evaluate and manage all aspects of this work and the implementation of the safeguarding hub to manage all enquiries demonstrate this ongoing commitment, although the effective implementation of the latter is seriously hampered by delays in national vetting of staff.
Although the North East region does not have the same staffing shortfalls that some other regions have, significant levels of inexperience remain, and shortfalls in probation officers (POs) continues to hamper progress. Nevertheless, a continuous focus on performance and quality has helped foster solid foundations. The introduction of regional operational standards with clear guidance and advice being a significant case in point. Where we saw shortfalls in casework it was often because practitioners were not adhering to these standards; ensuring this baseline operation remains the challenge for leaders in the future.
There is one key area of practice that underpins effective public protection and which the North East has clearly demonstrated in this inspection, and that is working in partnership. We often see examples of effective practice, and it invariably includes working with other agencies. The difference in the North East is that we have seen more of it, often just solid, everyday examples making it more ‘normal’ and less an exception. The clear message here is that probation services cannot manage public protection work in isolation, and to be effective the service must develop the structures to underpin it, instil the skills that support it, and develop the relationships that reinforce it.
Leaders and staff in the North East should be proud of the work they are doing; much of it they are doing well. We noted at our last inspection that there were variations across the probation delivery units (PDUs) of the region, and it is hoped that this inspection is not masking some of those. Continuing to build solid systems to underpin practice and helping practitioners develop confidence and ‘professional dynamism’ to drive this is the next challenge. While there remains work to do, they should feel optimistic about its likely progress.
Context (Back to top)
This inspection focused on the quality and effectiveness of public protection work across the North East probation region. We inspected 61 cases that had commenced community sentences or licence/post-sentence supervision between 17 November 2025 and 28 November 2025. Of the cases we inspected, 37 (61 per cent) were subject to a community order and 24 (39 per cent) were on licence or post-sentence supervision. We found that 35 cases were categorised as medium risk of serious harm, 24 as high risk of serious harm and two as very high risk of serious harm. We also interviewed 45 probation practitioners whose cases we inspected. An anonymous survey across the region was conducted prior to the inspection and was fully or partially completed by 112 probation staff. The region provided a range of evidence in advance, and inspectors conducted a range of interviews and focus groups with leaders, managers, partner agencies, and community organisations.
The North East of England covers a large geographic area comprising a mix of both extensive rural communities, and large urban centres, with some of the most economically deprived communities in the country. The probation region consists of seven PDUs across three police forces (Cleveland, Durham and Northumbria) and incorporates 12 local authorities. The region also includes seven prisons and six approved premises along with three crown courts and 10 magistrates’ courts.
At the time of the inspection, the service was responsible for managing 11,342 people on probation, of which 5,732 were subject to a community order and 2,605 were on post-release supervision.
The North East was last inspected in 2025 with the regional report published in October 2025. At that time, inspectors acknowledged dedicated senior managers and highly motivated staff ‘committed to delivering the best possible service.’ Relationships with partners were described as strong but that ‘the quality of work to protect the public was a concern.’
Inspection commentary (Back to top)
Inspected casework demonstrated noticeable improvements compared with our last inspection in the North East across all elements of the ASPIRE model (assessment, sentence planning, implementation, review, evaluate) of case supervision. Over 60 per cent of cases were evaluated by inspectors to sufficiently meet our standard for assessment and planning, and over half of cases met the standard for implementation and delivery, and reviewing. Such improvement appeared to evidence the operational impact of positive initiatives and strategic focus noted at our last inspection.
Senior leaders had ensured a strong focus on consolidating and improving work to keep people safe since our last inspection in 2025, with a strong emphasis on progressing our recommendations. This approach was driven largely through the recently updated area business plan (2026/2027) and related priorities. The regional leadership team was well established, drove the region’s strategic objectives, and linked effectively to the underpinning governance boards; in particular the operational leadership group, community integration board, and corporate service board. This structure enabled clear direction and accountability to drive PDU and operational team activity.
Since the last inspection, and to reflect the concerns raised at the time about the insufficiencies of some elements of public protection work, a number of structural changes had been made by leaders to reinforce the importance of this work. This included the expansion of the public protection team (incorporating some functions hitherto outside its remit, such as the offender personality disorder pathway and polygraph testing); the creation of a deputy head of public protection; and the development of a public protection board, crosscutting each governance board and pulling together all activity under the function.
Furthermore, each of the seven PDUs had developed their own improvement plan, focusing primarily, though not exclusively, on public protection. In our survey of staff across the region, 100 per cent of respondents (112) said they were clear about what was meant by ‘public protection’ and 90 per cent said they knew what the region and their PDU wanted them to prioritise in relation to public protection practice.
Since our last inspection, a key regional priority had been to improve the quality and effectiveness of enquiries to police and children’s services, an area of work previously described as ‘variable.’ On this occasion we noted some overall improvements. Most notable in this regard was in relation to the previous concern about curfews made at court not being informed by domestic abuse or safeguarding checks. At this inspection we found all 12 relevant cases had sufficient enquiries made.
Information sharing agreements were in place for all three police forces in the region, offering direct access in each for domestic abuse enquiries. All three forces also gave arrest information daily. In only one of the 61 cases we looked at had an enquiry not been requested, and in only five was the information initially provided insufficient to inform the practitioner’s assessment of harm.
Similar direct access was available for child safeguarding information in nine of the 12 local authorities, supported with information sharing agreements. Information was still available from each of the outstanding three authorities, and two further agreements were expected to be signed soon. Information was requested in all relevant cases that we inspected, however, while there was some improvement, such information was still insufficient in one in five cases.
Improvements in domestic abuse and safeguarding enquiries were also found in relation to court work. In 34 of the 35 cases we reviewed where a court report had been prepared within the previous 12 months, the proposal made was evaluated to be appropriate, and in 27 of 36 cases a sufficient assessment of risk of serious harm was completed as part of the report. This was largely supported by the creation of two report-writing teams, one in each of the north and south of the region. Sufficient action had taken place to support public protection in 29 of 40 cases we inspected. Enforcement was recognised by the region to still require attention, and at the time of our inspection an ‘automatic’ enforcement project was being piloted in one PDU (Redcar, Cleveland and Middlesborough) but was too new to draw definitive conclusions.
Although we found in 39 out of 61 cases assessments drew sufficiently on available sources of information, where it did not, this impacted negatively on the effectiveness of assessments. Further work was required to improve this. In recognition of this need, the region had created a regional safeguarding hub with dedicated staff to focus on enquiries and improve the quality of information received. While a positive step, vetting delays were negatively impacting with nine staff still awaiting clearance at the time of our inspection.
Where we did find shortfalls in assessment and planning, the reasons remained similar to those we have found in other inspections. Some staff still lacked the confidence and experience to seek clarification about information they received from partner agencies. Similarly, some assessments still lacked analysis and an understanding about how previous behaviour might impact on future activity. Weaker plans often lacked bespoke approaches or detail and sometimes were too generic.
As part of the region’s push to improve practice, develop consistency, and build on the ‘back to basics’ model noted at the last inspection, regional operational standards had been introduced in December 2025. This document outlined clear and detailed approaches across key areas of practice to manage people on probation. It included a number of quick guides and checklists and was an extremely comprehensive and detailed compendium. However, a number of practitioners we spoke to said they did not know about the document, and some practice we observed demonstrated that if they did, they were not using it consistently.
Across the North East, a high proportion of cases (43 per cent) were managed under Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA), with over 96 per cent of those with a determined level managed at Level 1 (single agency). Strategically, arrangements for the management of this work was reasonable with four MAPPA coordinators across the region. Partner agencies throughout our inspection spoke positively about arrangements and relationships, with a particular focus on Level 2 and 3 cases.
In our survey, 88 per cent of those who said such work was relevant to their role said MAPPA arrangements, processes and procedures at Level 2 and 3 were established and clear. However, this was less so in relation to MAPPA Level 1 cases and in MAPPA level setting. This had been an area of concern at our last inspection, and we saw little improvement, with only 13 of the 24 MAPPA cases we saw (all Level 1) demonstrating evidence of coordinated multi-agency oversight. In most cases this related to MAPPA reviews, which were sometimes limited to a brief file note indicating that the level remained appropriate. However, there was no indication of discussion or engagement with other agencies for reinforcement or verification.
Regional leaders acknowledged this shortfall, and it was already identified as a key focus for the newly formed public protection board. Although guidance about the management of MAPPA, and especially MAPPA Level 1 reviews, was included in the region’s operational standards, staff completion rates for MAPPA training (MAPPA part one e-learning) was low at only 55 per cent.
There was a strong and positive culture across the North East, supported by reasonable staffing levels with 92 per cent of all staff in post across the region. Around 81 per cent of PO roles were filled and, at the time of the inspection announcement, there were 164 practitioners undertaking the Professional Qualification in Probation (PQiP) programme. As a result, caseloads were not excessive with an average of 29 for a PO and 30 for a probation service officer (PSO). Similarly, workload measurement averages were 96 per cent for a PO and 60 per cent for a PSO. Although both of these measures had reduced in the previous year, they did also vary across the region. While most practitioners in our survey indicated that they were confident in managing cases with public protection concerns and that they had sufficient knowledge skills and experience to manage them, levels of experience did vary considerably, with around 20 per cent of PSOs and 18 per cent of POs having less than two years’ experience.
Much of the improved performance we saw in this inspection was underpinned by an effective performance and quality mechanism, supported through the effective practice of strategic and operational boards. Through this mechanism, information and learning from serious further offences, deaths under supervision, and other activity was evaluated and shared to inform practice, including via the Improvement Quarterly staff newsletter. This, combined with regular use of the Regional Case Assessment Tool (R-CAT), staff training needs analysis, and regular PDU-based development days helped to develop a strong emphasis on effectiveness across the region.
The North East had also developed its own information management tool. This brought together a range of management information able to show progress against operational standards and continuous improvement findings. Information was broken down regionally, and into PDUs, and teams. This reinforced a strong learning culture; something we noted at our last inspection. In our staff survey, 83 per cent of respondents said that a culture of learning and continuous improvement in public protection was actively promoted.
Good links had been established by leaders with prisons across the regions with effective strategic and operational arrangements in place. The public protection focus of this was largely reflected in the cases we reviewed, where assessment and planning for those released on licence were generally sufficient. In 19 out of the 24 resettlement cases we reviewed, the community offender manager had identified and addressed the key risk-of-harm issues prior to release.
Generally, core training for staff in relation to public protection was reasonable. For example, 93 per cent of staff had completed domestic abuse and child safeguarding e-learning; 79 per cent of staff had completed child safeguarding online-facilitated training and 83 per cent had completed domestic abuse online-facilitated training. Local training was also available through both police and children’s services in all PDUs. Staff in our survey were generally positive about their experience of public protection training. This was further supported by our interviews with practitioners. Also, 20 out of 24 senior leaders had completed the senior managers and senior leaders course, and numerous staff had completed the Skills for Effective Engagement, Development and Supervision (SEEDs) course for managers or for practitioners, underpinning the region’s commitment to reflective practice.
We saw a reasonable range of services for people on probation across the North East, designed to reduce the risk of reoffending and to keep people safe. In 79 per cent of the cases we inspected, the level and nature of contact was sufficient to manage and minimise the risk of harm, and home visits were undertaken in 40 out of 52 relevant cases. In our survey, 31 out of 43 respondents for whom the question was relevant to their work said there were sufficient services available to manage and reduce the risk of harm posed by people on probation. Levels of referrals to commissioned rehabilitation services were consistent, and where services were co-located they appeared to benefit from improved integration.
The North East had a number of specialist initiatives in place whose work was having a positive impact on reducing harm. Examples of this included Project Iris, a collaboration with Northumbria police in which identified prolific domestic abuse perpetrators were engaged in focused, targeted activity to reduce the risk of reoffending. While still relatively new and limited to a small cohort, initial analysis indicated impressive levels of reduced offending, and extending the work to other PDUs in the North East was being considered. The Northumberland Stalking Intervention Programme (NSIP) was a multi-agency initiative designed to offer support and guidance to staff and agencies working with perpetrators of stalking. This can also include advice regarding pre-sentence reports. Alongside the key focus of the project, over 500 staff across the region had received training to raise awareness and confidence in the work.
We saw good examples of joint and collaborative working with partners to manage the risks of harm presented by people on probation. Work with sexual offenders was consistently effective across all four key questions relating to public protection, supported in many cases by effective engagement with management of sexual offenders and violent offenders (MOSOVO) colleagues in police. One of the two MOSOVO teams across the region was also co-located with probation staff. We saw similar working with other services, such as those for women, with similarly enhanced levels of effectiveness in managing public protection, especially around assessment and planning.
This was a pattern we saw consistently across all our casework, and it made public protection work in the North East stand out; liaison and/or co-working with other agencies and partners, from police and children’s services through to commissioned rehabilitation service and community partners. Across all four key questions within the ASPIRE model the number of cases seen as sufficiently meeting the standard were higher than we found at our last inspection and better than we have found in many other regions. Examples included whether assessment drew sufficiently on available sources of information and involved other agencies; whether planning made appropriate links to the work of other agencies; whether there was effective coordination with other agencies in the delivery of services; and whether reviewing was informed by necessary input from other agencies. Specific service questions also included whether there was effective delivery (including multi-agency working and information-sharing) in respect of both domestic abuse and safeguarding children. As one practitioner put it during their interview, “Everyone thinks it is just down to the probation officer, but we need other agencies to support us in managing risk.”
Our review of casework and related practitioner interviews reinforced this further. We were able to identify some broad traits concerning how cases were managed generally. In those cases where sufficiency was greatest, practitioners were more likely to engage and liaise with partner agencies. They were also more likely to chase any missing information and take responsibility for managing the case, often with clearly agreed roles. This was in contrast to those practitioners whose cases had been managed less effectively; they were more likely to focus on their own role and not engage externally as often or as well. In such cases partners were less likely to be seen as a useful source of support, and relationships were less likely to be established. Effectiveness often corelated with practitioners being ‘professionally dynamic’, which often depended on confidence; confidence to build those relationships and to take responsibility for their management.
Regional recommendations (Back to top)
- Ensure that probation practitioners are supported in developing the confidence and ability to manage complex caseloads alongside competing demands.
- Ensure that probation practitioners are supported in developing the confidence and ability to engage effectively with external partner agencies.
HMPSS recommendations (Back to top)
- 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? | 62% |
| Does planning focus sufficiently on keeping other people safe? | 66% |
| Does the implementation and delivery of services effectively support the safety of other people? | 54% |
| 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 31 December 2025)1 | 13,774 |
| MAPPA-eligible offenders (on 31 March 2025)2 | 5,949 |
| Victim satisfaction performance SL021 (April 2024 – March 2025)3 | 78% |
| Staffing level (staff in post full time equivalent (FTE))4 | ||
| Senior probation officer (SPO) | PO | PSO (inc. PQiP) |
| 98% | 81% | 148% |
| Average caseload at the point of inspection (FTE) | ||
| PO | PSO (exc. PQiP) | PQiP |
| 29.21 | 30.42 | 17.60 |
| Recall rates (in the 12 months prior to inspection) | 26.43% |
| Average rehabilitation activity requirement (RAR) wait time (in the 12 months prior to inspection) | Not available |
| Percentage of Rehabilitation Activity Requirement days completed (in the 12 months prior to inspection) | 61.09% |
| Percentage of accredited programme requirements completed for individuals convicted of a sexual offence (in the 12 months prior to inspection) | 16.67% |
| Percentage of accredited programme requirements completed for individuals not convicted of a sexual offence (in the 12 months prior to inspection) | 58.40% |
| Risk of Serious Harm classification of inspected cases | ||
| Low | Medium | High/very high |
| 0% | 57% | 41% |
Press release (Back to top)
“Encouraging” public protection work found in North East region of the Probation Service
Data Annexe (Back to top)
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 come from internal management information and some of these data have 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 the data contained in the publication. ↩︎