"Prison recall rates in England and Wales have reached record highs, with over 51,400 people recalled to custody in the 12 months leading to March 2026.
Key Statistics
Record Highs: Annual recalls reached 51,419, surpassing new court sentencing admissions (around 47,000) for the first time.
The Recall Rate: In early 2026, the quarterly recall rate exceeded 100%—meaning more people were pulled back into prison than were released during that window.
Reasons for Recall: Only about 21% to 22% of recalls involve a charge for further criminal offending. The vast majority are driven by technical licence breaches, such as non-compliance (9,683 in Q1 2026) or failing to keep in touch with probation (5,025 in Q1 2026)."
[Sources were variously quoted as The Times; PrisonAdvice & Care Trust; BBC; Russell Webster]
In the Red Corner: "Only about 21% to 22% of recalls involve a charge for further criminal offending... The vast majority are driven by technical licence breaches"
In the Blue Corner: " What I object to is the lazy leap from that figure to 'probation is recalling too many people'. "
And I have an answer to the question posed: "what is it within the system that has led to a much much higher use of recall as a risk management tool?" A simple four-letter word. Fear.
- Fear generated by the system to ensure the system remains intact.
- Fear perpetuated by the layers of authority who need y'all to do as you're told.
- Fear of getting it wrong (but that can also be a healthy & valuable tool in the box)
- Fear of losing your job.
- Fear of being crucified by the obedient box-tickers who can't see past their own fears.
- Fear of recognising that your expertise, your knowledge of the job, your professional judgement is worthless in the eyes of the organisation.
- Fear generated in the media
- Fear magnified by worthy groups & representative organisations
Anon
--oo00oo--
Yes, we’ve heard it all time and time again: “Probation recalls caused prison overcrowding.” It’s simply not that straightforward and the figures need to be scrutinised. Overcrowding is also about crumbling prisons, the number of people held on remand, and early-release schemes that can result in people being released at very short notice without the support they need. Those schemes can then increase the likelihood of recalls. How many women, children and foreign nationals are in prison unnecessarily?
Nobody is denying that probation can sometimes be trigger-happy when it comes to recalls. But perhaps we should ask why.. Before we even get into that, if we really don’t want recalls, there are some fairly obvious options: make people serve their full sentence, abolish post-release licences, or make probation supervision voluntary. It really is that simple.
Here’s a hypothetical example or maybe it’s real!! Three men walk into a bar one evening. A serious incident takes place and all three are arrested on suspicion.
The first is on probation after being released from prison. He has missed his last two probation appointments. He had earlier explained to his probation officer on the phone that he didn’t have the money to get to the office, and the bus tickets he had been given weren’t accepted on the bus.
The second is living in a probation hostel after being released from prison. He has missed his sign-ins since that morning. He had earlier phoned a hostel worker who emailed his probation officer to explain that he was in hospital with a minor injury.
The third was also recently released from prison. He had been arrested twice in the previous week but released without charge. He had told his probation officer that he had been wrongfully arrested.
The probation officer recalls all three men for breach of licence after they are charged with the serious incident. An SFO investigation follows.The conclusion? All three men should have been recalled before they ever stepped into the bar. The probation officer is blamed.
The investigation also finds that the probation officer should have carried out immediate home visits in all three cases and more thoroughly scrutinised the explanations by contacting the bus company, hospital and police. The probation officer explains that they are carrying a double workload. It makes no difference. They are punished.
They are given actions requiring home visits to be completed on cases, their enforcement decisions are audited for the next 12 months by an SPO who has only just completed their NQO period, they are required to meet with a QDO who has also just completed their NQO period, and following a disciplinary meeting with a PDU Head who has never actually been a probation officer, a warning is placed on their file. They challenge the warning themselves because their union representative is too busy to provide sufficient support.
Meanwhile, two of three men have the charges against them dropped. They remain in custody because they are still subject to recall. The third, the man that was staying at the probation hostel (and was in hospital), is found guilty and sentenced to time served.
People wonder why probation becomes increasingly risk-averse when it comes to recalls. When every decision is judged with hindsight, when the expectation becomes “you should have known”, and when the consequences of not recalling someone are potentially career-ending, is it really surprising that probation officers start recalling people who might otherwise have been managed safely in the community?
The problem isn’t simply that probation recalls too many people. The problem is the system that expects probation officers to do.
Yes, we’ve heard it all time and time again: “Probation recalls caused prison overcrowding.” It’s simply not that straightforward and the figures need to be scrutinised. Overcrowding is also about crumbling prisons, the number of people held on remand, and early-release schemes that can result in people being released at very short notice without the support they need. Those schemes can then increase the likelihood of recalls. How many women, children and foreign nationals are in prison unnecessarily?
Nobody is denying that probation can sometimes be trigger-happy when it comes to recalls. But perhaps we should ask why.. Before we even get into that, if we really don’t want recalls, there are some fairly obvious options: make people serve their full sentence, abolish post-release licences, or make probation supervision voluntary. It really is that simple.
Here’s a hypothetical example or maybe it’s real!! Three men walk into a bar one evening. A serious incident takes place and all three are arrested on suspicion.
The first is on probation after being released from prison. He has missed his last two probation appointments. He had earlier explained to his probation officer on the phone that he didn’t have the money to get to the office, and the bus tickets he had been given weren’t accepted on the bus.
The second is living in a probation hostel after being released from prison. He has missed his sign-ins since that morning. He had earlier phoned a hostel worker who emailed his probation officer to explain that he was in hospital with a minor injury.
The third was also recently released from prison. He had been arrested twice in the previous week but released without charge. He had told his probation officer that he had been wrongfully arrested.
The probation officer recalls all three men for breach of licence after they are charged with the serious incident. An SFO investigation follows.The conclusion? All three men should have been recalled before they ever stepped into the bar. The probation officer is blamed.
The investigation also finds that the probation officer should have carried out immediate home visits in all three cases and more thoroughly scrutinised the explanations by contacting the bus company, hospital and police. The probation officer explains that they are carrying a double workload. It makes no difference. They are punished.
They are given actions requiring home visits to be completed on cases, their enforcement decisions are audited for the next 12 months by an SPO who has only just completed their NQO period, they are required to meet with a QDO who has also just completed their NQO period, and following a disciplinary meeting with a PDU Head who has never actually been a probation officer, a warning is placed on their file. They challenge the warning themselves because their union representative is too busy to provide sufficient support.
Meanwhile, two of three men have the charges against them dropped. They remain in custody because they are still subject to recall. The third, the man that was staying at the probation hostel (and was in hospital), is found guilty and sentenced to time served.
People wonder why probation becomes increasingly risk-averse when it comes to recalls. When every decision is judged with hindsight, when the expectation becomes “you should have known”, and when the consequences of not recalling someone are potentially career-ending, is it really surprising that probation officers start recalling people who might otherwise have been managed safely in the community?
The problem isn’t simply that probation recalls too many people. The problem is the system that expects probation officers to do.
Anon
No comments:
Post a Comment