Why Do Probation Officers Leave?

Once again warm thanks go to star contributor 'Getafix for pointing us in the direction of a recent piece of research by the Howard League:-

No Choice But to Leave’: Understanding Voluntary Resignations Amongst Probation Staff in England and Wales

It's a lengthy document worthy of reading in full, but as is often the case, it's the testimony that tells the story, so I've selected the following:-  

ABSTRACT

Probation staff attrition in England and Wales has been a cause for concern, yet there is limited research exploring why probation staff choose to leave. Utilising Walker, Annison and Beckett's ‘workplace harm’, and Robinson's ‘post-traumatic organisation’, this research addresses this gap through a survey (n = 47) and interviews (n = 4) with staff who have left the service. Themes identified were (1) identity and values, (2) emotional impact of the job and (3) organisational climate. The possibility of a return to the service is also explored, as well as implications for the organisation and retention of staff.

5 Discussion

The analysis of the qualitative responses within the open-ended survey data and interviews identified three core themes; values and identity, emotional impact of the job and organisational climate. In drawing out the themes from the data, the authors recognise parallels to literature related to emotional labour, workplace harm and organisational trauma. Thus, the process of analysis draws on this mirroring and considers the implications for the service, and for those considering a return to practice.

5.1 Theme 1: Values and Identity

As reflected in the academic literature on probation officer values and identity (Deering and Feilzer 2019; Mawby and Worrall 2013; Tidmarsh 2020), the participant responses demonstrated a strong work ethic and desire for practitioners to meet the needs of people on probation. Similar to findings from Cook et al. (2022) exploring social worker retention, being a practitioner was a defining characteristic of who they were. This was not simply a job, but rather, probation work and being a probation officer, was a core part of their identity. This was something that they took to future roles, as this interview participant describes:

But it definitely just still feels like I'm kind of part of that world. And definitely yes, part of my identity. I talk to people in my new role, and don't go in and say I was a Probation officer and talk about it, but it's kind of the experiences and the reflections that I have from it, it definitely forms part of me. (Anne, 03)

Further, being a probation officer permeated aspects of not just professional but personal development and growth:

I grew up in the service getting to know not only the service users I worked with, but of different agencies all whilst developing a wealth of skills I didn't know I had. I grew into the adult I am now with a strong set of professional and personal values underpinned by integrity and a belief that people deserve second chances… (Survey, 46)

The relational aspect of the work, with supervisory relationships built on trust (Dominey 2019), and the ability to overcome barriers to the therapeutic alliance and successful rehabilitation, were seen as core components of practice, bringing with it a sense of pride:

And that's, that's what I felt my forte was. I used to get it wrong a lot. But then to rebuild that professional working relationship with somebody, so we could get back on track again was what I used to pride myself in. (Ellie, 01)

This probation identity also featured as a factor linked to some participants’ ambivalence when making the decision to leave the service, with the commitment to the work evident:

Because I love the job Because I'm a great PO Because I'm passionate about protecting the public. (Survey, 17)

Of particular note, the probation identity extended beyond that of the individual to the identity shared with others, and similar to the ‘policing family’ (Charman 2024), comradery within teams and the sense of a shared purpose were reflected within the responses:

Loyalty-probation tribe identity. (Survey, 01)
Almost without exception, the staff are wonderful, talented, motivated professionals who give their best every day despite the system. I miss working with the clients, for the moments of humour as well as the slow, zigzagging process of positive change. (Survey, 24)

The emphasis on the importance of connections with colleagues as a means of coping with the emotional burden of the role can be seen in the literature (Phillips 2022) and may provide some further explanation for the significance of this shared identity and experience for participants. This strong identity and work ethic did, however, bring challenges to the role in the face of organisational changes that has seen tensions arise between practice and policy (Deering and Feilzer 2019). The moral distress (Mänttäri-van der Kuip 2020) created through the misalignment between practitioner core values and the perception of the changing organisational priorities was observed:

I felt that the organisation has changed to an extent that was no longer compatible with my personal beliefs and professional ethics. I came into the service to advise, assist and befriend but became a part of the system of oppression and focussed upon enforcement and compliance. (Survey, 08)

For those whose values and experience reflected an earlier social work ethos of the service, threats to their identity (Charman and Tyson 2023) emerged, with the ‘loss of valued aspects of professional identity’ (Conroy and O'Leary-Kelly 2014, 67) caused by changes in occupational structure which left them feeling devalued and disconnected from the organisation:

And I think that culture really permeates because you've got on the ground quite a lot of you know, dinosaur probation officers, maybe, including myself, that have been there a long time, but genuinely have a passion for what you're doing, which isn't actually valued anymore, because that doesn't achieve any goals for anyone. (Christine, 02)

For some, it was this change in value-base and identity of the organisation that was the catalyst for leaving the service, reflecting a sub-theme of ‘process over people’, where, akin to Coley's (2020) discussion, the perception was that probation leadership placed greater emphasis on performance management than relational work:

It felt increasingly that the aspects of the jo[b] that “oxygenated” me were being overwhelmed by the “carbon dioxide” of greater prescription, meaningless targets and Service preoccupation with process over content and engagement with core issues (principally, the clients!). (Survey, 30)

Furthermore, there was a notion from some respondents that this focus on process over people had led to a two-tier approach to the job, creating a divide between those who engaged with the process and those who engaged with people on probation, with the service failing to reflect the value of the latter:

I knew colleagues who did nothing at all, as long as they put crap in the computer. Yeah. They did nothing with the offenders. Someone like me who's crap at your IT but was great with your offenders, they were not interested. (Shelly, 04)

Of note, whilst the impact of TR is undisputed, the responses reflected a sense that the nature of the work, and what probation represented, had changed over a time that predated the TR reforms:

The first ten years were fabulous. The second ten years were tolerable. The last ten years were appalling. (Survey, 08)

The nature and pace of change are discussed further in the following theme; however, the structural changes to the probation service had a significant impact on practitioners' sense of identity. In discussing the rebranding of probation to ‘One HMPPS’ and central control under the civil service, Carr (2022) reflects on the need for probation voices to be heard. Participant responses highlighted this impact on probation identity and the issues experienced through the structural changes and perceived competing values:

But I think the problem is that probation and prison are two very different things. And, you know, when you come under the umbrella of HMPPS, it doesn't really identify that it is a very different beast than the prison service really. (Ellie, 01)

The division of the service into NPS and CRC was a seismic mis-step, but I felt there was enough of a kernel of ‘real’ probation work within the CRCs and we found a way to work together effectively. The reunification – or, rather, the forced absorption of the CRCs into the centralised, civil service NPS, was for me a highly destructive move that has lost the soul of probation work. (Survey, 24)

The perceived changing focus on probation values and the relentless organisational changes as cited by participants can be seen as attacks to probation identity and thus further examples of workplace harm. In terms of recruitment and retention, the findings highlight the strength of feeling and identity that staff held in the organisation, which could explain how staff have continued to work in difficult environments and sought to overcome and reconcile tensions between their personal and organisational values.

5.2 Theme 2: Emotional Impact of the Job

The emotional impact of the job is, perhaps, an unsurprising theme within the research findings given the evidence-base on emotional labour within probation literature (Phillips et al. 2020; Westaby et al. 2020), and the reports of staff experiences post-TR (Carr 2023; Tidmarsh 2020). However, the extent of the impact of this emotional harm highlighted within the findings should not be understated. The high workload within the organisation was frequently cited within the participant responses, and this went beyond a focus on the number of cases being held as can be seen in this example, when asked to describe their time working as a probation officer (12), one participant commented:

Horrific. I hadn't realised until I left how unhealthy and damaging the culture was/is. Excessive self-sacrifice is expected. The more skilled you are in the role the more complex and demanding work you are given, with no consideration to the psychological impact of such work at those volumes. (Survey, 11)

The impact of the role could be seen in both emotional and physical outcomes for the participants after leaving, as this participant highlighted when responding to the same question:

Mixed because I loved my colleagues but [it was] very stressful and I resented working really long hours to meet deadlines. Felt OASys deadlines had to be prioritised over one to one work. I was often physically unwell and since leaving I'm rarely unwell. I've linked it to the daily stress I experienced at time. (Survey, 22)

As Mawby and Worrall (2013) note ‘probation workers seek meaningful work and achieve job satisfaction through emotional labour’ (352), but it is these very values that can make staff vulnerable to burnout and the emotional toll of the work being undertaken (Tidmarsh 2020). A deterioration in well-being over time as the job, and expectations, changed could be seen within the responses:

Loved the first 12 yrs and would have worked there for free. Loathed the last 4 yrs – Depressing, stressful, no hope for a better future, no job satisfaction, needed to be a jack of all trades, too stretched to do anything properly. (Survey, 42)

Whilst the accounts of individual experiences within the service painted a picture of the high levels of stress that participants were experiencing, and the subsequent impact of this on emotional and physical well-being, the responses from participants when asked what the positive aspects of leaving the probation service had been (16) highlighted these effects more starkly. Responses included reflections on work–life balance, opportunities for flexible working, improved emotional well-being and a renewed sense of self and confidence. Aligned with well-being was the references made to sleep, with participants reflecting on how this had been impacted when in role, as can be seen in the responses from these two participants:

Peace of mind Time to sleep Little to no stress Gone is the Sunday night nausea and insomnia Gone is the underlying feeling that at any moment it's all going to implode and take me with it. (Survey, 02)

I feel like a weight has been lifted. I no longer spend Sunday nights worried about what I will face on Monday morning, or debating internally whether I should spend some of my precious Saturday catching up on absurd paperwork. (Survey, 24)

This response sums up the weight of what they left behind and the impact on their current well-being in a single, yet telling, word:

Rest. (Survey, 09)

These responses resonate with the earlier work of Walker et al. (2019), highlighting the scale of the impact on staff, and demonstrate the need for the service to be responsive to the needs of staff members at all levels of the service. As can be seen in the work of Millings et al. (2023), probation leaders are not immune to these challenges. It is well established that probation work is rooted in relationships (Tidmarsh 2020; Westaby et al. 2020), and Treisman (2018) argues that for organisations to be safe and trauma-informed, there needs to be a focus on the relational needs of staff members, promoting safety and connection.

The relentless and excessive nature of communication leading to change fatigue (Robinson and Burnett 2007) was also reflected in the responses, demonstrating the ‘pervasive and equally damaging form of systemic work-based harm’ (Walker et al. 2019) impact on emotional well-being and the exacerbation of the outcomes of the already demanding role:

Changes…and being bombarded with Teams/info. (Survey, 035)

…Unification was a huge challenge and left me exhausted and disillusioned. (Survey, 01)

The general concerns about ‘getting things wrong’, through either personal experiences or seeing the experiences of colleagues, presented an additional emotional tension within the role. These concerns were set against the backdrop of high profile serious further offences, such as Joseph McCann and Damien Bendall where probation failures were highlighted by HMIP reviews (2020a, 2023b) and amplified by media reports (Pidd 2023). As illustrated in the reviews and HMIP's thematic on probation recall culture (2020b), participants reflected legitimate concerns around internal blame cultures and accountability, with a fear of making mistakes, especially with the context of high workloads and inexperienced staff:

anytime anything went wrong that involve[d] someone on your caseload you were personally blamed and provided no support. Anytime I heard of a killing on the news I would panic feel anxious and eagerly search for their name to ensure that it was not a case known to me. (Survey, 43)

Treisman's (2018) work on organisational trauma can be well applied to probation work, given the emotional impact of the job, organisational restructuring, resource issues and ongoing scrutiny in the form of inspections and case reviews. Treisman (2018) highlights that there are higher risks of staff burnout in these organisations and also ‘can lead to an organisation itself becoming traumatised, unhealthy and distressed’ (Treisman 2018, 23).

When dealing with the emotional pressures of the job, it can be seen that this spilled into the private and family lives of individuals. The impact on others was also a sub-theme identified; with many respondents having caring responsibilities of some form, that they felt were affected:

Because it certainly impacted on my family and my relationships, not negatively but it did impact on them to the extent you have to say I'm sorry, but I can't deal with that. I just need to, I need to debrief because I've had a bad day. I just need to sit quietly for 5 minutes and have a cup of tea before I deal with that. Particularly if you've got children around. It's, you know, cutting yourself off, it's difficult. (Ellie, 01)

This is reflected in Phillips et al.’s (2021) paper exploring probation staff experiences of changes to working practices during the Covid-19 pandemic. It is important to note that whilst we are no longer in the midst of the pandemic, the need to adapt working practices during this time has led to ongoing changes in working practices. Whilst offering the potential for some greater flexibility, responses from participants reflected how changes to remote working practices also have the potential to blur professional and homelife boundaries (‘work–life spillover’; Phillips et al. 2021), as well as increasing perceptions of accessibility of staff outside of core working hours, and increased feelings of scrutiny. Furthermore, the absence of, and need for, appropriate psychological support to reflect the make-up of caseloads was identified in a number of responses:

Corrosive impact of working with sex offenders/those who perpetrate violence against women without appropriate psychological support. (Survey, 11).

The sub-themes identified demonstrate that the emotional needs for practitioners are multi-faceted, and this provides an opportunity for the organisation to be responsive to the cumulative workplace harms that practitioners experience.

5.3 Theme 3: Organisational Climate

Whilst organisational developments and the emotional impact of the job were core themes in the findings, a separate theme of ‘organisational climate’ was also identified which could be seen to exacerbate these issues, as well creating additional challenges for staff members. This also drew on the perceptions of leaders within the organisation.

5.3.1 Organisational Tensions

A number of tensions could be identified within the participant responses. For example, the following quote highlights the feeling that changes were being directed by individuals who did not have an understanding of the job:

And then of course the travel stopped then TR happened, the split happened which was very divisive, and we became civil servants, and then this overwhelming IT tsunami really, hit us. From people who really don't understand. If you're going to manage risk, you need to ask a lot of questions and you need to spend time. It isn't a tick box thing. (Ellie, 01)

For some of the participants, there was a distinct view about new managers (from both the CRCs and NPS), with the notion that they needed to ‘earn their stripes’ evident in some of the responses, as well as some suspicion about the credentials of staff who had previously being part of the CRCs. This may be representative of the organisational turmoil that has been experienced, whilst demonstrating the difficulties in embedding collegiality following unification, reflecting the findings of Millings et al. (2023) in the merging of perceived different probation service identities.

Within this theme, there was variation in the experiences as to the extent staff felt they had received support from different levels of the organisation; with concerns around the ‘top-down’ approach to structural changes:

… I thought my entire career would be with the service, navigating various specialisms or management roles as time went on. Instead the service has slowly and criminally been pushed beyond breaking point, chronic staffing issues resulting in dangerous mismanagement of people's lives both staff and service user alike. (survey, 46)

There was a sense that responses to the pandemic from some managers meant there was a feeling that colleagues were not ‘in this together’ and that the expectations placed upon practitioners were unrealistic. Within the responses, there were accounts of instances of abuse of power presented from some managers, as can be seen in the quote below about reasons for leaving:

Bullying, victimisation, harassment sexist behaviour from male manager. (Survey, 43)

Significant abuse of power was also reported within one of the interviews, and the quote below provides some insight into this individual's experiences within the team:

When exploring relationships: It was I mean, I worked harder than a lot of colleagues, but I knew what it meant to be a good officer. As a team, brilliant, supported, I mean I had my odd moments, experienced a bit of racism and stuff, but overall great experience. (Shelly, 04)

Here, the participant spoke quite candidly, almost casually, about their experiences of racism within the role. Within the responses, some reference was made to participants experiencing bullying, sexism and racism, reflecting issues faced by minority ethnic staff as illustrated in HMIP's Race equality in probation follow-up thematic (2023c). Whilst these were generally not presented as specific reasons for leaving, they provide further examples of workplace harm that these individuals had endured in their time in the service.

However, whilst there are concerning accounts within the responses it is important to balance this with an awareness of the similar pressures and tensions experienced by line managers, particularly in relation to organisational challenges. The HMIP thematic on The role of the senior probation officer (SPO) and management oversight in the Probation Service (2024) highlighted the broad span of workload duties detracting SPOs from providing effective support to practitioners. Despite this context, the responses did also report good managers, both immediate line managers but also those in more senior leadership positions that had a positive impact on the experiences of some of the participants:

You need to know that if you make a decision and you can evidence why you've made that decision, that you're going to have the backing, even if it's the wrong decision. You know, the best managers I've had have always backed me, front-facing to other people. And then behind the scenes, they've said to me. Come on, now ‘Ellie’, that wasn't really a right decision was it? (Ellie, 01)

This was particularly evident in relation to autonomy, and a sense that the managers were advocating for them.

5.3.2 Autonomy

Data from the interviews highlighted that there used to be a sense of autonomy within the role and that staff responded well to this. This enabled creativity in practice and a feeling that staff were responding to the needs of service users with a general sense of impact within the role. This is particularly important in probation work given the need for professional curiosity (Phillips et al. 2022) and the ‘high-stakes’ of decision-making. However, when asked about the level of impact staff felt that they had within the organisation, this was limited. Furthermore, there was a sense that the impact they had within the organisation had changed over time, as Christine (02) highlights:

the original leadership was much more open to I've got this idea, and I think it might be interesting. I think we should try it. I think they were really confident to say, well, that sounds a bit off the wall. But okay, go for it, you know. Try it.

The change in the lack of power is also reflected in this response from a survey participant when asked what the positive benefits of leaving the probation service were:

I no longer feel frustrated at the powerlessness that has been imposed upon qualified and trained personnel who were not allowed to do their jobs properly. (Survey 8)

The importance of empowerment, choice and collaboration can be seen within the core values of trauma-informed practice (Petrillo and Bradley 2022; Senker et al. 2023). At an organisational level, there should be opportunities to empower staff members:

and find ways to increase and maximise feelings, experiences and opportunities for mastery, agency, choice and voice. (Treisman 2018, p.52)

5.3.3 Progression Opportunities

Linking to opportunities for ‘mastery’, a recurring issue within the responses was a perception of a lack of progression opportunities available across all grades within the service, both through lack of availability of opportunities and blocking:

It wasn't only me that had raised about development. If it had just been me I wouldn't have raised it in the meeting, but it's kind of, other people are feeling quite…. there's lots of lateral moves in probation. If I was at [inaudible] if I wanted to go to court, if I wanted to go to prison, in theory they should be quite easy to be able to kind of make them. I think the reality of that is not what has happened. (Anne, 02)

This was seen within both the reasons for leaving, but also in what some of the participants reflected that they had gained from subsequent employment elsewhere. For example, some participants referred to the availability of opportunities within their new roles, and a sense of being valued and supported:

I feel appreciated in my role, supported and have a really good team, there's progression opportunities and I'm a lot more happier. (Survey, 31)

A lack of opportunities for progression and sense of being ‘locked in’ the role (Stengård et al. 2016), can be linked to the internal feelings of the individual; self-worth and confidence, as well as affecting the individuals sense of agency in relation to being able to move on from their situation.

Interestingly, the majority of participants (n = 20) went on to other ‘helping’ professions including the third sector, psychological services and the local authority. Others went into education and research (n = 9), policy-related roles (n = 5) and other businesses (n = 2). Some respondents were unemployed (n = 3) or had retired (n = 3), and the further employment of (n = 2) was unknown.

5.4 Return

In addition to the themes above looking at the experiences of probation practice and leaving, the research explored whether participants would consider a return to the service. Many (43%) of the responses showed an unwillingness to return:

I would not return to the service and have discouraged others from joining the service. The mistreatment of staff is reckless at best, if not by design. (Survey, 11)

However, seven participants (15%) indicated that they would consider a return to probation practice, and a further 20 (43%) indicated that this is something that they would ‘maybe’ consider. In exploring this, the satisfaction of the core work with people on probation was something that regularly came up when referring to the role, and the ambivalence to leave, suggesting this was still a pull to the job:

What a privilege it is that people let you into their lives. And that's a real privilege. And it's not one to be scoffed at and pooh poohed at. (Ellie, 01)

Responses also highlighted the highs of the job. It was clear that participants felt proud of the work they did and, for many, the choice to leave was a painful one. This may also give some insight into the reasons that staff still feel drawn to the service:

I didn't really want to leave but felt I had no choice: I loved the job when allowed to do it properly… (Survey, 02)

I didn't actually want to leave and even returned after a year, but due to the job being impossible to do I couldn't see myself staying. (Survey, 12)

Whilst the statistics regarding the potential for a return to the service could be seen to paint somewhat of a hopeful picture for future recruitment and retention, the qualitative responses highlight some priority areas that would benefit from consideration within these strategies. Responses reflected the current thinking of the need for a devolution of probation from the civil service and centralised control (Bowen 2024; HMIP, 2023a):

The current one HMPPS policy and civil service does not sit well with me… (Survey, 01)

Management would have to change. Probation would have to leave the civil service (bullying and incompetence have increased considerably since then) & be more separate from the prison service. (Survey, 21)

A further area that participants cited as needing to change was a shift from the blame culture that participants felt in relation to serious further offences as can be seen in this survey response:

The SFO process is punitive and unfair and as a Head of service I did not believe it was right. That would have to change. (Survey, 01)

Overall, participants noted the need for changes to a variety of aspects of the role, workload and their treatment from the organisation:

I retain a passion for what I believe to be the underpinning principles and purpose of Probation. However, I doubt I would return to an “offender” facing role and, more generally, could not return to the service until the current workload, funding and resource issues are significantly improved. (Survey, 16)

I would love to return as that role was fulfilling and is aligned with my values but I would only return if the pay matched the level of work we do and if there was a real change in the way staff are treated and the expectations are realistic and there are appropriate resources to enable staff to do their job. (Survey, 12)

These responses demonstrate how staff continue to hold their strong probation identity and values after they have left the service, and so it can be seen that there could be a real opportunity to encourage experienced officer's back to the role. However, the service would benefit from acknowledging the severity of the organisational harm that has been highlighted within the responses, drawing on trauma-informed values to promote organisational safety (Treisman 2018) and ensure that staff members feel valued.

For example, a failure to respond to staff who are considering leaving could be seen to impact on the extent that staff felt valued by the service. One participant indicated that this would be something that would need to change for them to consider a return to the service:

If the focus changed, there was a feeling from senior management that experienced officers were valuable and important. (Survey, 26)

Staff highlighting the way they felt unsupported and under-valued was also reflected within the interviews, when asked about whether participants had received an exit interview. At the time, exit interviews were not routinely done, and these would rarely be completed on a one-to-one basis. This also led to staff feeling like they had not had the opportunity to voice the reasons for leaving:

I got given a survey and I would have loved to have had an exit interview, because I had a lot of things to say. But yeah, no, I didn't have an actual exit interview, which I definitely would have liked. (Anne, 03)

No, I didn't get an exit interview. I got a form to fill in. I got another form that told me what I had to do if I, if I, found anything else, a conflict of interest and all this sort of blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. (Ellie, 01)

One of the interview participants did receive an exit interview; not directly from their line manager but from a more senior leader, offering more flexibility, but by this time it was too late and the decision had been made.

6 Conclusion

This study aimed to understand the factors contributing to the voluntary resignations of probation staff within England and Wales, with a view to support strategies for retention. The findings provide valuable insights on this under-researched area, identifying three key themes affecting decisions to leave. The perceived threat to practitioner and organisational values and identity has highlighted a concern that the probation service is being absorbed into other, more dominant, organisational cultures (e.g., Prison and Civil Service) overshadowing the core values of probation work. The emotional impact of the job has been discussed comprehensively in other scholars' work; however, this study underscores the significant role that this has in practitioner decisions to leave and, therefore, should be a priority focus for HMPPS. The final theme from the research, organisational climate, highlights that organisational tensions, a feeling of a lack of autonomy and a perceived lack of progression opportunities impact on practitioners' decisions to leave the organisation. Thus, attempts to address the issues of retention should focus on the investment in staff, creating an environment that encourages opportunities for progression, moving beyond short-term decisions that may only temporarily retain staff.

Findings from this study add to the existing literature and provide further evidence of ‘workplace harm’ and the situation of probation as a ‘post-traumatic organisation’. The findings also provide important insights into the impact of successive organisational change and the emotional toll it takes on practitioners. What is clear is that the changes as a result of TR are life-changing for the probation service; whilst the reforms occurred over a decade ago, its impact has been so damaging that despite unification the service has completely changed; through its structure, and leadership, with ongoing organisational changes as attempts to reconcile with what it once was.

With the government announcement of an additional 1000 trainee probation officers within the next year, it is important that the leadership does not lose sight of the problems associated with volume recruitment; the issues with an inexperienced workforce and the cyclical nature of mass recruitment and burn out. Valuing staff, providing support and enabling progression are all keys to assisting staff retention and help to combat work-based harm. Recent developments in attempting to understand staff attrition and focus on retention of staff demonstrate the need for the service to invest in, and support current staff. The findings of this research indicate that in doing so the organisation should embed awareness of organisational trauma, and promote safety, empowerment and voice for staff members, recognising the pervasive nature of the changes impacting them.

Positively, amongst leavers, probation identity is strong, with a number wanting to return to probation work. Perhaps some respite from the work allowed them to ‘recharge’, a point of learning for the service when considering the positive impact on retention support for staff development can have. This is an opportunity for the service, who, at the time of writing, launched a ‘National Probation Officer Returners Campaign’ (HMPPS 2024) recruitment campaign; however, this will not attract leavers if issues remain unresolved.

Oh Look!

From Civil Service World:-

MoJ sets up new probation and reoffending directorate

Up to £100,000 on offer for director to lead work on probation policy and community and reoffending policy

The Ministry of Justice is setting up a new probation and reoffending directorate to bring policy work on the two areas closer together and respond to growing demand for the two services.

The directorate will provide “significant policy input” to deliver justice secretary Shabana Mahmood’s priority of using technology solutions to manage offenders in the community, according to a job advert for a director to lead the team.

The MoJ is offering a salary of up to £100,000 for the director, who will lead the MoJ’s work on probation policy and on community and reoffending policy.

Its early objectives will include working with HM Prison and Probation Service to develop and deliver the MoJ’s probation policy response to the independent sentencing review, led by former justice secretary David Gauke.

The final report of the review, published last month, called for greater investment in the Probation Service to boost its “capacity and resilience” in the face of proposed reforms to shorten sentences for some categories of offender and reduce the number of people behind bars. The review noted that locking up fewer criminals will “place a greater burden on a probation system that is already under great strain”.

The director will be responsible for ensuring the directorate is staffed with “high-quality colleagues”. They will report to the director general of policy – prisons, offenders and analysis and will manage three deputy directors working on probation policy, community and reoffending policy and the reducing reoffending analysis division.

Writing in the candidate pack, director general Ross Gribbin said the job on offer is an “extraordinarily varied and interesting” one.

“You will represent the lord chancellor and secretary of state for justice and resolve the most urgent policy issues within and beyond the department. You will provide strong, strategic, and inspiring leadership for your team, and secure the confidence of ministers and officials across the department and wider government,” he wrote.

“You will be joining a great team and working on some of the most complex and important issues that make lives better for the citizens we serve.”

The directorate will sit within the MoJ’s Policy Group, which is responsible for setting and advising on policy ranging from criminal, civil, family and administrative justice to the UK’s domestic human rights framework and international obligations. The group also supports the justice secretary in their constitutional relationship with the judiciary and oversees the constitutional relationship between the UK and the crown dependencies.

The successful candidate director will “play an active role” in the Policy Group’s leadership and champion diversity and inclusion and wellbeing, according to the job ad.

Applications for the director job close on 15 June.

The Voice of Reason

Good to see Napo Cymru continuing to make the case for a stand-alone probation service separated from HM Prison Service. This from Napo magazine:- 

Su pictured with her MP Catherine Fookes

“Probation is already overflowing” Su McConnel warns MPs

Veteran Napo Cymru member and staunch probation campaigner, Su McConnel, delivered a searing indictment of the state of the probation service when she gave evidence to MPs on the welsh Affairs Committee this week. Speaking with clarity and conviction, Su captured what many working in the system have long felt: probation is in deep crisis and policymakers must act before it collapses completely.

Overflowing, overlooked, and under pressure

Su was clear from the outset that probation is not just at capacity; it’s beyond it. With caseloads ballooning, staff struggling to cope, and public safety at risk, she argued that the system is dangerously close to breaking. “This panel is primarily focused on prisons. Prisons are very nearly full to capacity. Probation is already overflowing,” she said pointing out: “We have got a situation where 60 cases is the norm.”

Despite repeated promises, staffing remains inadequate, and the promised support has yet to materialise. “We are always told that the troops are coming over the hill, but they never seem to quite land and stay.”

Recruitment is tough but retention is worse

When asked why the workforce is struggling, Su pointed to a toxic mix of low pay, high stress, and disillusionment. “It is not just recruitment; it is retention. It is people staying.” Su explained: “We are burning through new staff,” and that “I have never seen so many people signed off with stress as I have done this year.”

Demoralised by a shift in culture

The profession that many joined out of a desire to make a difference is becoming unrecognisable. Rather than the previous motto of “advise, assist, befriend” Su said: “Actually, ‘Surveil ‘em, nail ‘em and jail ‘em’ does feel to a lot of new probation staff like what they are being asked to do, because there is no scope or room for the reasons they joined.”

“We have shifted so far from a model of supporting people to change to a model of enforcement that new practitioners are very quickly losing their belief that they can do anything positive,” she concluded.

The human toll

The emotional impact on staff was another key theme of Su’s evidence. “I know colleagues who are in their first year of practice and who are crying on a daily basis because they feel that they are not doing the job that they came into the profession to do.”

It’s a false economy

Su repeatedly challenged the government’s short-term thinking, from underfunded reforms to politically driven headlines that ignore the realities on the ground by saying: “Probation is largely invisible to the public, until we fail.” She called for proper investment — in people, not just systems — and demanded that MPs listen to the voices of those on the frontline.

The magic wand? A real review and independence

When asked what she would do if given a magic wand, Su was clear: “I would want a commitment to a root and branch review of probation, with a view to separating it from the Prison Service — as much as we respect our colleagues — to be a stand-alone organisation in its own right.”

The message to ministers is clear

Su McConnel’s appearance before the Committee didn’t just highlight problems, it offered a path forward. Her call for investment, professional trust, and workforce support resonated far beyond the hearing room. She didn’t ask for miracles. Just for leadership to listen.

This article is based on Su McConnel’s oral evidence to the House of Commons Justice Committee on 14 May 2025. Watch here

Why We Are Where We Are

Yet again thanks go to ace sleuth 'Getafix for pointing us in direction of this article published yesterday by Yorkshire Bylines:-

Safe for all? How austerity wrecked the probation service

Austerity broke it: the probation service in England and Wales is now rated “inadequate” after years of cuts, chaos and failed privatisation 

Who would be a probation officer? Long hours, complex work and some of the most challenging clients imaginable. In spite of all that, over 20,000 full-time probation service staff work in the probation service day in, day out. And yet, with the probation service’s watchdog’s recent annual report having rated the probation service as inadequate, there is a mounting sense that it may be at crisis point.

The probation service stands at a precarious moment. With the government reducing sentences in an attempt to ease an overwhelmed prison system, more and more criminals are being managed in the community. However, the government’s chief inspector of probation services says that the public are at real risk of crime unless the probation service is overhauled and properly funded. Why is the probation service underperforming at the exact moment the system needs to be robust and properly funded?

The roots of the service’s inadequate performance go back further than 12 months to disastrous decisions made over 15 years ago which have wrecked the system designed to keep the public, staff and offenders safe for all.

Faced with a growing populist backlash and chronic underfunding, it’s worth asking what has broken the probation service. The answer is austerity.

Probation service: a deteriorating system for managing offenders

In 2010, the Conservative-led coalition government came to power and inherited a healthy, award-winning service for managing offenders leaving prison. The National Offender Management Service was managed by 35 publicly owned probation trusts. While never perfect, as no public body ever is, the overall system was a healthy one. Fast forward 15 years and the latest research into the overall health of the system makes for grim reading.

In March 2025, HM Inspectorate published its annual report, covering inspections undertaken between February 2024 and February 2025, and on 29 April, it published the results of its 2025 inspection into the general sufficiency of national probation services. The results, the inspectorate discovered, were wanting. Martin Jones, Chief Inspector of Probation, said: “Major shortfalls were found in service delivery and work to keep people safe remains a significant cause for concern”. The report highlighted that the probation service was not meeting the needs of offenders released from prison or the wider community. Staff were underfunded and overworked, and junior staff were not supported.

This is a sadly all too familiar story for those who have worked for or had contact with the probation service.

Austerity: all in this together, or a convenient lie?

How did this happen? How did the umbrella service for managing offenders either going to prison, in prison, or having left prison, go from an award-winning service in 2014 to a failing service staffed by burnt-out staff with overflowing caseloads? The answer, in a word, is austerity.

When the Tory-Lib Dem coalition was formed in 2010, it immediately began cutting the public sector. Britain’s finances, they claimed, were on the brink of ruin and cutting the public sector was the only remedy that would stave off complete collapse. In fact, it was a lie. A convenient lie which acted as the ideological cover for stripping back the state. In 2010, David Cameron gave a speech in which he outlined his vision for Britain, saying he wanted a “fairer, greener, safer Britain”. Ultimately, austerity delivered none of these things. Instead 14 years of Tory government left Britain an impoverished, broken down, sicker country.

The cost of austerity for the probation service

Nowhere is the failure of austerity more acutely on display than in the current failures of the probation service. In 2014, minister Chris Grayling pushed through the part-privatisation of the probation service, in which the trusts previously responsible for managing offenders in the community were scrapped.

The state was left to manage only the high-risk offenders. The rest were to be managed by private entities called Community Rehabilitation Companies (CRCs). The result was a disaster. The number of offenders breaking the terms of their licenses went up, and central government had to bail out the failing CRCs. The total cost? Five hundred million pounds. The privatisation process was later reversed. So, the taxpayer ended up paying £500mn for a failed privatisation scheme which made offending worse.

Austerity’s legacy: the catastrophic undermining of the probation service

The disastrous Grayling reforms are very instructive. This year, 15 years on from the first ‘austerity’ budget under the Tory-Lib Dem coalition, it’s become clear that a pattern has emerged as follows:

Take a public service which may have its problems but is working well at the point of delivery. Then invent a crisis, use that crisis to starve it of public funds, then let results plummet and public confidence deteriorate. Then introduce privatisation, and when the outcome is failure, blame it on ‘woke’ policies and frittering away public money on ergonomic chairs and rainbow lanyards. It’s a recipe not for a successful society but a smoking ruin of a country.

The probation service provides a vital service. Probation service staff at all levels have immense responsibility to judge risk, provide a high-quality service and treat offenders with dignity and respect. We’ve learned from the inspectorate’s report that such a challenging job cannot be delivered when staff are overburdened, underfunded and landed with impossible expectations including unrealistic caseloads.

There are pathways to return the service towards a high-quality service. In May this year Unison recommended that the whole system be decentralised and given proper oversight again by elected mayors. But unless the catastrophic error of austerity is reversed, and the service is given proper investment, to support junior staff, reduce caseloads and provide proper oversight of offenders, it’s hard to see outcomes improving.

Alex Mair 

Alex is a writer based in West Yorkshire. Yorkshire is the place where he has spent the majority of his working life. He has written for a variety of publications for over ten years. He lives with Rosie and one child from her previous relationship.

Sentencing Review Responses

Napo press release:-

Napo welcomes Sentencing Review

Napo welcomes the Sentencing Review and in particular its focus on the critical role the probation service plays in the supervision and the rehabilitation of people in the criminal justice system. The review vindicates Napo’s long held view that radical action is needed to resolve the staffing and workload crisis probation has been struggling with for a number of years.

The review is right to look at the culture of the probation service and how it has shifted to far towards being a law enforcement agency and has lost sight of its core purpose of rehabilitation. We welcome the view that there needs to be greater balance between compliance and enforcement and that of advising and supporting people to turn their lives around.

We welcome the recommendation that Rehabilitation Requirements and Post Sentence Supervision are revoked and there is a return to greater flexibility in how an individual is supervised. A probation requirement would enable our members to tailor supervision to meet the needs of the person they supervise as opposed to the rigid approach probation has adopted over the years.

Whilst the measures outlined in the review will not give immediate relief to our members, it will offer some light at the end of the tunnel. However, Napo has reservations about HMPPS’s ability to make the necessary changes when they were the architects of many of the problems the service now faces. As we saw with the publication of the Rademaker report, our members will be sceptical as to whether or not senior leaders in HMPPS are capable of making any real change. Napo was clear in our submission that we do not believe that the probation service can survive while it is still part of the civil service.

General Secretary Ian Lawrence said: “This review offers some hope for the future, but Napo has been asking HMPPS to make many of these changes over the last 2 years to little avail. We need a commitment from the government that they will take immediate action not only to implement the recommendations, but also to put its hand in its pockets and reward our members with a decent pay rise.”

A key aspect of the review is the call for significant investment in the probation service. Napo firmly believes that after years of pay freezes, Napo members must see the benefit of this investment on the frontline. Ian Lawrence said: “Any previous investment in probation has been spent on the private sector for either IT or electronic monitoring. What we need to see now is a direct investment in staff. Without that we will see a continual rise in retention rates and continued staffing crisis. Our members cannot be expected to pick up the mess of the prisons crisis and see little in return for their efforts.”

--oo00oo--

This from Prison Reform Trust:-

PRT comment: Independent Sentencing Review

The Prison Reform Trust welcomes the Independent Sentencing Review and its clear commitment to evidence–based reform.

Commenting, Pia Sinha, chief executive of the Prison Reform Trust, said:

“This comprehensive and in-depth review represents a once in a generation opportunity to reset the sentence framework so that it is more focused on reducing reoffending and keeping the public safe. Proposals to expand the use of effective community alternatives and limit pointless short spells in custody will not only free up limited prison capacity but also lead to better outcomes for victims and wider society. We hope the government will accept and implement the majority of measures in this review and we look forward to its response."

Pia Sinha

The review rightly recognises that short prison sentences are less effective at reducing reoffending than robust community-based alternatives. Proposals to limit the use of short sentences to exceptional circumstances, and greater use of suspended and deferred sentencing, offer a practical route to reducing the number of people serving brief, ineffective custodial terms—sentences that do little to improve public safety or support rehabilitation.

The review’s focus on expanding the use of effective community alternatives is both positive and necessary. The review is right to recognise the need for this to be backed by sufficient funding and resources for probation to supervise more people in the community. We welcome proposals to provide sustainable and long-term funding for women’s centres, expand the use of intensive supervision courts and increase investment in community sentence treatment requirements and liaison and diversion services.

The review is also right to highlight the need to restructure standard determinate sentences and regularise release points. This represents a sensible, phased approach to rehabilitation—supporting people to begin their return to the community under supervision, while still serving their sentence. The introduction of an incentives model will need to be monitored carefully to ensure it does not lead to unfair or disproportionate outcomes.

The rapid rise in recall in the past few decades has been a major driver of the growth in the prison population, often trapping people in a revolving door of imprisonment and release. We welcome the review’s proposals to limit its use and to prevent people from being returned to prison for technical breaches of their licence. If implemented they would represent a more proportionate and constructive approach, helping to break the cycle and support long-term rehabilitation.

This review comes at a time of acute pressure on prison capacity—driven by years of sentence inflation and the failure of politicians to plan for the consequences of their penal populism. We welcome proposals to introduce an external advisory body on sentencing and a requirement for ministers to make an annual report to parliament on prison capacity. These measures would encourage evidence-based policy and provide an important check on kneejerk responses to crime by politicians. However, the review does not address the significant impact of longer sentences for serious offences, which have been a key driver of the rising prison population. There will be an opportunity to return to this pressing issue with the report of the Law Commission on homicide law in the coming years.

--oo00oo--

This from Rob Allen:-

A Good Try- but can it be Converted?

I met David Gauke a few years back when our sons were on opposite sides in a rugby match. I was impressed that he recalled our touchline conversation when we talked briefly again this January at a Sentencing Council seminar. He told the seminar that whatever else it might do, there was an arithmetical imperative his Sentencing Review’s recommendations should effect a sustained reduction in demand for prison places to prevent continuing recourse to the emergency measures we’ve seen over the last couple of years.

His wide ranging and largely welcome report is more a review of the execution of sentences than it is of sentencing. It says little about addressing the rampant sentence inflation which the first part of the review identified as the cause of the capacity crisis.

But it does contain important proposals which are estimated to result in a fall in the prison population of 9,800 places. Unfortunately, the report lacks the kind of detailed cost benefit analysis that generally accompanies legislation in the form of an Impact Assessment signed off by ministers. That’s a shame, particularly as the Lord Chancellor’s rejection of some of Gauke’s proposals will undoubtedly bring the 9,800 figure down. But by how much it’s hard to say.

Take the proposal that short custodial sentences are used only in exceptional circumstances. Gauke reckons this will save 2,000 places. But a similar measure proposed by the last government in 2023 was estimated to save between only 200 and 1,000 places. The Lord Chancellor has described the Gauke scheme as “a presumption against custodial sentences of less than a year – in favour of tough community sentences.” The 2023 version involved a duty to suspend a prison sentence- a subtle but important distinction which may account for the difference in the assessments. But without the detailed workings it’s impossible to say.

A larger reduction in prison places is expected from Gauke’s early release proposals. Unfortunately, the Lord Chancellor hasn’t accepted them in their entirety. For those serving Standard Determinate Sentences (SDS), Government plans to ditch an upper limit to the proportion of the sentence they serve in prison will eat into the 4,100 places that would be saved. Gauke wanted the more dangerous prisoners serving Extended Sentences to be able to earn a Parole hearing at the halfway point of their sentence. MoJ says no and they’ll have to continue to wait until two thirds has passed. So the 600 places that would have been saved presumably won’t be.

The government say they’ll “introduce a tougher adjudication regime so that bad behaviour in prisons is properly punished”. Under the earned release scheme, offences against discipline, such as engaging in any threatening, abusive or violent behaviour, or possessing unauthorised articles would result in the offender’s release point being pushed back. It’s not clear that the Review team took a tougher disciplinary regime into account when assessing the numbers of SDS prisoners who’ll qualify for release at the earliest point.

The Lord Chancellor told Parliament today that as things stand, they’ll be short of 9,500 places by 2028. Gauke’s certainly had a try at bridging the gap. But can it be converted?

Rob Allen

--oo00oo--

This from the Howard League:-

The Howard League for Penal Reform has responded to the final report of the Independent Sentencing Review, published today (Thursday 22 May).

The review, led by David Gauke, a former Secretary of State for Justice, calls for a series of measures to address the prison capacity crisis through reducing reoffending and ending an overreliance on custody.

Andrea Coomber KC (Hon.), Chief Executive of the Howard League for Penal Reform, said:

 “This is a vital review that makes the case for change by focusing on the evidence on what will reduce reoffending and prevent more people becoming victims of crime.

“The ball is now in the government’s court. Solving the prison capacity crisis will require major intervention and, as the review recognises, this will only succeed if reform and investment deliver an effective and responsive probation service that works to cut crime in the community.

“And more must be done. The proposals unveiled today are a good start, and if enacted they will buy ministers more time and some headroom in an overstretched system. Ultimately, however, they are insufficient because the terms of reference for the review excluded consideration of more serious offences.

“If the government really wants to ensure that the country never runs out of prison places again, it must be bolder and address the longest and indeterminate sentences that have driven the criminal justice system to the brink of collapse.”

The Howard League submitted evidence to the review in January 2025, calling on the government to abolish sentences of 12 months or less and expand the use of suspended sentences, and emphasising the need for a well-resourced and effective probation service.

The charity’s submission, which drew on feedback received from members in prison, also called for custodial sentences to be reconceived, with focus on rehabilitation and incentivising progression.

Crime and Punishment

There's going to be a lot of talk about criminal justice today and this from the Guardian sets the scene:-

Shabana Mahmood considers chemical castration for serious sex offenders

Shabana Mahmood, the lord chancellor, is considering mandatory chemical castration for the most serious sex offenders, according to government sources.

The minister’s department is planning to expand a pilot to 20 regions as part of a package of “radical” measures to free thousands of prisoners and ease prison overcrowding in England and Wales.

As well as releasing and tagging killers and rapists after they have served half of their sentence, she is considering the findings of an independent sentencing review that has also called for the government to build an evidence base on drugs that “suppress libido” or reduce “sexual thoughts”.

They are among 48 recommendations put forward by David Gauke, the chair of the review.

Mahmood is expected to address the Commons on Thursday to outline which measures she will accept in a major overhaul of criminal justice. Government sources said she is expected to accept the review’s key measures including that well-behaved prisoners should be released on tag after serving a third of their sentences.

She has also accepted that those who have committed serious sexual or violent crimes could be freed to serve their sentence in the community after they have served half of their sentence.

One of Gauke’s suggestions – that the most dangerous offenders should be allowed to apply for parole earlier if they earn “credits” – has been dismissed by sources close to the justice secretary.

The report has urged ministers to build a comprehensive evidence base around the use of chemical suppression for sex offenders and examine the findings of similar programmes in Germany, Denmark and Poland.

“Problematic sexual arousal and preoccupation can be reduced via chemical suppressants and other medications, which can be prescribed for individuals who have committed a sexual offence under certain circumstances,” the report notes.

It points out that a 2022 pilot programme at prisons in south-west England which uses libido-suppressing drugs is due to end next year and recommends “continued funding of services in this area”. The government plans to expand the pilot using these as a staging post to a full, nationwide rollout, a source close to Mahmood said.

The approach is delivered through two drugs. Selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitors (SSRIs) limit invasive sexual thoughts. Anti-androgens reduce the production of testosterone and limit libido. The drugs are taken alongside psychiatric work that targets other causes of sexual offending, such as a desire for power and control.

Mahmood is exploring whether chemical castration could be made mandatory, instead of voluntary, for the most serious offenders, the source said. Sexual offences accounted for 21% of adults serving immediate custodial sentences at the end of March 2025. The report notes that participation in any such programme would be voluntary in England and Wales.

Among the main recommendations, Gauke, the former Conservative justice secretary, said the government should:

• Ensure custodial sentences under 12 months are only used in exceptional circumstances.
• Extend suspended sentences to up to three years and encourage greater use of deferred sentences for low-risk offenders.
• Give courts greater flexibility to use fines and ancillary orders like travel, driving and football bans.
• Allow probation officers to adjust the level of supervision based on risk and compliance with licence conditions.
• Expand specialist domestic abuse courts to improve support for victims.
• Expand tagging for all perpetrators of violence against women and girls.
• Improve training for practitioners and the judiciary on violence against women and girls.
• Change the statutory purposes of sentencing so judges and magistrates must consider protecting victims as much as they consider punishment and rehabilitation when passing sentences.

Gauke has called for the need to increase funding and resources for the probation service, including expanding the availability of electronic monitoring equipment like tags, and warned that there will be a “public backlash” if money is not found.

“If probation are left without additional resources then the risk is that we won’t make progress on rehabilitation and there will be a public backlash,” he said.

The National Police Chiefs’ Council echoed Gauke’s calls for more resources.

Chief constable Sacha Hatchett, national policing lead for criminal justice, said: “Out of prison should not mean out of control. If we are going to have fewer people in prison, we need to ensure that we collectively have the resources and powers to manage the risk offenders pose outside prison.

“Adequate funding to support these measures must be reflected in the upcoming spending review, as well as investment in probation services and technology, including electronic monitoring.”

Penal reform group the Howard League welcomed the recommendations.

Andrea Coomber, the chief executive, said: “The ball is now in the government’s court. Solving the prison capacity crisis will require major intervention and, as the review recognises, this will only succeed if reform and investment deliver an effective and responsive probation service that works to cut crime in the community.”

The Conservatives have condemned Gauke’s review. Robert Jenrick, the shadow justice secretary, said: “By scrapping short prison sentences Starmer is effectively decriminalising crimes like burglary, theft and assault. This is a gift to criminals who will be free to offend with impunity.”

Justice Secretary Nonsense

I'm afraid my patience has run out entirely in respect of the Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood and her latest 'unpaid work is too lenient' nonsense, thus further stoking up right wing rhetoric in response to Reform. With a heavy heart I now feel I have no option but to admit this Labour government hasn't got a clue as far as probation is concerned. There's clearly not going to be any enlightened probation reforms and astonishingly the Gauke Sentencing Report is likely to be rejected as too enlightened! 

As far as I can see, Lord Timpson is going to have a hard time convincing the probation establishment gathering for the 2025 Bill McWilliams lecture in Cambridge on July 11th that probation has any meaningful future at all.  

Criminals could fill potholes and clean bins under government plans

Convicted criminals could be told to fill potholes and clean bins under plans the government is understood to be developing.

As first reported by the Sun on Sunday, the Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood is said to want to expand unpaid work, which she believes to be too lenient. She is understood to want probation teams to work with councils, so that local authorities are able to assign jobs to offenders. Private companies would also be able to employ those who are on community sentences. Offenders would not be paid wages, but the money earned would be paid into a fund for victim's groups.

It comes as prisons across the country are struggling to deal with overcrowding after the number of offenders behind bars hit a new high. A government source said: "With prisons so close to collapse, we are going to have to punish more offenders outside of prison. "We need punishment to be more than just a soft option or a slap on the wrist. If we want to prove that crime doesn't pay, we need to get offenders working for free - with the salary they would have been paid going back to their victims." They added this meant doing the jobs the public "really want them to do - not just scrubbing graffiti, but filling up potholes and cleaning the bins".

Writing for the Telegraph, external, Ms Mahmood, who describes herself as a "card-carrying member" of her party's "law and order wing", said that "tough community orders work." An independent review of sentencing carried out by the former Conservative justice secretary David Gauke is expected to be published this week. It was commissioned last year after overcrowding led to the early release of thousands of prisoners. 

Gauke is understood to be considering recommending the idea of scrapping short prison terms as part of the sentencing review, and is likely to recommend more community-based sentencing to reduce the reliance on imprisonment. In an interim report, Gauke warned that unless radical changes were made, prisons in England and Wales could run out of cells by early next year.

Ms Mahmood warned that he would "have to recommend bold, and sometimes difficult, measures". In her article, she pointed to examples such as the system in Texas, where she said "offenders who comply with prison rules earn an earlier release, while those who don't are locked up for longer". On Wednesday, she announced more than a thousand inmates will be released early to free up spaces in prisons in England and Wales, and that a £4.7bn investment will be used to fund more prisons.

Shadow justice secretary Robert Jenrick said the announcement was "failing to protect the public" - adding "to govern is to choose, and today she's chosen to release early criminals who've reoffended or breached their licences".

--oo00oo--

Postscript

My Twitter account has either been hacked, deactivated, lost or deleted which is very annoying, but then Elon Musk has completely rubbished it anyway, so seeing as Virgin have lost my email account as well, I'll just accept it all as confirmation that trying to save Probation is fast becoming a lost cause and I'll just shout into an empty ether....

Probation Gets a Mention!

This from BBC website today:- 

Bold spending needed to halt prison crisis - union

The government's efforts to fix the prison crisis may not work without "bold investment decisions", the leading union for the probation service has said.

Ian Lawrence, general secretary of Napo, said a review of sentencing policy by former Conservative Justice Secretary David Gauke "may come to little effect" if the probation service was underfunded. 

The union boss said he supported proposals to scrap short sentences for some offenders and toughen up community orders supervised by probation officers. But he said probation staff were already "overworked" and suggested any "cost cutting" could increase pressure on the service. "I'm struggling to see how a package of sentencing reform can work without the necessary support," Lawrence told the BBC.

A Ministry of Justice spokesperson said a "crisis" in the justice system had "put a huge strain on the probation service". "We are hiring 1,300 new probation officers, investing in technology to cut back on admin, and increasing focus on those offenders who pose the greatest risk to the public," the spokesperson said. "This will ease pressure on the service, help cut reoffending and keep our streets safe."

Gauke is understood to be considering recommending the idea of scrapping short prison terms as part of the sentencing review.

The review comes as prisons across the country are struggling to deal with overcrowding after the number of offenders behind bars hit a new high. In an interim report, Gauke warned that unless radical changes were made, prisons in England and Wales could run out of cells by early next year. Gauke's sentencing review is expected to be published this month, before the government sets out its spending plans for departments in June.

"Napo would welcome any initiatives to reduce the numbers of people in our prison estate," Lawrence said. "But that can't come without the lord chancellor absolutely recognising the pressures that the probation service is now facing and will in the future. "And that's why we need brave, bold investment decisions by this government and not more of the same."

Tight budget

The prisons and probation budget fell by 12% when inflation was accounted for between 2007–08 and 2023–24, according to analysis by the Institute for Fiscal Studies, external.

Chancellor Rachel Reeves has outlined plans for efficiency savings and in her spring statement, said day-to-day government spending would fall by £6.1bn per year by 2030. But the chancellor has not yet stated which departments will have less money to spend, meaning it's not clear how the probation service will be affected. The money allocated to government departments for the three years beyond 2025-26 will be set out in the spending review in June.

Lawrence said a reduction in funding for the Ministry of Justice, which oversees the probation service, could mean less funding to support offenders in the community and worse outcomes.

"In other words, they go out of prison and they've got no option but to commit crime because they have no means of supporting themselves," he said. "They're back in prison within weeks. And so it goes on and that costs the taxpayer millions."

A source at the Prison Reform Trust, a charity, said the probation service would need to be resourced properly if there was more community sentencing. They said the government may have to divert funding from prisons towards probation and community solutions. "It needs to make a strong economic case for why this would be a spend-to-save policy," they said.

Pay dispute

In a national inspection report, the probation watchdog said there was a high shortfall of officers in some regions and workloads were a problem. Lawrence said Napo was in dispute with the prison and probation service over pay progression and workloads. He said the union had submitted a claim for a 12% pay rise for probation staff this year. That's way above the increases independent pay review bodies have advised the government to give teachers (4%) and NHS workers (3%). 

Lawrence said probation workers going on strike was a possibility if the pay offer was too low. "We think senior leaders in [the service] have a responsibility to let ministers know the gravity of the situation," he said. "And that worries me as to whether ministers are truly sighted on the operational crisis that exists in probation right now."

In a speech in February, external, Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood set out her vision for reforming the probation service. She said probation officers were "responsible for caseloads and workloads that exceed what they should be expected to handle".

The changes she announced included 1,300 new trainee probation officers by next March, and an £8m investment in new technology to reduce the administrative burden on staff.

Usual Populist Political Stuff

Probation continues to be side-lined and ignored whilst we get the usual populist political stuff. This from the BBC website today:-

More offenders could be tagged, as minister insists he's 'not soft on crime'

Prisons minister James Timpson has told the BBC more criminals could be tagged in future instead of being sent to prison - but insists he's not "soft on crime".

More than 30 companies, including Microsoft and Google, will meet the government today to explore how technology could help monitor offenders in the community more effectively and tackle violence in prison.

Lord Timpson says tagging more people instead of sending them to prison is a potential alternative punishment. But critics have questioned his previous comments about the UK being "addicted" to sentencing and punishment, and how "only a third" of inmates should be in prison.

"I don't think I'm soft on crime at all," Lord Timpson says in the wide-ranging BBC interview. "I think I'm pretty tough in my style. In business, I'm tough but I use the evidence - and in this job I'm using the evidence."

He says he is passionate about rehabilitating offenders in prison so they don't commit further crimes when released. However, more than 26% of adult criminals in England and Wales go on to reoffend within a year of being let out of prison.

"How do we reduce re-offending? How do we deal with people's drug addiction, mental health problems, the fact that people leave prison they don't know where to live, people don't have a job? That is also a really important part of my job," he says.

The former CEO of the Timpson Group, which provides key cutting and shoe repair services, is known for hiring ex-offenders and is a former chairman of the Prison Reform Trust.

Lord Timpson took up his role at the Ministry of Justice in July last year, when the penal system in England and Wales was close to breaking point. Prisons were full, and months later thousands of inmates were released early as part of an emergency plan to ease overcrowding and free up space.

He says prisons are still in a state of "crisis", with fewer than 1,000 spare places and more than 88,000 people in custody in England and Wales.

"We recently opened HMP Millsike," he says, describing the new category C prison which opened in East Yorkshire in March, with capacity for up to 1,500 inmates. "We've got more cells opening across the country. We need to keep building prison places because the population is going up."

Last month, three prison officers were seriously injured at HMP Frankland, in Durham, after they were attacked with makeshift weapons and hot oil by one of the men responsible for the Manchester Arena bombing. Hashem Abedi was being held in a separation centre - used to house a small number of the most dangerous and extremist inmates - at the category A, maximum security jail.

"What happened in Franklin is absolutely shocking," Lord Timpson says. "The level of violence in prisons is far too high - and it is increasing. "Our prison staff did an incredible job. I don't want them to turn up to work thinking that there's going to be violence. I want them to turn up to work helping people turn their lives around."

However, the number of assaults on staff in prison is the highest in a decade, with 10,605 recorded in 2024.

Lord Timpson refutes claims that gangs are in charge of some of Britain's biggest jails, but acknowledges that serious organised crime is the one thing that "keeps me awake at night".

"Serious organised crime brings drugs in and creates violence and intimidation in prisons," he says. "This has been a long-term problem in prisons, but it is even more of a problem when the capacity is as full as it is.

"If we had people who went to prison who didn't get drugs and weren't intimidated by serious organised criminals, they'd be far more likely to engage with a sentence and get well enough so that when they leave they don't commit further crime."

The government has commissioned an independent sentencing review to explore alternatives to prison in an attempt to ease overcrowding. The review will provide long-term solutions for the justice system and examine the use and composition of non-custodial sentences, including community alternatives to prison and the use of fines. Increased tagging will also be considered.

There are three types of ankle tags currently used to monitor offenders: alcohol, GPS, and curfew tags. A new study suggests tags that monitor curfews cut reoffending by 20%.

"We want them to have a one-way ticket - not a return back into prison or back into non-custodial sentences," Lord Timpson says. "What's really important is we embrace technology and look at the evidence - tagging can have some very important benefits."

But the use of electronic tagging to monitor offenders has been problematic. In recent months several probation staff have told the BBC offenders who should be tagged, have not been. The security company Serco has been contracted by the government to manage tagging since October 2023.

"We inherited a contract with Serco and it's been far from perfect," Lord Timpson says. "We're putting a lot of pressure still on them to perform, but we need to work together to make sure that people are tagged on time in the right way. Things are getting better, but we're not there yet."

Anthony Kirby, Serco Group CEO, told the BBC he is pleased the prisons minister has recognised the progress Serco has made since taking over the electronic monitoring service: "We are proud of the role we have supporting the Criminal Justice System, monitoring record numbers of people in the community and protecting public safety in partnership with HMPPS."

The Forgotten Service

Thanks go to regular contributor 'Getafix for pointing me in the direction of this report  from think tank Demos:-

To fix the justice system, the government must first grapple with the forgotten service: Probation

Policing and prisons have been a mainstay of the news cycle for the Labour government, with the Southport riots, early prison releases, and (more recently) neighbourhood policing all making the headlines. While discussions around police and prisons continue to hit the headlines, pundits and policymakers too often neglect a crucial part of our justice system – probation services.

Maybe there is an understandable reason why. Five year (though often shorter) election cycles full of combative rhetoric, coupled with a public that remains fearful and paranoid of rising crime (despite actual falling levels) gives politicians the incentives they need to make big, public promises; promises of more police, more prisons and harsher sentences to assure voters that they will be ‘tough on crime’. In contrast, probation operates in the shadows. Investing into services that support prison-leavers may expose policymakers to criticisms such as being ‘soft on crime’. Part 1 of the Independent Sentencing Review confirms that this approach is not only the wrong answer but also exacerbating the problem.

However, now is the chance to do something different. Coming into office, the new government promised an end to such ‘sticking plaster politics’ and there have been some promising signs since the start of this Labour government. From the widely lauded speedy appointment of James Timpson as Minister of Prisons, to Shabna Mahmood’s early release scheme and commissioned sentencing review, the government has taken important and sometimes difficult steps towards resolving the justice crisis. However, these steps are not enough. Without giving attention to probation, the government will miss the opportunity to truly improve the outcomes of our justice system.

Probationary reform is both a moral and economic imperative.

Over the past few decades, successive attempts at top-down restructuring have veered probation away from its founding mission to support people back into society, to instead managing and avoiding risk. Combined with a strikingly low workforce of under 21,000 practitioners that manages triple the number of people currently in prison, the service is crumbling under pressure. This is clear in the massive increase of the recall population in prison from just 100 in 1993 to 12,920 in 2024. Judges and magistrates have also seemingly lost faith in the probation system to offer a better alternative to incarceration, resulting in a greater use of custodial sentencing. Now England and Wales incarcerate more than any other country in Western Europe. It is clear that probation is failing to support sustainable re-entry into mainstream society, hindering the ability of prison-leavers to live lawful, happy and productive lives.

This shortfall in probationary support is having dire consequences.

Most people leave prison only to find that they felt more stable when inside, with research by Birmingham City University finding 41% of prison-leavers were unsure where they would live on release. From 2023 to 2024, 13% of prison leavers were released into homelessness making them 50% more likely to reoffend. And whilst half of the people in prison deal with drug addiction, only one-third of those who left in 2022 received any treatment or support leaving them to look towards crime to continue funding these habits. When people feel they have no choice but to return to crime, we fail them, their victims and the public. But it does not stop there. The impact of this is also felt intergenerationally with children of offenders being more likely to commit crime themselves. A 2007 study found that two-thirds of those with a convicted father were convicted themselves by age 32 compared to a third without. Until we support those who leave prison to find safety and stability outside, we leave everyone at risk to fall back into crisis.

The failures of our current probation system also carry significant economic costs. In the detecting, sentencing and imprisoning of reoffenders, the government spends £18.1 billion per year. The government’s new ‘Plan for Change’ allocates £2.3 billion of the Budget to build four new prisons. In addition, His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service estimates it would cost more than double the current maintenance expenditure to bring the whole estate into fair condition. If probation worked effectively, intervening and supporting in the right way, the government would be able to invest that money into the public services that matter to us most, such as the NHS. Not only do we bear the massive cost of resentencing, but also the lost economic potential of those in prison rather than in employment. Spending more upfront to support prison-leavers to change their lives will lower their odds of returning to the crisis points that led them to prison in the first place. Rather than the tens of thousands of pounds needed to keep someone in prison, we must help them achieve their economic potential outside, giving them the support and resources they need to end the cycle of crime they are stuck in.

The government has taken difficult decisions to prove its commitment to resolving the justice crisis, the early release scheme being one of these. However, without attending to probation, we fear these efforts will be in vein as can be seen in the scheme’s overwhelming recall rates. Likewise, more prisons without the tools to keep people out of them will inevitably lead to further capacity issues.

Since its inception, Demos has been a thought-leader on public service reform. Over the past year, our Future Public Services Taskforce has been developing a new cross-cutting public service reform strategy. Based on this work, we believe a new delivery of probation – one founded on prevention, strong relationships and professional autonomy – will renew its direction. For the government to make real and lasting change in the justice system, it must first grapple with the forgotten service: Probation.