Well, here it is then. We can only hope the new government has the bottle to get a grip on this issue and 'lean into' the problem and not go by what focus groups say. We also hope it presages a sensible review into the Probation Service that was promised in the Labour manifesto.
Landmark Sentencing Review launched to end prison crisis
Public safety will be at the heart of an independent review into sentencing, as the government pledges to end the crisis in our prisons.
- review into sentencing launched to end prison crisis and ensure no government forced into emergency release of prisoners again
- the first principle of the Review will be to protect the public and make sure prisons punish serious offenders
- this forms part of the government’s pledge to always have the prison places needed to lock up the most dangerous offenders, alongside its commitment to build 14,000 prison spaces
- review will also look at tough alternatives to custody
Chaired by former Lord Chancellor David Gauke, the review will make sure the most serious offenders can be sent to prison to protect the public, and that the country always has the space needed to keep dangerous criminals locked up.
Launched on the day more prisoners will be leaving jail under an emergency release scheme due to chronic overcrowding, the review will make sure no government is ever placed in this position again.
The prison population has roughly doubled in the last 30 years - but in the last 14 of those years, just 500 places were added to the country’s stock of jail cells.
The government has committed to creating 14,000 extra prison places and outlining a 10-year capacity strategy later this year. Alongside this, the Sentencing Review will follow 3 core principles to ensure a sustainable justice system:
Lord Chancellor and Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood, said:
Independent Reviewer David Gauke said:
In Summer 2024, the capacity pressures on the prison system brought it dangerously close to total collapse. On taking office, the new government was forced to announce emergency measures that reduced the custodial term of some standard determinate sentences from 50 percent to 40 percent of a sentence.
This review of sentencing is tasked with a comprehensive re-evaluation of our sentencing framework. Its goal is to ensure we are never again in a position where the country has more prisoners than prison places, and the government is forced to rely on the emergency release of prisoners.
To do so, the review will be guided by 3 principles:
Sentencing is a matter for the independent judiciary and the review will therefore not look at sentencing in individual cases or the role of the judiciary.
The review will provide long term solutions for our justice system by:
How to fix the prisons crisis
The political bidding war over tougher sentences must end.
Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in. Perhaps a Godfather quotation is not entirely appropriate for the subject matter but, more than five years after leaving the Ministry of Justice I am back – rather to my surprise – chairing an independent review of sentencing policy.
It is a privilege to serve, not least because such a review is timely and necessary. It is timely because we face an immediate crisis in prison capacity. The current government inherited a situation in which we were very close to running out of places and had no choice but to take emergency measures and release prisoners early. Anyone in office over the summer would have done the same. But these emergency measures, including further releases today, only provided a brief respite. Demand for prison places is currently growing at 4,500 a year, much faster than the supply of places. This means that unless strategic measures are taken, we will repeatedly risk running out of places.
This capacity issue highlights why it is necessary to look more fundamentally at sentencing policy. We now incarcerate more people per head than any other western European country. Since 1993, the prison population of England and Wales has doubled, even as crime has consistently fallen (a fall, by the way, that can be seen in countries that have not increased their prison population). The reason for the increase in the prison population is clear. We sentence more people to prison and we sentence them for longer than we used to do.
Prison, of course, should continue to be a vital part of our criminal justice system. There are many circumstances in which it is the right form of punishment and the best way of protecting the public. But the large majority of prisoners will be released at some point and our very high reoffending rates suggest that our overcrowded prisons are not successful in rehabilitating offenders. We need to look at ways in which sentencing policy can better contribute to reducing reoffending and, as a consequence, crime.
There are some who will argue that we should build our way out of our prison capacity issues. But we cannot simply dismiss the reality that we will run out of capacity long before any new prisons can be built. And even if we do, there is a question of cost. On current projections, just to keep up with the growth in prison numbers, we would have to build three large prisons a year at a total cost of £2.3bn. Then there are the staffing, maintenance and other ongoing costs, which mean that it costs the taxpayer £52,000 per prisoner. Maintaining the current approach is, in effect, a significant and unfunded spending commitment at a time when tough decisions must be made about the public finances.
We really ought to be able to do better than an expensive system that fails to rehabilitate offenders. But how to do so?
The Sentencing Review Panel is, of course, only at the beginning of its process and there are many aspects of sentencing policy we will want to review but let me highlight three aspects here.
The first is short sentences. As justice secretary, I argued that short prison sentences did more harm than good. The evidence at the time supported this contention but I want to revisit it and, in particular, look at how we can more effectively deal with the most prolific offenders.
Whatever we do with short sentences, however, will not solve the capacity issue when the prison population is increasingly made up of those serving four years or more, very often considerably more. Prisoners, like everyone else, respond to incentives and other jurisdictions have done more than us to reward good behaviour. Texas, for example, introduced a new approach which results in prisoners who complete their programmes, behave well and show evidence of rehabilitation spending less time in jail. The (admittedly very high) Texan prison population has fallen, as has its crime rate. So a second area of interest is whether we could develop an incentives policy appropriate for our system.
The third area is technology. Specifically, does it provide an opportunity to punish, protect society and rehabilitate offenders outside of prison in a way that is much more effective than has previously been possible? Electronic tagging, for example, is increasingly used but we need to understand whether more could be done. The same can be said of drink and drug monitoring. We need to understand the potential for current and future technologies to keep offenders out of prison in the first place, or to safely release some prisoners at an earlier stage than is currently the case. There may well be lessons to be learned from other jurisdictions to ensure that sentencing policy is properly able to exploit these technologies.
For the last 30 years, there has been a sentencing bidding war between the political parties seeking to compete to be seen as the toughest on crime by promising ever-longer prison sentences. Rightly, the public expects criminality to be punished and prison is often viewed as the only effective means of punishment. But the capacity crisis in our prisons has meant that – at the very least – we have no choice but to pause the increase in the prison population. It is also sensible that we now look more broadly at the evidence and ask whether sentencing policy should be more fundamentally reformed. By next spring, we should have the answer.
Launched on the day more prisoners will be leaving jail under an emergency release scheme due to chronic overcrowding, the review will make sure no government is ever placed in this position again.
The prison population has roughly doubled in the last 30 years - but in the last 14 of those years, just 500 places were added to the country’s stock of jail cells.
The government has committed to creating 14,000 extra prison places and outlining a 10-year capacity strategy later this year. Alongside this, the Sentencing Review will follow 3 core principles to ensure a sustainable justice system:
- make sure prison sentences punish serious offenders and protect the public, and there is always the space in prison for the most dangerous offenders
- look at what more can be done to encourage offenders to turn their backs on a life of crime, and keep the public safe by reducing reoffending
- explore tougher punishments outside of prison to make sure these sentences cut crime while making the best use of taxpayers’ money
Lord Chancellor and Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood, said:
"This government inherited prisons in crisis, within days of collapse. This review, along with our prison building programme, will ensure we never again have more prisoners than prison spaces. I believe in punishment. I believe in prison, but I also believe that we must increase the range of punishments we use. And that those prisoners who earn the right to turn their lives around should be encouraged to do so. The Sentencing Review will make sure prison and punishment work - and that there is always a cell waiting for dangerous offenders."The review will examine the tough alternatives to custody, such as using technology to place criminals in a ‘prison outside prison’ and forcing offenders to do hard work in the community that gives back to society. In developing their recommendations, the independent chair and panel will look at evidence in this country and also from overseas jurisdictions, such as the US, to explore alternative approaches to criminal justice.
Independent Reviewer David Gauke said:
"Clearly, our prisons are not working. The prison population is increasing by around 4,500 every year, and nearly 90% of those sentenced to custody are reoffenders. This review will explore what punishment and rehabilitation should look like in the 21st century, and how we can move our justice system out of crisis and towards a long-term, sustainable future."
--oo00oo--
Terms of reference:-
Independent Sentencing Review 2024 to 2025 – Terms of Reference:In Summer 2024, the capacity pressures on the prison system brought it dangerously close to total collapse. On taking office, the new government was forced to announce emergency measures that reduced the custodial term of some standard determinate sentences from 50 percent to 40 percent of a sentence.
This review of sentencing is tasked with a comprehensive re-evaluation of our sentencing framework. Its goal is to ensure we are never again in a position where the country has more prisoners than prison places, and the government is forced to rely on the emergency release of prisoners.
To do so, the review will be guided by 3 principles:
- firstly, sentences must punish offenders and protect the public - there must always be space in prison for the most dangerous offenders
- secondly, sentences must encourage offenders to turn their backs on a life of crime, cutting crime by reducing reoffending
- thirdly, we must expand and make greater use of punishment outside of prison
Sentencing is a matter for the independent judiciary and the review will therefore not look at sentencing in individual cases or the role of the judiciary.
The review will provide long term solutions for our justice system by:
- examining the use and composition of non-custodial sentences, including robust community alternatives to prison and the use of fines
- looking at the role of incentives in sentence management and the powers of the probation service in the administration of sentences in the community
- looking at the use and impact of short custodial sentences
- reviewing the framework around longer custodial sentences, including the use of minimum sentences, and the range of sentences and maximum penalties available for different offences
- looking at the administration of sentences, including the point at which offenders are released from prison, how long they are supervised in the community on licence, recall to prison, and how technology can support this
- considering whether the sentencing framework should be amended to take into account the specific needs or vulnerabilities of specific cohorts, such as young adult offenders, older offenders, and women
- considering the approach to sentencing in cases of prolific offenders
- considering specifically sentencing for offences primarily committed against women and girls
- the Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP) sentence or the administration of it
- the use of remand
- the youth sentencing framework
- wholesale reform of the murder sentencing framework: Whilst the review may consider the impact of sentencing for murder on the wider sentencing framework, the department is considering wholesale reform of homicide law and sentencing separately
- out of court resolutions
--oo00oo--
David Gauke writing in the New Statesman:-
How to fix the prisons crisis
The political bidding war over tougher sentences must end.
Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in. Perhaps a Godfather quotation is not entirely appropriate for the subject matter but, more than five years after leaving the Ministry of Justice I am back – rather to my surprise – chairing an independent review of sentencing policy.
It is a privilege to serve, not least because such a review is timely and necessary. It is timely because we face an immediate crisis in prison capacity. The current government inherited a situation in which we were very close to running out of places and had no choice but to take emergency measures and release prisoners early. Anyone in office over the summer would have done the same. But these emergency measures, including further releases today, only provided a brief respite. Demand for prison places is currently growing at 4,500 a year, much faster than the supply of places. This means that unless strategic measures are taken, we will repeatedly risk running out of places.
This capacity issue highlights why it is necessary to look more fundamentally at sentencing policy. We now incarcerate more people per head than any other western European country. Since 1993, the prison population of England and Wales has doubled, even as crime has consistently fallen (a fall, by the way, that can be seen in countries that have not increased their prison population). The reason for the increase in the prison population is clear. We sentence more people to prison and we sentence them for longer than we used to do.
Prison, of course, should continue to be a vital part of our criminal justice system. There are many circumstances in which it is the right form of punishment and the best way of protecting the public. But the large majority of prisoners will be released at some point and our very high reoffending rates suggest that our overcrowded prisons are not successful in rehabilitating offenders. We need to look at ways in which sentencing policy can better contribute to reducing reoffending and, as a consequence, crime.
There are some who will argue that we should build our way out of our prison capacity issues. But we cannot simply dismiss the reality that we will run out of capacity long before any new prisons can be built. And even if we do, there is a question of cost. On current projections, just to keep up with the growth in prison numbers, we would have to build three large prisons a year at a total cost of £2.3bn. Then there are the staffing, maintenance and other ongoing costs, which mean that it costs the taxpayer £52,000 per prisoner. Maintaining the current approach is, in effect, a significant and unfunded spending commitment at a time when tough decisions must be made about the public finances.
We really ought to be able to do better than an expensive system that fails to rehabilitate offenders. But how to do so?
The Sentencing Review Panel is, of course, only at the beginning of its process and there are many aspects of sentencing policy we will want to review but let me highlight three aspects here.
The first is short sentences. As justice secretary, I argued that short prison sentences did more harm than good. The evidence at the time supported this contention but I want to revisit it and, in particular, look at how we can more effectively deal with the most prolific offenders.
Whatever we do with short sentences, however, will not solve the capacity issue when the prison population is increasingly made up of those serving four years or more, very often considerably more. Prisoners, like everyone else, respond to incentives and other jurisdictions have done more than us to reward good behaviour. Texas, for example, introduced a new approach which results in prisoners who complete their programmes, behave well and show evidence of rehabilitation spending less time in jail. The (admittedly very high) Texan prison population has fallen, as has its crime rate. So a second area of interest is whether we could develop an incentives policy appropriate for our system.
The third area is technology. Specifically, does it provide an opportunity to punish, protect society and rehabilitate offenders outside of prison in a way that is much more effective than has previously been possible? Electronic tagging, for example, is increasingly used but we need to understand whether more could be done. The same can be said of drink and drug monitoring. We need to understand the potential for current and future technologies to keep offenders out of prison in the first place, or to safely release some prisoners at an earlier stage than is currently the case. There may well be lessons to be learned from other jurisdictions to ensure that sentencing policy is properly able to exploit these technologies.
For the last 30 years, there has been a sentencing bidding war between the political parties seeking to compete to be seen as the toughest on crime by promising ever-longer prison sentences. Rightly, the public expects criminality to be punished and prison is often viewed as the only effective means of punishment. But the capacity crisis in our prisons has meant that – at the very least – we have no choice but to pause the increase in the prison population. It is also sensible that we now look more broadly at the evidence and ask whether sentencing policy should be more fundamentally reformed. By next spring, we should have the answer.
David Gauke
Just the words "Tougher outside prison" tell you this review will fail to reduce numbers.
ReplyDeleteHow about aiming for effective sentences, or rehabiliative sentences, or proportionate sentences. But no Tougher community sentences. So higher breach rates, more punitive conditions, larger prison populations in there for longer.
They need to try something different.
Apart from little mention of the appalling state probation is in through lack of investment, centralised control etc etc, which no real surprise, I would have thought a review of the recall process should be near the top of the agenda.
ReplyDeleteFixed term recalls are draining the resource in prison OMUs. The admin work it takes to get someone in and then straight out of prison is significant. Resource should be focussed on working with community teams to support releases generally . I can’t think of one advantage of a FTR for anyone , including victims and communities. Prisons keep getting blamed for not doing their bit for rehabilitation. FTR are just one example of the pointless things prisons (and the poor Probation community teams ) who have to administer them, have to do instead of “proper “ rehabilitation work.
ReplyDeleteThis is the kind of shit-yer-pants scaremongering that the tories are spouting:
ReplyDeletehttps://conservativepost.co.uk/labour-refuses-to-reveal-high-recall-rates-yet-releases-1000-more-criminals-how-many-will-reoffend-before-theyre-jailed-again/
Transcript of Mahmood's statement to HoC:
https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2024-10-22/debates/8D3769B7-66B7-47C0-91B3-5198D47CA532/details
Martin Jones of hmi probation told R4's World at One that the recall population has increased from approx 5,000 to over 12,000 (I think he said in the last ten years)... and the Daily Heil reported this:
"Martin Jones, His Majesty's Chief of Probation, warned that Labour's plans to curb prison overcrowding would be undermined by a high level of recalls. He told how for every 100 inmates released in the first quarter of 2024, 56 had been brought back to prison for reoffending or breaching their licence."
Jones also spoke to some unreported conference somewhere recently:
https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprobation/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2024/10/Martin-Napo-speech-Fri-11-October.pdf
You can’t look at this issue in isolation. Reducing prison numbers goes hand in hand with sorting out all the other areas that are broken primarily housing with community based health and mental health services coming a close second. That said I think there is a need for more prison places. I was absolutely sickened by that report into a London prison, I think it was Wandsworth. Suicide, self harm and violence absolutely rife. How can anyone consider that rehabilitation. Surely it’s the opposite. We need to invest in prisons, not just buildings but adequate support and the right staff. If you are in favour of this it doesn’t mean you are somehow anti community sentences. Things have changed over the last 30 years. Primarily due to drugs and them becoming part of our culture but remaining illegal. I remember in the mid 2000’s when I first started working at an office my caseload was TWOC and Criminal Damage. By the time I moved on 5 years later it was aggravated offences, wounding high end robberies with carrying weapons completely normalised. In my opinion based on my experience, offences have got more serious generally speaking as well as a culture more willing to tackle them (not so much brushed under the carpet these days see the various Police Ops).
ReplyDeleteOf course there is a place for community penalties. But they are not suitable for everyone. And community based penalties don’t necessarily mean probation, as we need to reduce the number of people on Probations books too. As Jim indicated in his introduction, let’s hope they have the courage to do what’s needed to try and fix this very broken system. It needs overhauling not tinkering around the edges. I am hoping that we now have plenty of evidence to show that private doesn’t = better which was the mantra for the past 30 odd years. People should want to be probation officers, prison officers, mental health professionals. It feels to me like everyone is completely burned out. This system needs changing so that everyone can start to value and take a bit of pride in what they do which will only be of benefit to those we are trying to work with. We will see.
So, when you started you were inexperienced and cut up your teeth on Criminal Damage and TWOC. But 5 years later (and given what has happened to retention in the service) you were the old hand and got all the Wounding and high end stuff. So offending has got worse, not you have become the safe pair of hands.
DeleteFact is that what made a PO job ultimately unsustainable for me was that suddenly with the "Qulified Staff get all the High Risk" was l got no wind, and no relief. It was a conveyor belt of shit. Distressed and damaged people, causing distress and damage every day for 13 years.
Meanwhile PSO's were dealing with shoplifters while telling me that there was no difference between their job and mine.
No crime did not get worse, you just got moved to the shitty end.
Anyone listened to the radio 4 pro about recall? Really interesting. Recall population is significant proportion of prisoners. The subtext was the complex balance expected of probation between on one side control, enforcement , and on the other the importance of a trusting and honest relationship with the supervisee/client. While probation is drastically understaffed and funded and its culture nervous and defensive, control and enforcement will always trump care and nurturing relationships as these take time and a positive culture to flourish.
ReplyDeleteChanging the terms of the discourse, would be a start. Punishing never acheives anything other than satisfying a social need for justice. And that is important in itself of course, but confusing that with "tackling crime" is a mistake.
BBC Radio 4 File on Four https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m00244l9
DeleteJust found this trapped in the spam filter from September, so posted here as it strikes me as significant and still relevant:-
ReplyDelete"I just cannot do this anymore. The denial by management as to actually what our role entails is outrageous. To ensure you tick all boxes of National Standards, ISPs etc etc there are just not enough hours in a day to achieve what “management says is achievable “. The WMT says it must be done and is achievable is the response. Spokesperson for HMPPS recently stated WMT is a guide and based on estimates. Management says it is the ‘be all and end all’. Communication mismatch?
I have always gone the extra mile, worked long hours outside of contracted hours to ensure the best interests and outcomes for those we supervise. Senior management protect misdemeanours of those who supervise us. Have never claimed overtime. They really don’t care how they achieve targets - have no idea of their Duty of Care to ensure a safe working environment for HMPPS staff. Bullying condoned and encouraged. PQUIPS made to feel worthless and that they know shite and are shite. Led by persons who don’t even know to check policy and guidance. Make it up as they go along and when they get it wrong then blame those under them. No oversight for months and months on end and then suddenly BANG! Then everything is the fault of PSOs, PQUIPS and POs who didn’t do what they should have. Where was management oversight before the shit hit the fan? Why aren’t they investigated for not applying oversight?
Training is not fit for purpose - not their fault they say. Bah humbug!
No more. No MORE! NOT IN MY NAME! I just cannot anymore and a cocktail of mixes should put me out of my misery. I have just had ABSOLUTELY enough. I will however leave a note to ensure they don’t get away with this."
I really hope the author has sought support and help, but I know many staff are at their wits end and their situation must be brought to the attention of those in authority.
06.19 Do you know who wrote this? Has someone reached out? There .ust be so many of us struggling. I function ok now after a nervous breakdown and change of role but only because of the anti depressants. I had times when I definitely felt like the person who wrote this so I'll say this to anyone who feels the same. You need to step back and prioritise your health as well as speaking up. It's not great that I still need medication but it means I can cope with the job better and the things that would normally distress me such as reading awful CPS or speaking to service users who are incredibly traumatised , homeless and siffeting addiction. I also had good support from MH team and they were shocked at the lack of support we get. My colleague was crying the other day and I explained that if I looked un-emotional it's because the medication suppresses my feelings, both the sadness and happiness. I'm hoping to reduce or come off them in the spring. Please look after yourselves, we do an incredibly difficult job with little recognition. You are all amazing so don't forget that and be nice to colleagues who could be struggling in silence.
DeleteThe original poster is anonymous, but like you I hope they have sought help and support.
DeleteYet more evidence of the abandonment of any pretence of a duty of care for staff.
ReplyDeleteThere are well established precedents for unions taking cases against rogue employers however not only does NAPO fail to act decisively as far as I can tell they haven’t even made a pronouncement on the subject
hm piss-poor service press release:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.gov.uk/government/news/landmark-sentencing-review-launched-to-end-prison-crisis
+ a date for the diary:
Transparency Data: End of Custody Supervised Licence (ECSL) data, Oct 2023 to Sep 2024
Demographic information and offence characteristics (inc. sentence length and offence group) for those released on ECSL between 17 Oct 2023 and 9 Sep 2024, plus ECSL caseload information.
From: Ministry of Justice & HM Prison and Probation Service
Published: 24 October 2024
Release date: 31 October 2024 9:30am (provisional)
Another page of hm piss-poor service propaganda (Last updated Wednesday, 16 October 2024) :
ReplyDeletehttps://data.justice.gov.uk/probation
Some selected stats:
Initial sentence plan for community sentences and releases - 84.0%
Timely risk management plans (recall reports part B) 86.3%
Completion of targeted interventions for people convicted of sexual offences - 63.1%
Housed on release from custody - 81.6%
Accredited programme completions (targeted) - 50.2%
Pre-release sentence plans for enhanced cases - 27.8%
Victim satisfaction - 86.2%
They don't, however, share the stat from hmi probation which says 97% of probation services are not fit for purpose.
DeleteA contribution just left on a blog post from July and therefore unlikely to be noticed:-
ReplyDelete"I’m very late to this but felt the need to comment. I’m a POM and have been for several years. It’s a challenging role, working with very distressed individuals in a place they call home. We deliver group interventions, 1:1 work, write extensive reports and attend many meetings. This is not to undermine our community colleagues and the amazing work they do. We are often the ‘lead’ in the case as we know the pressures of the community and we work long hours, take no lunch breaks and at times, found the work emotionally draining. But I feel that this is where I’m meant to be for my particular interest and I want to support COM’s as much as I can.
Probation could think differently about things. For example with the SDS40 - I and many of my colleagues would have given a day to go help community colleagues doing inductions, seeing cases on duty and helped wherever we could. But no one seemed to think of this."
I agree. Seeing prison and community as separate adds to the duplication . We have very capable Probation practitioners in prisons and have already done much of the work a community induction does so why not use that information? It’s just a problem with the awful IT systems we are forced to use . I see many prctioners from the community engaging with prisoners before release, which is the whole point of OMIC , which also has potential to cut down on duplication. It just needs someone sensible to take a look at the processes already in place and start trusting our capable practitioners.
ReplyDeleteYour Voice Your BBC News - is this a way to get the BBC to engage with the desperate state of Probation? Get in touch and try to get this scandal in focus. How Probation has been degraded, the impact on community sentencing and public protection, how on earth has the architect Chris Grayling been elevated to the Lords, the utter lack of any responsibility and accountability of our excellent leaders, structural management bullying of frontline staff and oh yes, the evidenced lack of care for staff.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cd0z0y2z3mjo
DeleteBBC News is here for one reason – you.
DeleteWe are here to bring you impartial, trusted journalism about the most significant events from the UK and around the world, and about what matters most to you in your lives.
That is why we are launching Your Voice, Your BBC News.
We want to hear what you think we should be reporting on. We want to know what you care about, what issues are affecting you, where you think we should be reporting from, and why.
This builds on Your Voice, Your Vote which we launched as an experiment during this year's UK general election.
It was an invitation for you to get more involved in our journalism and the stories we cover. And I want to say a massive thank you - because thousands and thousands of you did.
You told us the election issues that you - not the politicians - really cared about.
That guided us to cover stories we might otherwise have missed, from electricity pylons to rural bus services, as well as being able to share your personal experiences in our coverage of big topics, such as housing, the climate and the NHS.
Your questions helped inform our interviews with politicians - including this one with former prime minister Rishi Sunak. And our specialist correspondents answered your questions too - using what the parties promised in their manifestos – and what they left out.
Over the course of the election Your Voice, Your Vote reached millions of BBC News consumers across our digital, TV and radio services, and audience research tells us you really valued taking part.
We at BBC News valued it too, and we want this partnership to continue, because it helped us ensure our work is relevant and useful to you.
So we're back with an updated version of Your Voice, Your Vote that can bring us together - not just when we're counting down to an election. We're calling it Your Voice, Your BBC News.
Your Voice, Your BBC News welcomes your input and participation into our reporting across every part of BBC News.
You can get in touch via this link or by using the form below. Alternatively, you can email at bbcyourvoice@bbc.co.uk or WhatsApp on +44 7980 682727.
According to the NAPO a website 21.10.24., ‘Ian Lawrence General Secretary said: “Our members are at breaking point trying to cope with the pressures of SDS 40 on top of the workloads crisis in Probation caused by uncompetitive pay and thousands of unfilled vacancies across all regions of the Probation Service.”
ReplyDeleteHe is fully aware of the problem yet His response to the crisis is to call for more funding and recruitment, both of which take years to become effective.
There is no mention of making the employers accept their duty of care or even acknowledge the harm they are doing to their employees through ridiculous targets, under resourcing, staff working unpaid hours, bullying, racism etc.
If there is any money left in the pot, NAPO a should be instructing counsel, prosecuting and claiming damages for harm caused to staff as evidenced above and easily found in any team across the country.
Anyone know what proportion of recalls are from the 12mth and under cohort?
ReplyDeleteThis cohort was introduced to probation as part of the TR mess, and just like all the rest that came with TR it needs to be reversed.
'Getafix
Somewhat tangential, but I was looking on the 'manage a workforce' (WMT) on Delius and noticed that most areas as now under 100% in their team. However, when I clicked into the teams I noticed SPOs in there with zero cases. Is this a blatant attempt to show the teams are managing? Of so, why haven't the Unions pounced on it?
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely spot on. The ‘fiddling of the books’ is hardly new and has long been part of the culture to keep appearances up. Back in the day, SPOs were indeed instructed to re-tier cases to manipulate WMT numbers, and now it’s this “Probation Reset” tactic used to lower figures under the guise of reform. But it doesn’t change a thing on the ground.
DeleteThe WMT is pretty much meaningless, a tool that misses what’s really happening in our teams. All it does is serve the purpose of those in high offices to justify more hoops for us to jump through. As an SPO myself, I don’t rely on it. Instead, I focus on genuinely understanding my team’s workload by talking to them directly, using my own gauge to spot any actual capacity or, more often than not, to identify who’s dangerously overburdened. I still carry cases, stay hands-on, and am always ready to step in because I believe in the work we trained for.
In reality, the WMT is nothing more than a facade, and it’s about time it’s seen for the empty exercise it really is.
BIONIC
“I focus on genuinely understanding my team’s workload by talking to them directly, using my own gauge to spot any actual capacity or, more often than not, to identify who’s dangerously overburdened.”
DeletePah! I’ve worked in a few teams like this where some of us less popular people are at 150+% WMT but still get cases when those lower do not because the SPOs ignore WMT and avoid allocating cases to their cronies and those who complain because “they’re too busy”.
If we’re serious about supporting those who work directly with people on orders, it’s time we rethink the priorities being forced down the line. Why are we drowning in endless box-ticking service level measures? What’s the actual value here? Every Teams meeting seems to centre on hitting these arbitrary targets, but there’s no real focus on the core of our work—engagement, support, meaningful intervention.
DeleteWhen was the last time a Head of Service genuinely asked, “How are you managing to connect with people, to make a difference in their lives?” Instead, the conversation is always around spreadsheets, measures, and quotas that rarely translate to what’s happening in practice. Real support means recognising the day-to-day struggles of frontline staff and making sure the systems in place actually enable us to do our jobs effectively—not hold us back.
BIONIC
20.40 - Absolutely. This shouldn’t be the case at all. Every team member should have their workload determined by objective measures, not by a manager’s personal judgment or favoritism. The role of an SPO should be to ensure fair, transparent workload distribution across the board. But, as you said, some SPOs seem to cling to their own subjective methods, turning a blind eye to those already overloaded while their “favourites” are protected. It’s the exact opposite of supportive leadership—and frankly, it’s leech-like behaviour that chips away at trust and team morale.
DeleteBIONIC
To allocate cases is human- to do it well is divine. So much case work hinges on good initial allocations from SPOs. It's an art-form in many ways.
ReplyDeleteIt’s about numbers. Unless there are enough staff it’ll always be too much to too little.
DeleteStop talking about Probation as a "family", vocation or an "art form". It's none of those things and to pretend it is is disingenuous at best, toxic at worst
ReplyDeleteYes leadership gobbledygook. A method of manipulation and means absolutely nothing.
DeleteWhat i was trying to convey that allocations done well are quite difficult to do well with- the art form analogy. Speaking to your team, as an SPO has mentioned in a previous post, is much better than making assumptions, relying on WMT data- which is very much fudged and just pushing a button and hoping for the best. It needs more thought, especially as there are always more cases than there are POs/PSOs/PQIPS.
Delete