'Punitive, stigmatising and discriminatory'

I notice the Probation Institute, quietly, politely but thoroughly, pours copious quantities of cold water over the Sentencing Bill proposals:- 

The Sentencing Bill - an opportunity missed?

On 11 July, the Minister for Prisons, Parole and Probaton, James Timpson, delivered the annual Bill McWilliams lecture, in association with the Institute for Criminology at the University of Cambridge, and the Probation Institute. The lecture series was inaugurated following Bill's death, with the aim of commemoratng his research and practce on the history, culture and values of probaton work, and to keep alive the values of the rehabilitative ideal.

Members of the Probaton Institute and a wide audience of probaton staff, former chiefs, researchers and the judiciary were pleased to hear Lord Timpson reiterate the centrality of the Probaton Service in his presentaton, and did not at all disagree with the emphasis he placed on reducing reoffending, and public protection. However, there was some consternation regarding his focus on the possible and extended uses of Electronic Monitoring and AI to enable probation practice, with an apparent vision of 'custody in the community.'

These concerns were justfied by the content and tone of the announcement of the provisions of the Sentencing Bill, made via a press release on 3 September. The Probaton Institute applauds the principle of diminishing the use of short prison sentences, which, as the press release rightly points out, have a poor record of reducing reoffending, notably in comparison with community-based sentences. But we would argue that the current status of community sentences, with the provision of additional requirements to address offending behaviour, would be more than adequate, and suitable, to enable people to reform, and to achieve their rehabilitaton. 

We are disturbed by the proposed new powers to restrict the freedoms of people convicted of criminal offences, for instance, via restrictons of attendance at, amongst other places, 'pubs, concerts and football matches’; and the proposal that the personal details of people undertaking Unpaid Work in their local communites - originally known as Community Service - will be promulgated publicly. These proposals are at odds with any notion of rehabilitaton and reintegraton for people with criminal records - historically, core principles of Probaton work. The publication of personal details, alongside the proposal to electronically tag anyone released from custody, appear to be measures designed to stigmatise and exclude those who have fallen foul of the law, not to enable their rehabilitation and reform.

The Probation Service is identified as integral to the implementation of these new measures. Yet it is difficult to envisage a scenario in which effective supervision can be carried out, given the current strains on probation staff. Issues regarding the retention of qualified staff have dogged probation for over a decade, arising initially from the semi-privatisation of the service, and, more recently, following reunification. This issue, of a sufficiency of suitably qualified and experienced staff, has been raised frequently by the Probation Inspectorate in its reviews into Serious Further Offences, indicating that the organisational change imposed on Probation over the last decade or so has had real, and harmful consequences. Recent research conducted by the Rehabilitatng Probation team based at Liverpool John Moores University suggests that a factor in this attrition is that the role to which practitioners are recruited does not reflect the actual nature of the work; that the motivation to work in probation is, as it has always been, to enable people to make positive changes, not to provide a community based carceral environment.

The Probation Service has more than a century of working with people with criminal convictions to enable them to reform, and to reintegrate into their communities. Probation practitioners recognise that a key aspect of their work is putting clear and firm boundaries in place, alongside creating supportive and motivational relationships with those under their supervision. Probation does not shy away from the control aspects of the work, but does place such controls in a context of care and concern. Research by the Prison Reform Trust with people subject to probation supervision portrays the onerousness of this status. One participant, released from custody, escribed himself as 'free but not free.' Regrettably, this Bill seems to present a picture of justice which is punitive, stigmatsing and discriminatory, and which may only serve to further diminish real opportunities for effective rehabilitation.

Any probation practitioner will be acutely aware that many of the people they are supervising have been victims of crime themselves, with consequences of trauma and diminution in opportunities to achieve, notably in education and work. These structural disadvantages seem likely to be further entrenched by the provisions of the Sentencing Bill. The Probation Institute regards this as a golden opportunity to forefront a rehabilitative narrative and agenda - in its current form, the Bill appears to be a missed opportunity.

Trustees of the Probation Institute. September 2025

I Despair

Listening to Radio 4 last night, I became aware of yet another story I'd missed, namely that concerning the Safer Living Foundation based in Nottingham:-

File on Four Sex Offenders: The Long Way Back

Alison Holt, BBC social affairs editor, has been given exceptional access to the clients of a Nottingham charity that works to reintegrate men who have been convicted of sexual offences. 

'John, Matt, Dan and Liam', not their real names, are determined to turn their lives around after prison sentences. We hear how they work towards this with the help of the staff and volunteers at the Safer Living Foundation, the only charity of its sort in the country. Always mindful of the victims of sexual crime, the principal aim is to prevent further offending and the creation of further harm.

There are hurdles to overcome - public abhorrence, plus grave difficulties with accommodation and work among them. The Foundation also runs Aurora, an online advice scheme for people who have not offended but who are worried about their sexual thoughts.

This would be a 'good news' story of course, were it not for the fact it's now closed! As we continue to hear news of yet more punitive policies towards offenders - tag everyone leaving prison -  why on earth can't we find the wherewithal to fund enlightened projects like this? It makes me despair at the utterly misguided direction of travel our politicians are taking us on. Those with long memories will no doubt recall the disgraceful decision to remove funding for Circles of Support and Accountability in 2018. 

This posted on Linkedin:-  

It’s with great sadness that after more than 11 years the Safer Living Foundation, an organisation that I helped co-found, has today closed. The SLF was an award-winning organisation that existed to reduce sexual offending and re-offending through preventative and rehabilitative initiatives. 

It’s been an incredibly difficult decision to make for all involved, especially because of its impact on our service-users. It’s difficult to put into words what the SLF means to those involved with it and it’s very hard to say goodbye. At the end of March our centre in Nottingham closed, but our last day was one of celebration, hope (tears), tea and reflection on all the things we have done together in over a decade in existence.

• First organisation (certainly in Europe) to run Prison Circles of Support and Accountability. 
• First community reintegration and rehabilitation centre for people with sexual convictions (world-wide) 
• First compassion-focused prevention intervention 
• Third Sector Charity of the year 2019, 
• We worked with well over 300 individuals with sexual convictions or individuals that were concerned they may offend during. 
• Robust evidence to show that our service-users developed and strengthened meaningful protective factors, reduced risk and we had a 5 year recidivism rate of <2%
• Over 6000 volunteer hours committed to projects 

We’ve worked with many great individuals, and have been supported by many funders and partner organisations, including Nottingham Trent University who have supported us since our first day, Notts PCC, Notts Police and Probation, Lloyds Bank Foundation, and University of Derby. We’ve had amazing staff and volunteers that have worked for us throughout the years, but a massive thanks to our centre manager Dave who was with us 9 years and he made the centre the success that it is/was. It’s been an absolute pleasure working with our men and working with the other trustees Lynn Saunders OBE Dr. Kerensa Hocken Kirsty Teague Claire Hampson Luke Vinter Professor (Hon). Dr. Geraldine AkermanLuke Vinter and Jordan Clayton all of whom are wonderful, compassionate and dedicated individuals. Our Chair of Trustees, Lynn, has been the moral compass of the SLF, and you have steered us through the beginning and the end. It’s been an honour to be part of the SLF with you all. 

There has been highs and lows, but what we achieved and built is something we all should be proud of and I’m grateful to have been a part of it. We gave it our all and we had an amazing run, but sadly all good things...

Nicholas Blagden

Prof. Criminological Psychology, Trustee/Co-Founder Safer Living Foundation, Member (accredited) National Register of Psychotherapists and Counsellors

--oo00oo--

Postscript

Thanks go to the reader for directing us to the following:-

A scheme helped prevent sex offenders committing more crimes - then it closed. Why?

It took me some time to find the front door of the Safer Living Foundation. There was no nameplate, and the building was one of many anonymous red-brick Victorian terraced houses in Nottingham. It was January 2025, and I was wrapped up against the cold as I walked up and down the street trying to find the right address.

There was a very good reason for this anonymity. The foundation works with people convicted and imprisoned for sexual offences after they have been released back into the community. The men may have been found guilty of anything from indecent exposure to viewing abusive images online to contact offences involving children.

And people who have committed sex crimes can be among the most reviled in society. At times they are the subject of vigilante action.

In May 2025, the government announced it was considering the roll-out of voluntary chemical castration for sex offenders and also looking at whether this could be made mandatory.

But while this sort of tough rhetoric grabs headlines, the Safer Living Foundation claims the work it does providing a safe space for people with sexual convictions to find support with reintegrating into society has had positive results.

And there is evidence to suggest they may be correct. Just 2% of the men who spent time at the foundation reoffended, according to its own figures. That compares to an average of 15.1% for those convicted of sexual crimes in England and Wales. The Foundation says it only takes people who say they are committed to change.

I was there to see for myself how the centre in Nottingham - the only project of its kind in the UK - operated. Over five months the BBC was given a unique insight into its work.

What none of us knew that cold winter morning was that these would prove to be its final months. In May 2025, the centre was forced to close. Persuading organisations to fund sex offender treatment had never been easy and in the tough financial climate, it had become impossible to secure the money they needed to keep going.

It's an outcome that casts light on the UK's attitude towards preventing those guilty of sex crimes from reoffending. It forces us to confront difficult questions, including whether spending public or charity money on attempting to rehabilitate sex offenders should be recognised as an effective way of preventing harm and in doing so protecting potential victims.

'I'll do whatever works'

When I eventually found the right door, it was opened by Dave Potter. He had run the service since it was set up 11 years ago.

Here, he told me, offenders meet people who have insight into their experience of having been convicted for sex crimes - both others who have been found guilty of these offences as well as counsellors - "because who else can you talk to?".

Inside, in a busy kitchen, lunch was being prepared. A handful of men of all ages, sitting and standing, quietly chatted about the day's news, football and food. In another room, a games club was taking place and elsewhere, counselling sessions were under way.

Often their partners and families wanted nothing more to do with them after their convictions, according to Dave.

Dave accepted that there would be those who wondered how he could bring himself to offer support to sex offenders. But he believed the bigger picture is what's important. "Everything we do underpins (the idea of) no more victims," he said. "I'll do whatever works to prevent further offending."

Certainly, the official statistics around sexual offending suggest that much more needs to be done to bring the numbers down. On average the police record more than 194,000 sexual offences each year in England and Wales. Of these, 40% are against children.

One child in every 10 experiences some form of sexual abuse before the age of 16 in England and Wales, according to "conservative estimates" by the Centre of Expertise on Child Sexual Abuse. Many victims, both adults and children, will never feel able to speak about what has happened.

The harm caused by these offences cannot be underestimated, and that was acknowledged in most of the conversations I had at the centre with offenders, staff and volunteers alike. At the time I visited about 60 men were enrolled as service users, but over the last decade hundreds of men and two women have been supported by staff here.

'The life I knew has completely ended'

The service users I spoke to wanted to remain anonymous. They described feeling lonely and even suicidal, and said they realised what they had done was wrong. They said they recognised the impact it had on their victims. They also talked about how the centre had helped them.

"I was petrified about leaving prison with a stigma attached," said Matt (the names of all ex-offenders have been changed). As a result of his conviction, he had lost his family, his job and everything he knew before. "The life I knew has completely ended." Without the centre he would be struggling even more, he said.

Another man, Liam, described being assaulted after he was released from prison.

"One of my neighbours found out who I was and then one night decided to come round and attack me," he said. "Physical violence, swearing at me and basically, telling everybody around there what I was," he said. He had to move.

Finding work can be a major challenge for the men, too. Some 95% of the service users here were on the Sex Offenders Register and were required to tell potential employers this. In my conversations with them, the same words came up time and again – anxiety, low self-esteem, fear and, in particular, isolation.

While to some these risk factors could sound like an excuse for what they have done, the centre's approach is based on the idea that addressing these issues will make these men less likely to offend. And so it tries to help them rebuild their lives in a way that protects them and others.

"By treating people with decency, by looking at the whole person and not just the crime, by finding ways to manage their social isolation, their shame and their guilt, that reduces further offending down the line," Dave said.

He accepted that some might think that what the centre was doing was naïve. Before he did his job, he says, he might have agreed with the suggestion that sex offenders simply need to be punished. But now, he said, "I know what we do works. It is about understanding the harm that acting on those impulses causes. It is about understanding what they've put victims through."

Distractions from inappropriate thoughts

There is group therapy as well as weekly one-to-one counselling sessions. In one of the discussions with Dave, a man called John, who has been jailed twice for his offending, talked about how he now distracted himself if he began to have any fleeting, inappropriate sexual thoughts. He played football video games and generally kept busy.

He also described how difficult the last few months have been. A homeless man, who John had offered to help, moved into his flat and became increasingly manipulative and violent. Eventually, he threatened to tell others about John's conviction.

With support from the Foundation, John called the police and the man was removed.

"If an alcoholic has no help and support, its unlikely they'll give up booze," said Dave. He believes it can be the same with sex offenders, so the centre provided controlled support that helps them cope, even under stress.

There is support for this approach, too, among groups that work with victims.

"This project further underpins the fact that we can't make a dent in the alarming figures of a quarter of the population experiencing sexual violence by simply pledging to change things," says Lucy Duckworth, policy lead at The Survivors Trust. "We need action and funding and to have difficult conversations with those who commit this crime, to enable us to intervene earlier."

A failing in the system

The main place where sex offenders currently get treatment is in prison – but even there it is limited. In the year ending March 2024, there were about 87,000 people in prison in England and Wales. More than 18,000 (21%) had been convicted of sex offences. Some 1,115 prisoners did start accredited treatment in prison and 1,094 people completed those courses.

The length of time the courses take means they may not be an option for offenders in jail for a short period. Matt, who had earlier told me how worried he had been about leaving prison, took two 30-hour programmes while an inmate at HMP Whatton in Nottinghamshire, which is, according to the Howard League for Penal Reform, the largest prison for adult sex offenders in Europe. Matt said these were hugely useful to him.

"You ripped yourself right open," he said. "Laid everything on the table. Looked at how and why you got there, and how are you going to rebuild yourself? How are you going to make sure it doesn't happen again?"

But once inmates are released, accessing this kind of treatment becomes even more difficult, experts say. "That's a failing of where we're at in the system," says Nick Blagden, professor of criminological psychology at the University of Derby and a co-founder and trustee of the Safer Living Foundation.

An alternative solution is to reach people before they end up in the criminal justice system - before they harm someone. There are UK projects that do good work offering services in the community, says Prof Blagden. But given the scale of the problem, the level of support is nowhere near as "wide-ranging" as is needed, he adds. He contrasts this with Germany, where he says there is a "much more sensible" approach to funding prevention projects that provide therapy to adults who feel they might commit sexual offences.

In addition to the Nottingham centre, the foundation also ran a programme called Aurora, which provided highly confidential support, online and in person, for people with concerning sexual thoughts, before they did something that put them in contact with the criminal justice system. It had 300 people on a 12-month waiting list.

"If we had unlimited funds and resources, we would be working with hundreds of people a month," says Prof Blagden.

'We've helped a lot of lives'

Getting all this right could not be more important. The National Crime Agency estimated in 2024 that between 710,000 and 840,000 UK adults posed varying degrees of sexual risks to children.

The questions for society are: as well as making it easier for victims of abuse to be heard and believed, are we ready to challenge the behaviour, thoughts and actions of those who have offended and are at risk of offending much sooner? And are we prepared to spend money on doing so?

For its part, the Ministry of Justice says: "We are determined to halve violence against women and girls in a decade and tackling sexual offenders' criminality is a vital part of this plan."

Ministers also point to their plan for a national roll-out of "medication to manage problematic sexual arousal in sex offenders", often known as chemical castration, which is delivered through drugs alongside psychiatric work, and say they are considering whether to make it mandatory. The department also says it recently announced a record £700m increase in overall probation funding by 2028.

For decades, the mantras of many politicians have focused on being tough on crime. The use and length of prison sentences have increased as a result. However, the current overcrowding in prisons is forcing a rethink.

In May 2025, an independent review of sentencing was published. It concluded that while punishment is important, there "has been insufficient focus on reducing crime". It called for more community-based sentences and support and more use of the third sector charities and organisations.

The government has since accepted most of the recommendations across all crimes. The Safer Living Foundation, with the guardrails it provided to support sex offenders in the community, seemed to be tailor-made for this strategy. But the same month the review was published, the Foundation learned that its application for a lottery grant - which it needed to keep running - had been turned down.

'Fairly hand-to-mouth'

"It has been fairly hand-to-mouth over the years we've been operating," says Lynn Saunders, another of the co-founders of the Safer Living Foundations as well as a former governor at Whatton and now professor of applied criminology at Derby University. "There seems to be a big reluctance because of the nature of the work, people find it difficult to be associated with it."

In May, the centre closed, while the Aurora Project was paused. On the final day, staff, volunteers and some of the men they have supported, packed into the small kitchen to say goodbye.

"I've decided to celebrate the fact we existed at all," said Dave. "We've helped a lot of lives and prevented a lot of victims."

A few hours later, when that anonymous front door was shut and locked, it marked the end of the project. There is no replacement and no prospect of re-opening.

Alison Holt

Social Affairs Editor

A Scandal

My attention must clearly have been elsewhere back in May because something else we seem to have missed completely is this. There has long been blog discussion, with examples, of the matters addressed in this report and it serves as further indictment of just how damaging the civil service culture has been for the probation service:- 

HMPPS Professional Standards Commission Recommendations 

In October 2023, I was commissioned by HM Prisons and Probation Service (HMPPS) to conduct a review to identify any specific recommendations for improvement to deliver positive change in how HMPPS addresses bullying, harassment, and discrimination (BHD). The Terms of Reference were finalized in December 2023, and I conducted my work from January 2024 through March 2024.

In the course of this work, I reviewed relevant people policies and procedures, analysed data, interviewed stakeholders across HMPPS and the Ministry of Justice, met with unions, spoke with HMPPS employees who had experiences of BHD, and considered how similar organizations handle these challenges. 

Many HMPPS leaders are getting it right, driving meaningful change through difficult, hands-on work with their teams and getting signals back from their staff that they are experiencing the change. Establishing the Tackling Unacceptable Behaviour Unit (TUBU) in 2020 provided a visible focal point and mechanism for driving progress against BHD across HMPPS. This team is filling gaps in the support to staff, providing a valuable signposting service, and preparing assessments to understand BHD across the HMPPS landscape. 

While HMPPS is already on the journey to improve their approach to BHD my view is that further work is needed, which I have set out in my recommendations below. I heard from employees who had experienced BHD just how much they love their jobs, despite the tough situations they had faced. I believe that it is more important than ever that HMPPS actively addresses BHD. Apart from the moral imperative, there are solid efficiency benefits to be gained as BHD is inherently costly for any organization. Tackling BHD more directly will reduce absences from work, unlock productive time for staff and managers, and reduce turn-over of staff. In the end, this will result in a more engaged, motivated and loyal workforce. The jobs that HMPPS staff perform are hard and critical for society, which makes improvement in BHD all the more pressing.

Employees that I spoke to are watching for tangible signs of a step change in how BHD is handled by HMPPS. It is crucial that HMPPS makes tangible change on the ground that employees can see, which in turn gives them reason to trust that BHD will not be tolerated by HMPPS. 

The public commitments by senior leadership and the establishment of TUBU are solid steps forward, and I believe that my 12 recommendations will support and accelerate progress in tackling this issue and complement existing work underway.

A response to: Jennifer Rademaker’s HMPPS Professional Standards & Behaviour Review – bullying, harassment & discrimination

Introduction 

The first step in addressing any problem is to accept that there is one. For too long, there has been a problem with bullying, harassment, discrimination and victimisation (BHDV) in His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service. That is a hard truth – but one we must confront head on. 

We are committed to making meaningful, lasting change. That means thinking and acting differently, and fostering a culture rooted in respect, fairness and professionalism. 

The people who work in HMPPS do incredibly difficult, demanding, and often dangerous jobs, in the most stressful and pressurised environment. And they do it because they believe in public service – in protecting communities, and helping offenders turn their backs on crime. No one signs up to be bullied or harassed by their own colleagues. And yet, that is the reality for too many staff in the Service today. 

There is a real human cost to this. It drives away good people – the kind of staff we want to keep in the Service. But critically, it makes it much harder for staff to do their jobs – the vital work that cuts crime, protects the public, and makes our streets safer. 

That’s why professional standards matter. Our values must not just be words on paper. They must be reflected in how we treat each other, every day. And where those standards are not met, it is essential that staff, and the public, know that we will take swift and decisive action.

The findings of the Rademaker Review are deeply sobering. They show that unacceptable behaviour – language, attitudes, and actions – have sometimes been normalised, tolerated and accepted over time. And that too many staff feel unable to speak out, fearing they won’t be taken seriously, that it will only make matters worse, and that the hierarchy above them will close ranks. That must change. 

This doesn’t align with the culture of professionalism, respect and fairness that HMPPS wants to foster in its workforce. We want every member of staff, at every level, to have confidence that if they raise a concern, it will be heard and acted on. 

Jennifer Rademaker’s report marks a pivotal moment. It makes clear that more must be done to uphold the high professional standards our vital work demands. It challenges us to do better – with practical recommendations to support and build on the work we are already doing to tackle these issues. 

That is why, in response to Ms Rademaker’s first recommendation, we will create an independent central unit to receive and handle all staff complaints of BHDV. This is a major shift. It takes complaints away from the line management chain, and gives them to a wholly impartial, dedicated team of experts to investigate. The unit will be overseen by an Independent Commissioner, ensuring there is both accountability and progress, as we reform how bullying, harassment and discrimination are dealt with across the Service.

These changes reflect our clear intent: to uphold the highest professional standards across HMPPS, respond robustly when behaviour falls short, restore the trust of our staff. They send an unequivocal message – that bullying, harassment and discrimination have no place in HMPPS. 

We are grateful to Jennifer Rademaker for her thoughtful and constructive Review, and for her continued support in holding HMPPS to account for delivery of her recommendations.

We also extend our sincere thanks to members of staff, staff networks and recognised trade union officials who spoke with Ms Rademaker, particularly those who bravely shared their experiences of unprofessional behaviour. Your voices are driving this change. 

We accept all 12 of the report’s recommendations. Work is already underway to take them forward, alongside wider work to uphold and maintain professional standards. This document sets out how we will do that – and how we will continue to build the culture our staff, and the public, deserve. 

Phil Copple 

Chief Executive Officer, HMPPS

Louise Alexander 

MoJ People Director, HMPPS & Business Partnering

May 2025

--oo00oo--

Napo Press Release:-

The largest trade union in the Probation Service has claimed that the outcome of a review into the levels of Bullying, Harassment, Discrimination and Victimisation within His Majesty’s Probation and Prison Service, vindicates the views and experiences of its members. 

The review, which has been in the hands of Government Minister's within the last and the present administrations, was undertaken by The Ministry of Justice NonExecutive Director Jennifer Rademaker, to look at the organisational culture within HMPPS and has revealed systemic discrimination with Black and disabled staff faring worst.

Napo General Secretary Ian Lawrence, commenting on the review said: ‘Unfortunately this long awaited report makes for grim reading. It will bring no comfort to our members working in Probation within what is often described as a soulless and seriously mis-managed Prison-centric organisation. It's one that is far removed from the Professional standards that our members aspire to, and it confirms our concerns about the HMPPS culture, revealing the systemic discrimination faced by many staff within the department. 

The Review makes a series of recommendations, which senior HMPPS leaders have confirmed that they are going to implement in full. Key among these is a complete overhaul of the grievance and disciplinary process by the creation of a totally independent channel to handle complaints. The review is also highly critical of the persistent failures by the department to implement their legal responsibilities in relation to staff with a recognised disability who require reasonable adjustments to enable them to undertake their duties.

The report’s findings are backed up by the departments own data which shows that black and disabled staff have raised complaints against the service in much greater numbers, are less likely to receive bonuses or for them to progress through the ranks. In the view of Napo, the response by senior HMPPS leadership falls short of what the union believes is necessary.

Ian Lawrence added: ‘Whilst we welcome the spotlight that has been directed on the systemic failure of HMPPS to uphold its Professional Standards, we will work with the employer to deliver the much needed cultural change identified by Ms Rademaker. Nevertheless, we want more to be done to expose the reality of racism, sexism, and corruption within HMPPS that our members tell us about. The other big question that will undoubtedly follow is: who will ultimately bear responsibility for these serious failings?'

Rademaker Review makes for uncomfortable reading for HMPPS

A long awaited report by MoJ Non-executive Director Jennifer Rademaker was released yesterday with Justice Minister Lord James Timpson attending at an event in HMP Highdown.

Napo will be issuing a detailed commentary on the outcomes of the report and our views on the culture change that will need to take place across the organisation as a result of its damning conclusions into the full extent of Bullying Harassment and Discrimination across the department.

We will also be following up on our initial engagement with senior HMPPS leaders to explore the scope of our involvement on the work that will be required to implement the recommendations.

The Napo response from the online magazine:-

Rademaker Review: no more excuses

The long awaited Rademaker Review confirms what Napo members have been saying for ages- that bullying, harassment and discrimination is rife in HMPPS, and the system protects the perpetrators over victims. HMPPS has promised change in the past, but Black, Disabled and women staff continue to suffer. This report must be a watershed moment for Probation: Napo is demanding urgent action, real accountability, and a voice in delivering change.

Key Findings from the Rademaker Review

The Report by MoJ Non-executive Director Jennifer Rademaker exposes systemic failures in HMPPS’ handling of bullying, harassment, and discrimination (BHD):

• 12% of HMPPS staff report experiencing BHD—50% higher than the Civil Service average.
• 36% of staff fear retaliation for reporting incidents, and 43% of victims never report.
• Managers and senior staff are the most common perpetrators (42–44% of cases).
• Grievance procedures are broken: Complaints are handled by line managers, creating conflicts of interest and perpetuating a culture of impunity.
• Workplace adjustments are inconsistently applied, leaving disabled staff unsupported.
• Climate assessments lack impact, with no consequences for failing sites.

These findings reflect and justify what Napo and our members have been highlighting for some time to the employer.

The report makes 12 urgent recommendations, including:

• An independent complaints unit to investigate BHD outside the line management chain. (Recommendation 1)
• Transparent reporting of BHD cases and outcomes (Recommendation 9).
• Reform of workplace adjustments to prevent discrimination against disabled staff. (Recommendation 3)
• Mandatory action on sexual harassment, including investigations without requiring a formal grievance (Recommendation 4).

Why this is a Scandal

Although HMPPS has accepted all 12 recommendations in full, Napo is concerned that we have been here before. There have been other reports highlighting discrimination within the service e.g. His Majesties Inspectorate of Probation undertook a Thematic Report into Race published in May 2021 which revealed: many Black staff experiencing high levels of stress at work and discrimination that hindered their career progression. At the time we were told by senior management that they never wanted to see a report like this again in Probation and while some progress has been made with the work of the Race Action Programme, progress as been far to slow and inconsistent – the Rademaker review, sadly shows that HMPPS has failed to protect staff from bullying harassment and discrimination.

HMPPS cannot claim to uphold justice while tolerating BHD in its own workforce.

The findings in these reports prove:

• Black staff are disproportionately targeted but denied fair recourse.
• The system is rigged—complaints are buried, not resolved.
• HMPPS is failing its own “zero-tolerance” pledge on discrimination.

It is a scandal that we have yet another report which shows the extent of BHD and no-one has been held accountable for the failings. Yet the lives of Disabled staff, Women and ethnic minorities working within HMPPS have been damaged and in some cases irreparably. This must stop and senior management held accountable.

Napo welcomes the following positive steps:

• to create a new independent BHD complaints unit (though timelines are vague).
• Sexual harassment guidance will include assault and rape (but implementation is delayed until 2026).
• Workplace adjustments process will be reviewed (but no firm commitments to enforce OH recommendations).

But Napo also identifies major gaps:

• No clear deadlines for key reforms (e.g., the independent unit lacks a concrete rollout plan).
• No commitment to consequences for managers who ignore BHD complaints.
• Climate assessments remain toothless—no accountability for leaders who fail to act.
• Vague promises on transparency—no guarantee that data on BHD cases will be published in full.

Why This Is a Watershed Moment

This report is another damning indictment of HMPPS’ failure to uphold not only the Probation Service values but also Civil Service values:

• Integrity: Allowing BHD to persist unchecked undermines trust in the justice system.
• Fairness: Victims are silenced, while perpetrators face no consequences.
• Respect: Black and Disabled Staff and women, are disproportionately affected.

This must be a turning point. 

The employer’s response cannot be another box-ticking exercise. Napo Members demand:

1. Urgent implementation of the independent complaints unit—no delays.
2. Full transparency: Regular public reporting on BHD cases and outcomes.
3. Trade Union oversight in designing the new system to ensure it is truly independent.

Next Steps – Stand Together

Napo will work with our sister Trade unions UNISON and GMB SCOOP to:

• Challenge HMPPS at every level to deliver real change, not empty promises.
• Mobilise members to share experiences and hold management accountable. Therefore, we ask members to:Attend union meetings to discuss the report.
• Report BHD incidents confidentially to your union rep.

This is our moment to force change. HMPPS must live up to its values- we will accept nothing less.

A Technological Fix?

There's been such a recent flurry of activity on here, it's taking a bit of time to pick out some of the gems for a closer look, but lets start here with this report from Civil Service World:-

. 
Human-centred service: MoJ's Kamal Bal on the department's trauma-informed approach

Giving the morning keynote at this year’s PublicTechnology Live conference, Kamal Bal told attendees how the Ministry of Justice is working to improve services by better supporting both users and colleagues

How do you make sure that you treat vulnerable service users with sensitivity and support?

The Ministry of Justice’s digital chief explored this topic at this year’s PublicTechnology Live in London, organised by CSW’s parent company Total Politics.

Kamal Bal told attendees that the services developed by the ministry are informed by the experiences and needs of users – who often “come to interact with us [when] they’re in a position of absolute vulnerability”.

“They’re at a real moment of need,” he added. “That is a common thread that sits across everything we do, and it is key that when they’re interacting with us, they feel supported by the experience they’re interacting with, but they also have trust in it as well.”

To enable these supportive services, Bal said that development of digital and data platforms is underpinned by “four tenets”: human-centred design; data-driven decision making; cross-agency collaboration; and continuous improvement.

To support the tenet of human-centred design, the MoJ has a particular focus on delivering services in a trauma-informed way.

Bal told PublicTechnology Live that the trauma-informed approach “really drives a lot of what we do” across the MoJ’s different types of service user and the agencies that serve them – which includes HM Prison and Probation Service, HM Courts and Tribunals Service, the Legal Aid Agency, the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority and the Office of the Public Guardian, which oversees the administration of the lasting power of attorney regime.

The MoJ digital chief said: “If you’ve been a victim of a violent crime, you’ve lived through the trauma of being a victim of that violent crime. You’ve then gone and reported it to the police and had to go through that journey again. Maybe you then get into a conversation with the Crown Prosecution Service and, again, you are presenting the same information. Then someone tells you about this compensation scheme, and you’re going through it again. We are just making people relive that trauma. But we are now consciously seeking to create experience to... avoid the need to do that. We put a lot of focus on user research, and we have a lot of people out and about in the field talking to people to understand: what is the outcome people are seeking?”

Supporting staff

Improving the outcomes for service users is often supported and amplified by making similar improvements for public service staff, according to Bal. Having spent much of his prior career in the consumer world – including stints at Marks and Spencer, Avon and Pizza Hut – the MoJ digital director arrived in government in 2023 with a track record of taking an “obsessive focus on the customer” and their experience.

“When multi-channel retailing came – and the ‘click and collect’ experience in particular at Marks and Spencer – that really highlighted to me that you can create a great customer experience by improving a colleague experience. You’d be amazed at how much work goes on behind the scenes at an M&S store, for example, to make it slick when a customer comes in. And that’s really influenced me because for a long time, I was very much [about] always focusing on the customer. Actually, you can focus on the customer – or the user, in our case – by focusing on your colleagues. The needs of both are really important.”

The MoJ has government’s largest workforce, with more than 100,000 such colleagues across the central ministry and its arm’s-length bodies. Bal cites the example of how digital can provide improvements for prison officers and other staff – and, by extension, help better support prisoners.

“We know, categorically, that if we want to create safe prison working environments, and if we want to help rehabilitate prisoners, it’s all about frontline officers being able to build relationships with them,” he said. “It’s all about being able to spend more time with people and less time on admin.”

For some years, this admin has been largely centred on the complex and unwieldy National Offender Management Information System. This legacy platform requires time-consuming inputs of information such as prisoners’ financial credits, disciplinary issues and alerts, and formal adjudications – data that staff cannot then see collated in one place.

“We’re seeking to transform that and we’ve created the Digital Prison Service… which is now rolling out,” Bal said. “All those key things that staff need to know are now there together in front of them, and that is saving hours a week… if someone is going to meet or have a conversation with [a prisoner], or if they need to try and decide something, all that information is front and centre, and is there for them.”

The digital chief added that, in delivering this service, there was also a “lovely undercurrent… of an intentional focus on replacing legacy” technology systems.

“I’ve been here two years and my quick observation is that there is no silver bullet to doing this, and there is no magical thing that means that in six months, you’re going to be able to go from legacy to something new,” he said. “You have to set an intentional course of action. My team set off on this journey about four years ago, and we’ve probably got about another two to three years to go to get this complete. But we’ve been resolute in our focus.”

--oo00oo--

The piece has already stimulated some caustic observations:-

The comments on this blog often castigate the unions or the probation institute etc. Finally someone has discovered one of those individuals within the MoJ who is very much part of the problem and a source of our pain. A young ambitious man in a hurry. Remember when reading his comments that he is employed by MoJ not HMPPS and has probably experienced prisons as part of a vip guided tour or watched a few documentaries on TV. He doesn’t really give two hoots about prison or probation staff as his empathy is simply and artificial construct but deludes himself that technology is the answer to the prison and probation crisis without really understanding the job or wanting to. He has just been given a wheelbarrow full of cash and is out to make a name for himself asap. Watch out prisons. Here he comes.

******

Are you traumatised by the lack of support, jfdi culture, pisspoor pay, impossible workloads, useless unions? Then give Kamal a call.

Ballot Result

A member reflects:-

Probation is in crisis, so it is shocking that the Napo ballot turnout was only 44.82%, falling just short of the 50% required. Shocking, but not surprising. The blame lies squarely with the probation unions, not with the demographic that makes up today’s workforce.

On a Probation Facebook group I read, “I think Napo did a great job of marketing this campaign.” - I can assure you, it did not. Other comments were telling: “I’ve been too busy to complete the ballot paper” or “What’s the point of striking when you’re just rearranging your cases for the next day?” These aren’t signs of laziness, they’re signs of disillusionment.

When I was a young whippersnapper in my first jobs, I was taught the benefits of joining a trade union, and that if a strike was on the cards, it was your moral duty to take part. I don’t see that drive in probation today, and this isn’t the fault of new recruits. It’s the fault of Napo, Unison, and GMB.

Napo itself is a shadow of its former self. Once the National Association of Probation Officers, today its acronym means nothing. Napo and Unison waste energy competing against each other for members and reputation, while GMB plays the quiet role of “union for senior managers.” None of them deliver what probation truly needs.

It was Napo’s ballot. Returning a ballot paper isn’t difficult. The real issue is that the union couldn’t motivate enough of its own members to vote. Where were the roadshows? The rallies of reps? The campaigns beyond a few member outlets? Where was the coordination with so-called sister unions like Unison and GMB?

I can’t remember the last time I saw a strong Napo rep in a probation office, simply being present. Too often they carry a poor reputation, sneaky, gossipy, offering appalling advice. I stay in Napo more out of nostalgia than conviction. If I ever needed real legal advice or representation, I’d go to an employment solicitor.

Probation is in crisis, yet the unions aren’t even in first gear. The problem with Napo isn’t the members, it’s those running it. No wonder the vote failed. And please, spare me the line “a union is only as good as its members.” That’s lazy nonsense. If leaders and reps are invisible, uninspiring, or incompetent, it makes no difference how willing members are, their energy goes nowhere. Leadership sets the tone, and when leadership fails, the union fails.

This phrase is often trotted out to deflect responsibility, but it’s misleading. A union relies on both engaged members and effective leadership. Leaders and local reps are the ones who set priorities, build campaigns, and create opportunities for involvement. If they’re absent or demotivated, member enthusiasm is stifled before it even starts. When leadership fails to mobilise, communicate, or inspire, it’s no surprise when participation collapses. Blaming the membership only distracts from the real issue: weak, disconnected, and unaccountable leadership.

And then, to top it off, I read the Chief PO’s Probation Day message, a double-barrelled flourish referencing the 1907 Probation Act and its motto: Advise, Assist and Befriend. What a cheek to throw that in our faces while silently overseeing the decimation of probation, fully aware that not even the unions can save us. The failed ballot result has only confirmed that.

Homeless and Hungry

I notice that former US Providence Municipal Judge Frank Caprio has died and social media is full of warm tributes and notable videos of a truly remarkable man and his compassion and love for all who came before him for judgment and sentence. It reminds me of probation's beginnings borne of Christian concern as Police Court Missionaries. It reminds me of advise, assist and befriend, indeed of Befriending Funds that officers could dispense at will and indeed of the role and importance of Social Enquiry Reports and later PSR's. It reminds me of Social Work training and community involvement. It reminds me of compassion and care. We have lost so much...  

Blimey - 10,000 Staff Short!

This from BBC news website:-

Leaked report shows 10,000 gap in probation staff

There is a shortage of around 10,000 probation staff to manage offenders serving sentences in the community, documents seen by the BBC show.

Probation staff supervise offenders after they are released from prison, and check they follow terms of their release such as curfews, not taking drugs, and wearing tags that can restrict their movement. They also protect the public by assessing the risk of reoffending.

A series of documents leaked to the BBC reveal the shortfall of full-time staff dealing with sentence management. In response, the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) said it had inherited a probation service "under immense pressure", and last year recruited 1,000 trainee officers.

According to a government study compiled last year, some 17,170 full-time staff were needed to deal with sentence management in September 2023. This was prior to the government releasing tens of thousands of offenders early to create more space in overcrowded prisons - creating even more work for the probation service.

According to a sentence management activity review by His Majesty's Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS), there are only 7,236 members of staff in this specific role - around 10,000 fewer than needed. The BBC understands the findings were compiled through staff surveys, analysis of timesheets, and monitoring how employees work on a daily basis.

Probation: 'Too few staff, with too little experience, managing too many offenders'

In response to the report's findings, a probation officer told the BBC: 

"These jobs are the bread and butter of probation, and the situation in terms of staffing is considerably worse than is being thought, especially at a time when the pressure on us is immense. It's infuriating when some of us are being told it's our fault we're not doing enough and that we need to up our game, but actually the workload is sky high."

Probation staff say the early release scheme known as SDS40 has dramatically increased their workload. Between 10 September 2024 and the end of March this year, 26,456 people were released under the scheme. The staff say failing to monitor released inmates could lead to a surge in reoffending and others going off the official radar, meaning they are completely unsupervised.

In February this year, Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood pledged to recruit 1,300 probation officers by April 2026. At that time, the MoJ said officers had been "asked to do too much for too long" and "burdened with high workloads" - meaning they were unable to pay enough attention to offenders posing the greatest risk. In some cases, this led to "missed warning signs" where offenders went on to commit serious offences such as murder, the MoJ said.

The probation caseload - the number of offenders staff are looking after - was 241,540 at the end of March 2025 - an increase of 9% over a decade. Staff may have multiple appointments with each offender in a week.

"Someone is going to get seriously hurt because when you're stressed and overworked you can't get everything right - it's just human nature - and that's why they need thousands of more staff because it could be dangerous otherwise," another probation officer said. "They [ministers] are trying to give the impression it's all OK and they're pumping in staff, but they're nowhere near close to filling the gaps. And it can take a year or more to train someone properly."

Last year's annual report from HM Inspectorate of Probation cited "chronic under-staffing" and the "knock-on impact on workloads" as key issues of concern. In March 2025, there were 21,022 full-time probation staff in England and Wales - an increase of 610 on the previous year. Sentence management staff are part of the wider cohort of probation staff.

One probation officer described the workload as "non-stop", and increasing until "you simply can't cope", adding: "It's just overwhelming." Many of the recommendations made in the Independent Sentencing Review earlier this year are expected to be put before parliament next month. They include more offenders being managed in the community, instead of serving jail time. This will again increase the probation workload.

In response to the findings, the MoJ told the BBC that pressure on the probation service "has placed too great a burden on our hardworking staff". A spokesperson said they had recently announced a £700m increase in funding by 2028, as well as recruiting more trainee probation officers. "We are also investing in new technology that reduces the administrative burden on staff time so they can focus on working with offenders and protecting the public," they added.

Contribution Selection

There's an awful lot going on in the criminal justice world at the moment with crises in most parts of our criminal justice systems and particularly the probation and prison service's. As a consequence, I'm particularly heartened by what appears to be the fairly recent re-energisation of our readers and contributors. It's re-energised me and I'd like to thank you all! Here's my recent pick:- 

Tone deaf doesn’t even begin to cover it. The MoJ and HMPPS simply don’t listen to their staff. The people designing policies and making the big decisions are so far removed from the frontline it’s almost laughable. My head in hands in despair I’ve just watched the news about deporting foreign national prisoners, electronic tags, and ‘tougher’ unpaid work, all to achieve the only thing they seem to care about: reducing prison overcrowding. They have no insight into the causes of offending and imprisonment. Just as with the all these probation officer recruitment campaigns peppered with young white middle-class female graduates claiming to ‘make a difference’ or represent diverse communities, it’s so out of touch they might as well rip up the half-baked, back-of-a-fag-packet blueprints, wait for ChatGPT-5, and just do what the computer says. Forget waiting for “probation leaders” to say anything above the parapet.

All we ever ask for is simple: fairer pay, better access to support services for the ‘PiPs’ and ‘PoPs’, legislation to make it happen, give probation some credibility instead of running it into the ground as an overflow tank for the prison service, and to stop being forced into pointless, performance-driven, civil service tick-box practices that don’t work.

There’s been a lot on here recently about staff-led initiatives and recommendations, but the reality is stark no matter what we think, feel or say. I came across this comment on one of the recent Napo articles by a fellow probation officer, and it sums it up where we are perfectly.

“…it will likely be overlooked by probation services, HMPPS, and much of the academic establishment.”

******

I’ve got nothing against white, middle-class females or graduates training as POs, but we do need a broader range of backgrounds, experiences, and skills. Right now, everyone tends to look and think the same. At 26, fresh out of university, how much real insight can most have into offending or the causes of crime? Selling probation as a “career protecting the public while supporting rehabilitation” doesn’t help either, it’s vague to the point of meaning very little.

******

The only positive of being a civil servant is that you can transfer across to another department relatively easily. Have a look on Civil Service Jobs for example. Better pay, work only contracted hours, proper meal breaks etc. Goodwill is dead, it is a one way street. Look after yourself and get out!

******

All I can see happening from these proposals is the recall rate rocketing, which will hardly ease the pressures on the prison population. There is just TOO MANY PEOPLE being shoved through the probation service. Increasing the probation capacity is not going to reduce the prison population. The focus needs to be about how best remove people from the criminal justice revolving door system, and not looking at how best to accommodate them within it.

******

And that’s exactly why they need to listen to the right people, whether the focus is on getting people out of the criminal justice revolving door, finding better ways to accommodate them within it, or preventing them from entering it in the first place.

I’m sick to death of seeing people who haven’t been near a probation office or held a caseload in years, if ever, dictating, designing, and inspecting what probation does. It’s demoralising for those that are there every day, making them feel frustrated and inadequate.

Many are proud to be probation officers, working daily alongside those on probation, with colleagues and services in every imaginable context. Real probation work. Real challenges.

Those delivering day in, day out deserve support, not endless criticism or the constant barrage of being done to. They don’t need people far removed from the frontline endlessly telling them what to do, constantly rewriting the rules, and never once genuinely asking for, let alone using, the insight of those actually doing the job.

Probation officers are all aiming for the same thing: helping people change for the better, overcome struggles, and live offence-free lives. It should be a network of encouragement and collaboration, not a hierarchy of managers and ministers in their ivory towers, academics in their cosy libraries, think-tanks detached from reality, or even certain ex-offenders with lived experience who’d rather take shots at probation officers than try to understand what’s really happening.

Because in the end, experience on the ground matters just as much as what’s on paper. I remember when probation was full of people who had a voice and spoke for probation, some were legendary, challenging senior management and ministers alike. Until we get back to that, until we have a less demoralised or docile workforce, until we have genuine leaders who know what probation is, or should be, until those in charge truly listen to the frontline, then nothing will really change. Because if we did, much of these policies wouldn’t pass quality control.

*****

A couple of observations if I may, first the inclusion of sex offenders is very sensible as that cohort has one of the lowest recividism rates. You can't see past your own prejudices when it comes to SO's and using them to appeal to public sympathy just stokes that prejudice further.

Second, the rate of recalls, which have reached absurd levels, was always going to come back to bite your backsides. The fact that you use tools to assess risk that by your own admission are all but useless suggests probation got many of those decisions wrong, the majority of them in fact.

I don't blame probation for this per se, it's on the politicians wanting to appear 'tuff on crime innit' but I also accept some will have abused that power because some always will.

*****

As a VLO I absolutely share these concerns. I’ve got 5 repeat DA perpetrators due out on 2nd September - they are SFOs waiting to happen. Victims have been extremely hard hit with all the chaos over the past 18 months with all the emphasis on reducing the prison population. I’ve never known a worse time.

With the proposals to immediately remove FNOs, there will be further upset, anger, devastation, and disillusionment in the CJS. Victims, quite rightly, expect offenders to serve their punishment in prison when a custodial sentence is passed. They’re often upset enough all ready with the current arrangements where they can be released early, back to their own countries as free men/women. This can include rapists, child abuses and death by dangerous driving. I don’t think the public have any understanding that deported offenders don’t typically serve their punishment/remainder of their sentences in their home country. Changing the legislation to allow immediate deportation is a huge slap in the face for victims, having gone through the stress and upset of a police investigation and court process - all the told that their offender will simply be returned home. I can’t help but feel that this new legislation will leave the door wide open for FNOs to come to this country with the intention of offending, knowing that IF they are caught they’re just likely to be put on a flight home.

The MoJ has completely lost all sight of putting victims at the heart of the CJS.

*****

It has been a some years since I last visited Probation Matters Blogspot. I was a regular contributor back when Probation had been largely privatised, a mistake of such enormity I am surprised noone has ever really been held to account. Some points to touch upon that struck me from reading some of the comments. OASys still an issue. Pay still an issue. Prison overcrowding still an issue. Probation workloads still an issue. Diversity and background of Probation staff still an issue. And so on. It really was better in the past as I remember, particularly protected workloads. There was a time when OASys was imagined as a tool to help probation professionals and not something that consumed an unsustainable and huge amount of time such that it almost became the job itself. 

Regards pay, it looks to me that Probation pay suffered a supercharged level of austerity measure and then some. The political ramping up of tough on crime message, always popular when looking to garner some votes, is now being supercharged by new kids on the block Reform. Other parties will follow and prison population and early release schemes will doubtless increase accordingly. Regards professional diversity, I became a Trainee Probation Officer, a rare male recruit, around the millennium without a first degree just bags of committment and some ability. I was ever grateful for the opportunity and did not disappoint, by my own say I did some very good work in MY local community. Keep on keeping on battling for your profession, it really matters. All the best.

Prison Crisis Increases Probation Workload

With Napo members considering how to vote in relation to possible industrial action, I note this from Napo magazine:-

FTR48: A Reckless Gamble with Public Safety – And One More Reason to Vote ‘Yes’

The FTR48 scheme will see thousands of prisoners released early, despite known risks – and pile yet more work onto already overstretched Probation staff. Napo urges members to vote ‘Yes’ in the industrial action ballot to demand safe workloads and fair pay.

Napo’s members need to vote in the current ballot on industrial action on pay and workloads, saying ‘Yes’ to both options on industrial action. If members needed any further reason to do this then think about the FTR48 scheme – the huge expansion of fixed term recalls – that will see the imminent release of thousands of prisoners under the Government’s latest decision to sacrifice public safety for Prison beds.

FTR48 Means Huge Workload Increases

The Government has changed the law only because it needs to take desperate measures to reduce Prison overcrowding. Members considering their vote on the ballot on industrial action should contrast this with the abject failure of HMPPS to take any meaningful action on excessive Probation workloads. They should also consider how quickly the Government found billions to pay private companies to build and run new prisons but have been unable to find the much smaller sum required to meet the claims of Napo and other unions to pay Probation staff a decent wage.

When this comes into force from the first week of September the ‘FTR48’ scheme will see several thousand currently recalled prisoners start to be released over the following weeks. In addition, people being recalled from that point who would previously have been subject to a standard recall will now fall into this scheme. The thousands of hours of additional work this will transfer to Probation staff in the community has already begun to take effect – the latest example of an unprecedented, and apparently never-ending, increase in work we’ve been subject to from the various schemes introduced to try to reduce Prison overcrowding. Staff in the community are being forced to compress pre-release work that should be done over months into just a few weeks, all during a time of increased staff leave.

FTR48 – A Reckless and Dangerous Gamble

Napo continues to oppose the FTR48 scheme as a reckless and dangerous gamble with public safety. In the interests of trying to free up hundreds of Prison spaces the Government has chosen not to exclude people who are assessed as posing a high risk to others or those serving sentences for committing sexual, domestic abuse and stalking offences. All of those included in this scheme have, to have been recalled in the first place, been subject to an assessment by Probation workers that concluded the risk these individuals posed to others was such that they could not be managed in the community. Where previously they would have been subject to a Standard Recall, involving a much more robust risk assessment and management process in the months after recall involving Probation workers and the Parole Board, now they will be automatically re-released, regardless of any existing risk assessment.

For these reasons it remains Napo’s position the FTR48 scheme will increase Serious Further Offences committed by, and the numbers of recalls of, people subject to Probation supervision who would previously have remained in custody. The Government, and HMPPS, had other options available to it to reduce the numbers of people being recalled to custody. It could have implemented changes to the threshold for recall – for example bringing this in line with that in place for others released on licence, such as indeterminate sentenced prisoners – or undertaken a more wide-ranging change to the culture of fear and individual practitioner blame it promotes. It chose FTR48 instead.

Next Steps

We urge Napo members to vote in the current ballot on industrial action on pay and workloads, and to say ‘Yes’ to both options on industrial action. This is the only realistic remaining option to members to demonstrate the strength of feeling, and our commitment to force our employer to change course, on achieving a decent pay rise and safe workloads for all. Unfortunately, FTR48 isn’t the only reason for members to vote for industrial action in the current ballot, it’s just the latest example of the failure of the Government and HMPPS to think about when casting your vote.

Napo HQ

Napo has previously commented on the planned expansion of the eligibility for Fixed Term Recall after it was initially announced – Latest increase in Probation workload to address Prison overcrowding provokes outrage – NAPO Magazine.

May 16, 2025

Latest increase in Probation workload to address Prison overcrowding provokes outrage

Napo members have reacted with anger to Wednesday’s announcement by the Government on changes to the Fixed Term Recall process. This will effectively significantly increase the numbers of people who will now be automatically re-released 28 days after being recalled, where previously they would have been subject to a Standard Recall, involving a much more robust risk assessment and management process in the months after recall.

Changes To Fixed Term Recall Risk Public Safety

On the details provided so far it appears only very limited exclusions will be in place, meaning that large numbers of people who have committed sexual, domestic abuse and stalking offences will be subject to Fixed Term Recalls. All this despite a decision having been taken just 4 weeks before that the risk these individuals posed to others was such that they could not be managed in the community and should be returned to custody. Napo’s view is that, along with the person committing any further offence, the Government will share responsibility for the deaths and serious injury that will be caused to members of the public by those re-released early following this change.

This change has attempted to have been justified by the increase in the proportion of those in prison following recall. No mention is made of the leading role played by HMPPS over recent years in promoting the use of recall, including the climate of fear and blame created in their approach to Serious Further Offences. If it wanted to take responsibility for addressing the numbers of people recalled to custody each year the Government could have considered the immediate implementation of changes to the threshold for recall, for example bringing this in line with that in place for others released on licence, such as indeterminate sentenced prisoners.

Napo calls on the Government to urgently change course following this announcement, and to listen carefully to the range of opposition to this plan.

What This Means For Pay And Workloads

From the point where Napo representatives were informed about this change, just over three hours before the announcement was made, we have made our position clear.

We have made clear that again the Government has prioritised Prisons overcrowding over Probation workload, seeming able to find billions to expand the Prison estate as well as producing legislation in short order.

Our members are past breaking point with the approach of this Government and its treatment of the Probation Service and its workforce.

We expect the Government to find the money to meet our current pay claim in full and to instruct HMPPS to respond more positively to the workload relief demands that Napo and the other trade unions have made. If the Government can find billions to engage in the spectacle of prison-building it can find the millions required to improve the pay of Probation staff who have, by Minister’s own accounts, saved the criminal justice system from collapse by implementing various early release schemes over recent years.

Napo remains in a trade dispute with the employer on the twin issues of pay and workloads. Unless significant progress is made on both fronts in the next few weeks members will be left with no course of action but to progress the options available to us in terms of industrial action to force them to change their approach to us.

Napo HQ

--oo00oo--

I notice the piece generated this comment:-

After 4 years as a programmes facilitator (I left due to being lowered to band 3 from 4) I can see why was not wanting to start back into offender management. Out of 5 in the team I am the only full time person and with all of the team were overworked and firefighting all the time. Having to be reactive not pro-active which is frustrating. I am wanting to work less hours after 24 years in the job but can’t afford to. No tasks seem to improve including the worst.. Oasys.. The most time consuming over-rated peice of wirk there is. It’s not even really used we don’t look back at most of it, the person on probation rarely see’s it but we’re always told to ‘update it.’ plus it’s always on top of the other paperwork licences., delius, hdc’s, parole, tag and AP information etc..

More Trouble at MoJ

From this BBC investigation, I think we can see why the previous permanent secretary was keen to move on:- 

Courts service 'covered up' IT bug that caused evidence to go missing

The body running courts in England and Wales has been accused of a cover-up, after a leaked report found it took several years to react to an IT bug that caused evidence to go missing, be overwritten or appear lost. Sources within HM Courts & Tribunals Service (HMCTS) say that as a result, judges in civil, family and tribunal courts will have made rulings on cases when evidence was incomplete.

The internal report, leaked to the BBC, said HMCTS did not know the full extent of the data corruption, including whether or how it had impacted cases, as it had not undertaken a comprehensive investigation. It also found judges and lawyers had not been informed, as HMCTS management decided it would be "more likely to cause more harm than good".

HMCTS says its internal investigation found no evidence that "any case outcomes were affected as a result of these technical issues". However, the former head of the High Court's family division, Sir James Munby, told the BBC the situation was "shocking" and "a scandal".

The bug was found in case-management software used by HMCTS, the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) agency which administers many courts in England and Wales, and tribunals across the UK. The software - known variously as Judicial Case Manager, MyHMCTS or CCD - is used to manage evidence and track cases before the courts. It is used by judges, lawyers, case workers and members of the public.

Documents seen by the BBC show it caused data to be obscured from view, meaning medical records, contact details and other evidence were sometimes not visible as part of case files used in court. The Social Security and Child Support (SSCS) Tribunal - which handles benefit appeals - is thought to have been most affected.

Sources have told the BBC that bugs have also impacted case management software used by other courts - including those dealing with family, divorce, employment, civil money claims and probate. "These hearings often decide the fate of people's lives," Sir James Munby told the BBC. "An error could mean the difference between a child being removed from an unsafe environment or a vulnerable person missing out on benefits."

'Culture of cover-ups'

The BBC has spoken to several separate sources within HMCTS who liken the situation to the Horizon Post Office scandal, where executives tried to suppress evidence of the system's flaws. One says there was "general horror" at the design of the software, introduced by HMCTS in 2018, which they claim was "not designed properly or robustly" and had a long history of data loss.

Another says there was a general reluctance from senior management to "acknowledge or face the reality" of the situation, despite repeated warnings from the agency's IT staff. "There is a culture of cover-ups," one told the BBC. "They're not worried about risk to the public, they're worried about people finding out about the risk to the public. It's terrifying to witness."

When asked, the MoJ told us several organisations had been involved in the design and development of the software but did not supply a list.

'Totally insufficient'

The BBC has seen documents from the MoJ (obtained through Freedom of Information requests), including emails where the severity of the SSCS issue was discussed. A briefing prepared for the chief executive of HMCTS - dated March 2024 - reveals the risk to proceedings was initially categorised as "high" with the possibility of court outcomes being adversely affected assessed as "very likely", resulting in "severe reputational impact to HMCTS". However, an initial manual investigation by a team within HMCTS reviewed only a subset of the most recent three months' worth of cases heard by the SSCS Tribunal, even though the bug was thought to have been in the system for several years.

Out of 609 cases identified as having potential issues, only 109 (17%) were selected for further investigation. Among those, just one was said to have had "potentially significant impact". The briefing suggested standard court procedure would mean that staff would spot any anomalies and manually correct them. Subsequently, it was decided the risk to all cases was low and "no further checks" were needed.

Sources within HMCTS argue that a snapshot of three months' worth of data was "totally insufficient", given the nature of the problem. Their concerns are shared by a leading IT security expert, Prof Alan Woodward of the University of Surrey, who has worked for the UK government and consults on issues including forensic computing. "[HMCTS] conducted their investigation on a limited set of cases", he says. "To say that they found no impact of these faults doesn't make sense to me."

Leaked report

Documents show an employee of HMCTS was so concerned, they raised a formal whistleblower complaint, which prompted a further internal investigation. This was led by a senior IT professional from the Prison Service and resulted in a detailed report, distributed internally in November 2024. This is the report that has been leaked to the BBC. It was set up to "establish the facts" on data loss and data corruption issues affecting the Social Security and Child Support Tribunal.

Investigators interviewed 15 witnesses, including software engineers and developers, and reviewed internal documents, such as incident logs and diary entries. It found "large scale" data breaches that should have been addressed "as soon as they were known". However, the report said that HMCTS had taken several years to react despite multiple warnings from senior technical staff, from 2019 onwards. Investigators concluded that because HMCTS had not undertaken a comprehensive investigation, the full extent of data corruption was still unknown, including if case outcomes had been affected.

The report added that data loss incidents continue to be raised against the IT system used by the civil, family and tribunal courts. The concerns raised in the leaked report echo those raised by those speaking to the BBC. Sources inside HMCTS express concerns that missing evidence may have gone undetected. "This is quite a frightening possibility," one told the BBC, "That information gets lost, no-one notices, and there is a miscarriage of justice. I think that has to be the biggest worry."

'Missing documents'

In the family courts, a different IT flaw caused thousands of documents to go missing, sources say. In one instance, it is claimed a fault caused more than 4,000 documents to go missing from hundreds of public family law cases - including child protection cases.

The BBC understands this bug was discovered in 2023 and may have been present for some years. We have been told it has since been resolved but that no investigation was carried out to establish potential impact on case outcomes. We asked the MoJ if any emergency child protection cases had been affected. It did not respond to this question.

In a statement, an HMCTS spokesperson told the BBC that "parties and judges involved in these cases always had access to the documents they needed". It vowed to "press ahead" with digitisation, because it was "vital" to bring courts and tribunals into the modern era.