We start with this:-
"This memorandum provides some historical information concerning the behaviour of Serco and G4S who were previously awarded contracts in 2005 for electronic monitoring services in England and Wales.Under those contracts, Serco and G4S overcharged the Ministry of Justice including multiple times for the same cases and for cases where the monitored person had died. This issue came to light in 2013, contracts were terminated, and the matter was referred to the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) for investigation."
* falsifying its Annual Report and Financial Statements for the year ending 31 December 2011 by reporting an additional £7.5m of purported revenue (charge 5).
But then: "On 26 April 2021, the prosecution by the Serious Fraud Office (the "SFO") of fraud charges against two former directors of Serco Geografix Limited ("Serco") collapsed. At the commencement of the trial, 9 years after the conduct underlying the charges began, and 7 years after the SFO commenced its investigation into Serco, disclosure failings came to light."
Winner Winner, Michelin 5 Star Dinner! MoJ gets a £70million bung, Serco get £hundreds-of-millions in new contracts, Serco directors aren't prosecuted, er, that's it. Nothing to see here. It's all perfectly normal.
The Contract awarded:
Electronic Monitoring Field and Monitoring Service (FMS). The provision of contact and monitoring centre and field service functions for Electronic Monitoring. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has awarded this contract for the provision of Electronic Monitoring Services (EMS)... FMS is a service which has been delivered under one national contract... FMS includes the monitoring of offenders released on licence which covers Global Positioning System (GPS) monitoring, Radio Frequency (RF) monitoring and Alcohol monitoring (AM).
Value of contract: £329,900,000.00
Contract start date: 27 October 2023
Contract end date: 30 April 2030
This contract was awarded to 1 supplier: Serco Corporate Services Ltd
On the contracts:
Lord Filkin: You have a duopoly, in effect, with just two suppliers, at a time when you are doubling your demand.
Lord Timpson: This is a contract that we inherited.
Lord Filkin: The implication of what you have said, Minister, is that you are contractually locked into those two suppliers. For how long are you contractually locked into those two suppliers?
Jim Barton: I am happy to come in on that point, Lord Filkin. There are a few points. The current contracts run until 2030. They are not monopoly contracts. If we wanted to, we would be able to run parallel competitions for alternative EM provision... We do not want to do that
The Chair: So that we are absolutely clear, the contract, as we understood it, with Serco and Allied Universal is basically a six-year contract from 2024 to 2030, but there is then an additional two-year option to extend it. During that period of time, you have said that you could be in a position to run a parallel contract or contracts
Jim Barton: To be really clear, we have no plan whatsoever to run a parallel contract... Our contracts work... We need to keep working with Serco and Allied Universal.
The Chair: Mr Barton, you are continuing to tell me what you have chosen to do. I am merely asking whether you have the option to do it differently, should you choose to do it differently.
Jim Barton: Apologies, Lord Chair. I think I said yes, but perhaps in Civil Service terms
The Chair: We hear very clearly where you are coming from, Mr Barton. We will move on.
The future:
Baroness Cash: We would be very interested to have some insight into what is coming.
Lord Timpson: The first thing to say is that everyone gets very excited about new things... We are exploring new hardware. We had a “Dragons’ Den” event before the Recess... We are trialling, from spring next year, live access for probation to where someone is. We will be able to check in. For example, an offender comes to see a probation officer and they say, “Why weren’t you at your appointment last week?” They say, “I was at the doctor’s”. They will be able to go in and say, “You weren’t at the doctor’s. You were in Blackpool for the day”... I am really determined that, if offenders do not comply, I can have sanctions on them and recall them back to prison, because it is a punishment and we need to use the data effectively.
Jim Barton: I have a few very quick additions, if I may... The acquisitive crime pathfinder that the Minister referenced is a good example of that, through which we are already able to provide, not live but overnight, GPS data for probation practitioners where they have robbers or burglars on their case load.
Lord Timpson: There is a small trial still going on in Northumberland on proximity tags
Oh yes, cobbler, we hear VERY, VERY clearly where you are coming from:
"Working in a prison is the most amazing job. If I had not gone down my path in commercial life, I think it would have been a most rewarding job to do. We have done a really good job on recruitment."
"I am really determined that, if offenders do not comply, I can have sanctions on them and recall them back to prison, because it is a punishment and we need to use the data effectively."
EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM TO
THE ELECTRONIC MONITORING (RESPONSIBLE PERSONS) (AMENDMENT)
ORDER 2024
2024 No. 328
"This memorandum provides some historical information concerning the behaviour of Serco and G4S who were previously awarded contracts in 2005 for electronic monitoring services in England and Wales.Under those contracts, Serco and G4S overcharged the Ministry of Justice including multiple times for the same cases and for cases where the monitored person had died. This issue came to light in 2013, contracts were terminated, and the matter was referred to the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) for investigation."
(the excuses on serco's behalf up front)
Some gems from this memo:
* Licence conditions should be preventative as opposed to punitive and must be proportionate, reasonable and necessary.
* The exception is where prisoners are released early on Home Detention Curfew... For these prisoners the curfew also has a punitive role that reflects the fact that they are still serving the custodial element of the sentence.
* Serco and G4S overcharged the Ministry of Justice including multiple times for the same cases and for cases where the monitored person had died.
* A Deferred Prosecution Agreement (DPA) with Serco was approved by Mr Justice William Davis, resulting in a fine of £19.2m and the payment of compensation to the Ministry of Justice of £70m.
* The SFO agreed to the DPA in recognition of Serco’s prompt and voluntary self-disclosure of the fraudulent conduct
Uh? ... "A subsidiary of contracting giant Serco will pay a £19.2m fine after admitting lying to the Ministry of Justice about the true extent of profits from supplying electronic tags. Lisa Osofsky, director of the Serious Fraud Office, said SGL ‘engaged in a concerted effort to lie to the Ministry of Justice in order to profit unlawfully at the expense of UK taxpayers’. The conduct came to light in late 2013 in an investigation into Serco and its employees in respect of the tagging contract."
Ah, I see... "Credit was given in the deferred prosecution agreement for the prompt compensation payment to the MoJ"
The background is neatly summarised by the SFO itself:
“Serco Geografix Ltd devised a scheme to defraud the Ministry of Justice by hiding the true extent of the profits being made between 2010 and 2013 by its parent company, Serco Limited, from its contract for the provision of electronic monitoring services. By dishonestly misleading the Ministry of Justice in this way, Serco Geografix Ltd prevented the Ministry of Justice from attempting to limit any of Serco Limited’s future profits, recover any of Serco Limited’s previous profits, seek more favourable terms during renegotiations of contracts, or otherwise threaten Serco Limited’s contract revenues."
Hence the 'prompt and voluntary self-disclosure of the fraudulent conduct' via:
* falsifying accounting records to overstate revenue earned and costs incurred in the performance of the services (charges 1-4);
* Licence conditions should be preventative as opposed to punitive and must be proportionate, reasonable and necessary.
* The exception is where prisoners are released early on Home Detention Curfew... For these prisoners the curfew also has a punitive role that reflects the fact that they are still serving the custodial element of the sentence.
* Serco and G4S overcharged the Ministry of Justice including multiple times for the same cases and for cases where the monitored person had died.
* A Deferred Prosecution Agreement (DPA) with Serco was approved by Mr Justice William Davis, resulting in a fine of £19.2m and the payment of compensation to the Ministry of Justice of £70m.
* The SFO agreed to the DPA in recognition of Serco’s prompt and voluntary self-disclosure of the fraudulent conduct
Uh? ... "A subsidiary of contracting giant Serco will pay a £19.2m fine after admitting lying to the Ministry of Justice about the true extent of profits from supplying electronic tags. Lisa Osofsky, director of the Serious Fraud Office, said SGL ‘engaged in a concerted effort to lie to the Ministry of Justice in order to profit unlawfully at the expense of UK taxpayers’. The conduct came to light in late 2013 in an investigation into Serco and its employees in respect of the tagging contract."
Ah, I see... "Credit was given in the deferred prosecution agreement for the prompt compensation payment to the MoJ"
The background is neatly summarised by the SFO itself:
“Serco Geografix Ltd devised a scheme to defraud the Ministry of Justice by hiding the true extent of the profits being made between 2010 and 2013 by its parent company, Serco Limited, from its contract for the provision of electronic monitoring services. By dishonestly misleading the Ministry of Justice in this way, Serco Geografix Ltd prevented the Ministry of Justice from attempting to limit any of Serco Limited’s future profits, recover any of Serco Limited’s previous profits, seek more favourable terms during renegotiations of contracts, or otherwise threaten Serco Limited’s contract revenues."
Hence the 'prompt and voluntary self-disclosure of the fraudulent conduct' via:
* falsifying accounting records to overstate revenue earned and costs incurred in the performance of the services (charges 1-4);
* falsifying its Annual Report and Financial Statements for the year ending 31 December 2011 by reporting an additional £7.5m of purported revenue (charge 5).
But then: "On 26 April 2021, the prosecution by the Serious Fraud Office (the "SFO") of fraud charges against two former directors of Serco Geografix Limited ("Serco") collapsed. At the commencement of the trial, 9 years after the conduct underlying the charges began, and 7 years after the SFO commenced its investigation into Serco, disclosure failings came to light."
Winner Winner, Michelin 5 Star Dinner! MoJ gets a £70million bung, Serco get £hundreds-of-millions in new contracts, Serco directors aren't prosecuted, er, that's it. Nothing to see here. It's all perfectly normal.
The Contract awarded:
Electronic Monitoring Field and Monitoring Service (FMS). The provision of contact and monitoring centre and field service functions for Electronic Monitoring. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has awarded this contract for the provision of Electronic Monitoring Services (EMS)... FMS is a service which has been delivered under one national contract... FMS includes the monitoring of offenders released on licence which covers Global Positioning System (GPS) monitoring, Radio Frequency (RF) monitoring and Alcohol monitoring (AM).
Value of contract: £329,900,000.00
Contract start date: 27 October 2023
Contract end date: 30 April 2030
This contract was awarded to 1 supplier: Serco Corporate Services Ltd
--oo00oo--
House of Lords Justice and Home Affairs Committee
House of Lords Justice and Home Affairs Committee
Investigation into electronic monitoring 16 September 2025
The Justice and Home Affairs Committee is questioning Lord Timpson OBE DL, Minister of State for Prisons, Probation and Reducing Reoffending and Jim Barton, Director for Probation Reform and Electronic Monitoring at the Ministry of Justice. The Committee will cover a range of topics, including the purpose of Electronic Monitoring, the future of Electronic Monitoring technology, anticipated increases in the use of Electronic Monitoring, and the use of Electronic Monitoring in detecting and preventing crime. The Committee will also ask about accountability mechanisms for private contractors, the consequences of breaching an Electronic Monitoring order, and the move to tag prison leavers as they leave prison.
The job title that sums it up in one pay packet: Director for Probation Reform and Electronic Monitoring. Highlights of the Timpson/Barton oral evidence... read it & weep:
On tagging:
Lord Bach: My general question is about what the Ministry of Justice sees as the purpose of electronic monitoring. I suppose another way of putting it is to ask whether probation can manage offenders just as effectively without resorting to electronic monitoring.
Lord Timpson: Electronic monitoring has an absolutely key central role in the justice sector. Its role is as punishment... Because we know that the technology works, you can look at what the evidence is... The technology is going to get more interesting.
Lord Tope: the Government are saying they really want to go big on EM... Is there going to be a new strategy?
Lord Timpson: There is not going to be a new strategy, but we need to expand the way electronic monitoring works ... to help us manage offenders more effectively in the community... we are doing a trial starting next month in six prisons where we will be, as we call it, tagging at source. That is, before people leave prison, we will be putting the tag on their ankle.
The truth about the £700million:
Lord Filkin: The plan is to double its use over the next few years, which is a quite remarkable increase. First, is probation ready for this?
Lord Timpson: As we expand electronic monitoring... We also need more probation staff... It is a case of recruiting them and training them up to do the job. That is where the £700 million of extra funding over the next three years is absolutely vital... I am confident in our suppliers’ ability to deliver this because I have ongoing conversations with them. I have had five board-level meetings with Serco.
Jim Barton: Building on the Minister’s evidence, we are working already with both suppliers in order to maximise the time that we have available to be ready for the expansion of EM... we have already delivered a doubling of the EM case load over the last five years. We have a track record of delivering significant expansions and innovations... How do we streamline process? That is where EM is so powerful, because it provides probation staff with data and information for them to have richer, more impactful conversations with the people on probation who they are working with.
On tagging:
Lord Bach: My general question is about what the Ministry of Justice sees as the purpose of electronic monitoring. I suppose another way of putting it is to ask whether probation can manage offenders just as effectively without resorting to electronic monitoring.
Lord Timpson: Electronic monitoring has an absolutely key central role in the justice sector. Its role is as punishment... Because we know that the technology works, you can look at what the evidence is... The technology is going to get more interesting.
Lord Tope: the Government are saying they really want to go big on EM... Is there going to be a new strategy?
Lord Timpson: There is not going to be a new strategy, but we need to expand the way electronic monitoring works ... to help us manage offenders more effectively in the community... we are doing a trial starting next month in six prisons where we will be, as we call it, tagging at source. That is, before people leave prison, we will be putting the tag on their ankle.
The truth about the £700million:
Lord Filkin: The plan is to double its use over the next few years, which is a quite remarkable increase. First, is probation ready for this?
Lord Timpson: As we expand electronic monitoring... We also need more probation staff... It is a case of recruiting them and training them up to do the job. That is where the £700 million of extra funding over the next three years is absolutely vital... I am confident in our suppliers’ ability to deliver this because I have ongoing conversations with them. I have had five board-level meetings with Serco.
Jim Barton: Building on the Minister’s evidence, we are working already with both suppliers in order to maximise the time that we have available to be ready for the expansion of EM... we have already delivered a doubling of the EM case load over the last five years. We have a track record of delivering significant expansions and innovations... How do we streamline process? That is where EM is so powerful, because it provides probation staff with data and information for them to have richer, more impactful conversations with the people on probation who they are working with.
On the contracts:
Lord Filkin: You have a duopoly, in effect, with just two suppliers, at a time when you are doubling your demand.
Lord Timpson: This is a contract that we inherited.
Lord Filkin: The implication of what you have said, Minister, is that you are contractually locked into those two suppliers. For how long are you contractually locked into those two suppliers?
Jim Barton: I am happy to come in on that point, Lord Filkin. There are a few points. The current contracts run until 2030. They are not monopoly contracts. If we wanted to, we would be able to run parallel competitions for alternative EM provision... We do not want to do that
The Chair: So that we are absolutely clear, the contract, as we understood it, with Serco and Allied Universal is basically a six-year contract from 2024 to 2030, but there is then an additional two-year option to extend it. During that period of time, you have said that you could be in a position to run a parallel contract or contracts
Jim Barton: To be really clear, we have no plan whatsoever to run a parallel contract... Our contracts work... We need to keep working with Serco and Allied Universal.
The Chair: Mr Barton, you are continuing to tell me what you have chosen to do. I am merely asking whether you have the option to do it differently, should you choose to do it differently.
Jim Barton: Apologies, Lord Chair. I think I said yes, but perhaps in Civil Service terms
The Chair: We hear very clearly where you are coming from, Mr Barton. We will move on.
The future:
Baroness Cash: We would be very interested to have some insight into what is coming.
Lord Timpson: The first thing to say is that everyone gets very excited about new things... We are exploring new hardware. We had a “Dragons’ Den” event before the Recess... We are trialling, from spring next year, live access for probation to where someone is. We will be able to check in. For example, an offender comes to see a probation officer and they say, “Why weren’t you at your appointment last week?” They say, “I was at the doctor’s”. They will be able to go in and say, “You weren’t at the doctor’s. You were in Blackpool for the day”... I am really determined that, if offenders do not comply, I can have sanctions on them and recall them back to prison, because it is a punishment and we need to use the data effectively.
Jim Barton: I have a few very quick additions, if I may... The acquisitive crime pathfinder that the Minister referenced is a good example of that, through which we are already able to provide, not live but overnight, GPS data for probation practitioners where they have robbers or burglars on their case load.
Lord Timpson: There is a small trial still going on in Northumberland on proximity tags
Oh yes, cobbler, we hear VERY, VERY clearly where you are coming from:
"Working in a prison is the most amazing job. If I had not gone down my path in commercial life, I think it would have been a most rewarding job to do. We have done a really good job on recruitment."
"I am really determined that, if offenders do not comply, I can have sanctions on them and recall them back to prison, because it is a punishment and we need to use the data effectively."
Wow, Lord Dimson really is a fool and it reads like he is more than happy for us to be recall trigger happy as per usual!
ReplyDeleteWhere were you at 4am 2 weeks ago??
I can't remember!
LIAR, back to prison with you...
Its interesting to see the acquisitive crime pathway mentioned in the same article as that regarding fraud committed by the main contractors.
ReplyDeleteWho acquired the most and who received the worst punishment?
What a miserable future
ReplyDeleteThe Chair: So that we are absolutely clear, the MoJ is presumably lobbying the Chancellor extremely hard in relation to the budget to ensure that this does not continue.
ReplyDeleteLord Timpson: We already have our allocation, but we have not divvied it up, so that is for the MoJ and me to work on.
Lord Filkin: what do you think about the private sector suppliers? They will tell you that they are ready, but are you content with just two suppliers?
Lord Timpson: As we expand electronic monitoring, we need more engagement, more kit and more work with our providers. We also need more probation staff. That is why, in the last year, we recruited 1,050 extra probation staff. Next year, it will be 1,300. That is where the £700 million of extra funding over the next three years is absolutely vital
***
So 1,300 staff at, let’s be generous & say £40,000/year with on-costs, over 3 years ~ £150million
That leaves £550million for “more engagement, more kit and more work with our providers.”
Yep, we see you cobbler.
Things aren’t getting better and it’s all been said before. Even when we had real champions, eloquent and right in their arguments, they couldn’t stop Probation’s slide to where it is now. Whether through Napo, the Probation Institute, or anyone else, nothing changed.
ReplyDeleteNow probation’s set to get £700m worth of tagging and turn into a tagging and enforcement agency. Honestly, what’s going on?
https://probationmatters.blogspot.com/2025/09/dear-mr-jones.html?m=1
"Licence conditions should be preventative as opposed to punitive and must be proportionate, reasonable and necessary".
ReplyDeleteOpinions may vary.
sox
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce9r5m74de8o
ReplyDeleteA company providing accommodation to asylum seekers has made nearly £187m in profits since being awarded lucrative government contracts, despite allegations of "terrible" conditions at the hotels it uses.
Clearsprings Ready Homes is one of three companies with 10-year Home Office contracts to provide accommodation services for asylum seekers.
The problem is NOT asylum seekers, its the thieving bastards, the "usual suspects", who are gifted taxpayer money in the form of govt contracts... in this case, Labour's friends at Clearsprings. Remember the 'hostel' debacle?
https://www.thetottenhamindependent.co.uk/news/4085165.hidden-bail-hostel-revealed/
https://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/news/4079950.fury-four-secret-bail-hostels-east-lancashire/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7377086.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8383591.stm
"The National Association of Probation Officers said the contract had been "a nightmare" and it was vital to have hostels with proper supervision.
https://gardencourtchambers.co.uk/judicial-review-dismissed-swindon-magistrates-courts-decision-upheld-to-allow-prosecution-of-clearsprings-ready-homes-for-housing-standards-breach-in-asylum-support-accommodation/
ClearSprings, which runs 204 centres in England and Wales, declined to comment."
https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/clearsprings-asylum-seekers-home-office-hotels-suella-braverman/
DeleteA Home Office contractor that raked in £28m of profit last year is responsible for trying to cram asylum seekers into tiny hotel rooms without beds, openDemocracy can reveal.
Clearsprings also boasted in its annual accounts of “growth” in demand for its services due to soaring numbers of asylum seekers fleeing “political and economic turmoil”.
_______________________________________________
The scandals of govt contracts & their impact on the public purse, regardless of the administration in charge, are beyond belief: mone/medpro & ppe, serco/g4s & tags, clearsprings & hostels,/hotels, etc etc ad nauseaum.
"NAO: Previous government 'prioritized speed' to award contracts
DeleteThe NAO audit found that in order to meet an ambitious accommodation timetable, the former government had "prioritized speed" over the way it awarded contracts "over generating competition." This seems to have been the case, according to the report, with Clearsprings, that the Home Office confirmed is subcontracting to SBHL.
According to the NAO report published last year, the former government "awarded contracts to suppliers worth 254 million pounds in total (about 304 million euros), of which 244 million (about 292 million euros) was awarded without a full competitive process." One of those contractors, according to the report, was Clearsprings, another was Serco. The report states the Home Office increased the Clearsprings contract value by 101 million pounds (about 120 million euros)."
https://www.infomigrants.net/en/post/63607/uk-government-to-scrap-contract-with-one-of-its-biggest-asylum-accommodation-providers
__________
https://www.hotelmanagement-network.com/news/hotel-bills-unpaid-asylum-seekers-may-be-evicted/
"Hundreds of asylum seekers face possible eviction from hotels across the UK due to a dispute over unpaid bills. Hotel operators say they have not received payments for months from Clearsprings Ready Homes, a contractor that previously managed Home Office accommodation services.
The Home Office recently ended its contract with the company, but outstanding debts have reportedly left hoteliers under financial pressure."
_______
But hey! Leave our chums alone & let's just blame asylum seekers & offenders & probation & other public service staff for the woes of the nation.
Anon 09:07 I remember Clearsprings! BBC News 28/11/09:-
DeleteCritics have condemned the practice of using a private firm to run bail hostels after it was revealed that the company's contract may be terminated.
It comes after failings were identified at a hostel on Teesside where a young man was murdered by another resident.
The National Association of Probation Officers said the contract had been "a nightmare" and it was vital to have hostels with proper supervision.
ClearSprings, which runs 204 centres in England and Wales, declined to comment.
The company has been served with a "rectification notice" by the Ministry of Justice.
The ministry, which awarded the national contract to ClearSprings in 2007, said the firm had 15 days to respond to the notice with "remedial measures". The notice period expires on Saturday.
It said that if the company failed to comply, one option was termination of the three-year contract.
National Association of Probation Officers official Harry Fletcher told the BBC: "It's just not on, putting four or five volatile individuals in the same place with no supervision.
"The government has got to go back to the days when people on bail were supervised properly, by experienced and trained staff. It's as simple as that.
"This has been a nightmare, it's been a mistake, it needs to be unravelled."
The ClearSprings contract runs out in June 2010. The ministry said it was in the process of seeking bidders for the contract to run bail hostels after that date.
https://insidetime.org/newsround/restorative-justice-thwarted-by-hmpps/
ReplyDelete"Restorative Justice – where crime victims meet directly with offenders in an attempt to obtain closure – has been an important part of rehabilitation in prisons since the 1980s. It is supported by Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer and Prisons Minister Lord Timpson.
DeleteYet organisations which run Restorative Justice sessions across England and Wales claim that a unit set up within the Prison Service to extend and oversee the practice is in fact blocking it from happening.
Why Me?, a leading charity in the field, claims the unit – known as ‘reHub’ – is excessively risk averse, does not trust experts, insists cases are referred through its own process, takes decisions without consulting those involved, and fails to explain its thinking. Its lack of capacity to handle the volume of cases required is said to have prevented meetings from going ahead."
Same game plan as always - let someone else develop something of value then steal the idea but... implement a shit version of it (usually contracted out to a chum) that aligns with govt ideology, then shaft/shut down the originators of good practice via defunding or policy guidelines.
2019 article: https://www.thejusticegap.com/still-in-denial-the-sex-offender-treatment-industry/
Delete"We are assured that everything is sanctioned by the Correctional Services Accreditation and Advice Panel (CSAAP) but that is not reassuring. It is a body surrounded by mystery and there is no written evidence of its formal activity since 2012 that we are aware of... Working with sex offenders is a genuinely challenging area but what is perhaps most worrying about this case is that there seems to be no evidence of lessons learnt."
https://apply-for-public-appointment.service.gov.uk/archive/announcements/840
Correctional Services Advice and Accreditation Panel Core Panel
Body
Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS)
Appointing Department
Ministry of Justice
Sectors
Judicial, Prison & Policing, Prison & Policing, Regulation
Location
102 Petty France, London, SW1H 9AJ. Meetings are virtual by default.
Skills required
Regulation
Number of Vacancies
10 Core Panel Members (see also Additional Information)
Remuneration
Day rate £500. Half day rate £250
Time Requirements
Approximately 10 days per year but this will depend on the range and volume of programme development; quality assurance and evaluation members are asked to advise on. HMPPS expects all Core members to attend up to two plenary meetings each year to establish practice and standards across the Panel. The appointment will be for a minimum of three years and maximum of five years with the possibility of a second term.
Closing Date
03/11/2021 0000
Interviews
Week commencing 22 November 2021
CSAAP comprises academics and expert practitioners who provide independent evidence-based advice and products to HMPPS including advice about accrediting offending behaviour programmes. CSAAP provides advice directly to HMPPS and does not represent the organisation publicly. There are two memberships: Core Panel and Associate membership. We are refreshing membership of CSAAP’s Core Panel."
Last update 2022:
The Members - CSAAP members are independent, international academics and practitioners. They include criminologists, psychiatrists, psychologists and sociologists.
The Core Panel members are:
Nicholas Blagden
Erica Bowen
Jason Davies
Yolanda Fernandez
Theresa A Gannon
Friedrich Lösel
Mike Maguire
James McGuire
Michael Seto
Faye S Taxman
Meanwhile...
https://bylinetimes.com/2024/07/08/ministry-of-justice-downgrades-sex-offender-rehabilitation-leaving-will-have-catastrophic-effect-on-public-safety-union-warns/
"Ministry of Justice Downgrading of Sex Offender Rehabilitation Will Have ‘Catastrophic Effect’ on Public Safety, Union Warns
The salaries of specialist probation officers who manage sex offenders are being cut – and 77% say they plan to leave the job. Jessica Bradley 8 July 2024"
10 members @ 10 days/year @£500/day for minimum 3 year contract
DeleteI make that (100 x 500) x 3 = £150,000
versus
"the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has decided the role will drop from band 4 to band 3 for new recruits from 1 August 2024, which will result in a pay cut of up to £10,000 pa per person"
HM Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) commission a range of accredited programmes that vary in length, complexity, and mode of delivery. Programmes have been developed to target the offender risks and needs for different types of offending. To achieve accreditation, programmes must be assessed to make sure they are targeting the right people, focusing on the right things, and being delivered in a way that is most likely to reduce reoffending. All HMPPS-commissioned accredited programmes are subject to quality assurance processes to ensure programme integrity is maintained and developed.
DeleteAccreditation is a system for ensuring that intervention programmes offered to offenders, which aim to reduce reoffending, have a proper theoretical basis, and are designed in accordance with the ‘What Works’ literature. The Correctional Services Advice & Accreditation Panel (CSAAP) helps HMPPS to accredit programmes by reviewing programme design, quality assurance procedures and findings, and programme evaluations. They make recommendations about whether to accredit to the HMPPS Rehabilitation Board. HMPPS is accountable for decisions to accredit programmes.
CSAAP members are independent, international ‘what works’ academics and practitioners. They include criminologists, psychiatrists, psychologists, and sociologists. They review programmes against a set of criteria, drawn from the principles of effective interventions."
Taken from: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/67485f3475bb645366b3a140/HMPPS_Offender_Equalities_Annual_Report_2023-24.pdf
Last known publicly available report for csaap from 2011 (yup, 14 years ago) is here:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a74cce4e5274a3cb2867486/correctional-services-acc-panel-annual-report-2010-11.pdf
It seems everything is just being aimed at reducing the prison population. There's no real attempt anymore at preventing those that come into contact with the CJS from falling deeper into it or assisting those that have fallen deeper in to exit it.
ReplyDeleteIt shouldn't be about getting people out of our prisons, it should be about trying to keep people out of the CJS itself.
That really was probations great contribution to the CJS.
The only winners of the £700 MoJ lottery are likely to be in the private sector who really have no incentive to try and cut reoffending. Quite the opposite infact. More offending. More tagging. More money!
I note too that the POA are getting very pissed off with the government over overcrowding and their response to it.
https://www.poauk.org.uk/news-events/news-room/posts/2025/october/uk-prison-crisis-it-simply-can-no-longer-be-ignored/
'Getafix
UK PRISON CRISIS: IT SIMPLY CAN NO LONGER BE IGNORED
DeleteThe POA has long warned, and has been on record stating, that the UK prison system is now in a state of permacrisis marking a significant failure of long-term policy, underinvestment, on short-term fixes that do little to solve structural issues.
OVERCROWDING AT BREAKING POINT
As of March 2025, prisons in England and Wales averaged 87,009 inmates with a 25% overcrowding rate, and some private prisons were operating at a staggering 31% above capacity compared with 23% in public facilities. The male prisoner estate between October 2022 and August 2024 recorded occupancy rates up to 99.7%, surpassing the safe operational threshold of 95% and compromising safety and rehabilitation. This has been reported extensively in the main media by newspapers and the BBC, SKY News and other broadcasters. The National Audit Office and UK Parliamentary Committees have raised the same concerns that the POA has been raising.
EMERGENCY MEASURES THAT UNDERMINE THE SYSTEM
Policymakers have repeatedly deployed emergency solutions, and many temporary and reactive ones, such as Operation Early Dawn and Operation Safeguard, which have seen prisoners held in police cells and suspects delayed from court until prison staff become available. The automatic release point was shifted from 50% to 40% of a sentence for eligible prisoners starting in autumn 2024, aiming to relieve capacity strain. More recently, a controversial policy limits jail time for certain recalled offenders to 28 days; this is expected to free around 1,400 places. In Scotland, the 2025 Early Release Act similarly adjusted release thresholds, reducing required time served to 40% for many short-term, non-sensitive sentence prisoners. Yet these sticking-plaster solutions come with consequences: there has been a 44% rise in licence recalls, according to some media reports, although the Ministry of Justice is coy about the real numbers, but it is thought that, with 77% due to non-compliance and 24% for further offences supervision systems are overwhelmed.
A VISION HELD BACK BY DELAYS
The previous government’s commitment to deliver 20,000 new prison places by the mid 2020s has fallen drastically short. By September 2024, only 6,518 places had been delivered. Completion is now delayed until around 2031 at a projected cost of £4.2 billion: 80 per cent over budget. The National Audit Office warned of a looming shortfall of 12,400 places by the end of 2027 and that capacity demand could return to crisis levels by the summer of 2025. The Public Accounts Committee similarly forecast capacity exhaustion early in 2026, calling for urgent action. Despite that, funding currently allocated is a mere £520 million against at least £2.8 billion needed to bring cell blocks up to safety standards. The POA also warned that the maintenance programme was nothing short of a disgrace.
CRUMBLING CONDITIONS RISING RISKS
Overcrowding’s fallout is stark. A parliamentary committee suggested that violence within prisons was on the rise with fights up 14 per cent and attacks on staff up 19 per cent as of September 2024, and by March 2025, these figures were even worse. It’s a problem the POA has been campaigning about for years. Cuts have consequences and we are reaping what governments have sown over many years. Rehabilitation suffers under these conditions because many prisoners lack access to education, drug treatment, or proper health and safety assessments. People are sent to prison because cutbacks mean there is nothing left in the community to address offending.
REFORM FROM CRISIS: HOPE OR HYPE
DeleteI have been extremely critical of the never-ending reports into prisons and the criminal justice system. It seems every time there is an issue, government’s wheel out individuals to carry out reviews that gather dust and never see the light of day. Report after report over the past 30 years have, quite frankly, been embarrassing. It is action that is needed, not more reports telling us what we already know. Nevertheless, let us examine some the latest studies. Recent independent reviews signal both hope and warning; a sentencing review chaired by David Gauke, former Conservative Secretary of State, has yielded radical proposals: early release after serving just a third of a sentence; longer suspended sentences; community-based alternatives; even trials of chemical castration for sex offenders. These are all moves intended to relieve overcrowding while encouraging rehabilitation. The Owers review decries chronic systemic failure and calls for structural fixes not a stickingplaster to reverse deep-rooted dysfunction across ministries.
CONCLUSION:
Had political parties while in Government listened to the experts, the POA members who know prisons inside out, then we would not be in this mess. For every problem, however, there needs to be a remedy and a willingness from those who have failed us to admit it and remedy it with our assistance.
The UK’s prison crisis is not just a logistical challenge, it’s a profound indictment of years of fractured planning and policy contradictions. Emergency measures provide acute relief, but at the cost of justice, safety and rehabilitation. As the system teeters on the brink again by 2026, the moment demands more than reactive fixes; it needs real investment, meaningful reform, and coherent cross-government solutions. These are no longer optional, they are urgent and need to take place. The POA remains available to shape that change for future generations.
STEVE GILLAN
GENERAL SECRETARY
jones comes out swinging; is this his response to the open letter?
ReplyDeletehttps://hmiprobation.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/news/chief-inspector-announces-dynamic-inspection-of-public-protection/
"Since my appointment as Chief Inspector of Probation in March 2024, I have become increasingly concerned that probation is falling short in its duty to protect the public... Every Probation Delivery Unit I have inspected has been rated as ‘Inadequate’ or ‘Requires improvement’... People on probation deserve to be overseen by a Service which has sufficient measures in place... It is important to be clear: risk is intrinsic to the work of probation and cannot be eliminated...Once we have concluded this focused piece of work, we will resume our core adult inspections. "
Since my appointment as Chief Inspector of Probation in March 2024, I have become increasingly concerned that probation is falling short in its duty to protect the public. While we have seen some promising signs of improvement in terms of desistance and engaging people on probation, the Service is hamstrung by its public protection work. Two-thirds of the cases we have inspected so far are judged insufficient, and in some areas fewer than one in five cases we inspected met our standards.
DeleteEvery Probation Delivery Unit I have inspected has been rated as ‘Inadequate’ or ‘Requires improvement’, and I know there are thousands of committed, motivated probation practitioners who want to achieve better outcomes for the people they manage. People on probation deserve to be overseen by a Service which has sufficient measures in place and our communities deserve to feel safe in the knowledge that steps are being taken to reduce the risk of harm and safeguard victims from future crimes.
As Chief Inspector, I believe I now need to take a different, more focused approach. Therefore, from October, we will be pausing our core adult programme to undertake six months of dynamic inspection activity, focusing solely on the Service’s delivery of public protection. We will inspect all twelve regions and inspections will be accompanied by follow-up activity with strategic leaders and managers to identify what can be done to support and guide regional leaders into improving work, increasing knowledge and confidence and providing a solid foundation for further improvement.
It is important to be clear: risk is intrinsic to the work of probation and cannot be eliminated. With a caseload of 240,000 cases, it is inevitable things will sometimes go wrong. Individual probation officers cannot predict the future, nor can they be held accountable if offenders under their supervision reoffend – where the officer has taken reasonable steps to understand and mitigate that risk. However, I also firmly believe, supported by our published evidence, that improved probation practice will make the public safer and reduce harm to victims.
Once we have concluded this focused piece of work, we will resume our core adult inspections in the expectation of seeing some progress in this area by the end of our current programme.
DeleteDear Mr Martin Jones, HMIP Chief Inspector,
We’ve read your latest announcement published on 6 October 2025. Either you haven’t read our open letter, or you’ve chosen to ignore it. Because once again, you say everything except what actually matters.
You talk about “falling short in public protection” as if that’s news to anyone on the frontline. You repeat the same lines about “improvement,” “risk,” and “public safety” like a press release on loop, while ignoring what every probation officer has already told you: the system is collapsing because of how it’s managed, not because of those doing the job.
If you really want to improve probation and justice, then do better. Stop forcing probation to overpromise on risk management, public protection, and crime control. Instead, start with its training, staffing, resources and identity, the questions everyone keeps dodging.
Ask yourself what a true probation champion, Gerry McNally, once asked: “What do clients think of probation? What should probation be, a friend, an acquaintance, or an authority to be feared?” And then try to understand how Probation operates within the tension between the probation of liberty and the restriction of liberty; it cannot effectively embody both.
Think about that. Because until those truths are faced, probation will remain broken. It’s no longer qualified to be a social work agency, it shouldn’t be an extension of law enforcement, it isn’t resourced to be a welfare provider, and it’ll be a tragedy if a century-old service ends up reduced to nothing more than a tagging, monitoring, and prison-overflow management unit.
I don’t agree that “risk is intrinsic to the work of probation.” Rehabilitation is. That’s what probation is supposed to be about. But people like you, obsessed with risk, audits, ratings, and soundbites, have stripped the service of its purpose. You measure everything except what matters. You claim to “support staff” while inspecting them into the ground.
Probation isn’t failing because officers don’t understand risk. It’s failing because leadership, inspectors, and politicians don’t understand probation.
If you genuinely want to see improvement, stop dictating from above and start engaging with the people who actually keep the service running. We don’t need another inspection. We need honesty, investment, respect, and a clear purpose.
It fitting to end with the words of Mike Guilfoyle, former Probation Officer, may he Rest in Peace:
“At a time of reduced resources the Probation Service helps to reduce the harms of offending at the local level in communities blighted by crime. Probation has made a unique contribution to criminal justice and although many would argue that it has lost much by way of its traditional roots, professionalism and identity, it still merits its place at the centre of any rehabilitative revolution.”
Anon (Probation Officer)
https://probationmatters.blogspot.com/2025/09/dear-mr-jones.html?m=1
Dear Mr Jones, Part 2. Nice one and fully in agreement.
DeleteHe said the same in yesterday's video JB put out. What is clear if you watch he will do what he thinks and the lip service was just fluff on his way to power house change . Again be warned he will do it all while laughing at any challenge given what the video showed.
Deletejeez, we're spoiled for content this week:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.itv.com/news/central/2025-10-07/racism-plain-and-simple-midlands-leaders-on-jenrick-integration-comments
"Political and religious leaders in the Midlands have condemned comments made by Shadow Home Secretary Robert Jenrick that he “didn’t see another white face” during a visit to the Birmingham suburb of Handsworth."
Meet the Former Probation Officer Whose Viral Political Collages Have Become an International Symbol of Brexit... @coldwarsteve: "Robert Jenrick is a racist prick. He owns two £2m homes in London and a £1.1m manor house in Herefordshire. He ordered Mickey Mouse murals to be painted over at a children’s asylum centre - because they looked ‘too welcoming’. He illegally helped a billionaire donor to avoid paying £40m in property tax. Fuck him and his divisive shit."
I don't want to spoil the jenrick mood bash although if what is quoted above of what he claims and that might well be true what is the issue if it truth.
Delete@23:43 - would jenrick comment on the fact he didn't see a single white face on a visit somewhere? No. His 'vision of integration' is inherently racist.
Deletespeaking of cowardly racists
Deletehttps://www.aol.co.uk/news/stephen-lawrence-killer-david-norris-110152921.html
Stephen Lawrence’s killer apologises to the murdered teen’s family but explains why he won’t name accomplices - The Independent - Amy-Clare Martin = Updated Tue, 7 October 2025 at 6:05 pm BST
"Stephen Lawrence’s killer has said he is “deeply sorry” to the teenager’s family for his part in the racist murder – but has insisted he cannot name his accomplices.
David Norris told a Parole Board hearing he was “disgusted and ashamed with himself” for taking part in the 1993 stabbing, but said he and his family would be “at risk” if he divulged details of the others involved."
Badenoch says differently. On your point if what he said is true that's a fact as he sees it. Your commentary is only your opinion of why he may of said it. Objectively that's it. Instead you have concluded without putting your question to test. I think there needs to be more information before concluding as you state.
Delete