Anger Is Mounting

Just in from a contributor:-

I have read the comments on here and feel that unless the mood is represented to the government yet again probation will take the blame. Where are the unions when needed certainly not working in our interest and probably not working. Always chuckle when I see the Probation Officer/NAPO chair at the bottom of an email, the NAPO bit why? It doesn’t get you any further or any more recognition, actually it is the badge of a shirker! 

The unions should be challenging the government asking for more money for the hard working operational PO’s. Should be having a ballot, taking strike action and let all the NPS lackeys manage the cases. Hmmm the majority couldn’t do an RMP let alone interview an offender, that is why they are up the greasy pole! Yet again we are playing probation Hokey Cokey, you put the training on, take the training off, on, off, on, off, you do the Hokey Cokey and turn around here’s an SFO!

There are limited AP places, AP’s are closing, there is no housing, you can have a tent, you cannot have UC unless you fill the application on line and it’s the summer holidays and half the probation workforce are on late starts and early finishes to pick the kids up from summer activities! Is that supervisor in possession of an up to date DBS? Successive governments have not built enough prison places, so when a police officer is killed there is not enough room at the inn because you are on EDS and not mandatory life because again the woke CJS does not want bad press.

I know what, if we knock all the very high and high riskers down to medium we can pass the case on to unqualified staff and they can take the SFO hit. Never I hear you cry, oh yes is my response you must tick the box or the SPO will throw their toys out of the pram because the PDU lead has blamed them and so it goes, sh*t only runs one way and who catches the lot?

It was a bad news day today so they announced a review of work descriptions, there will be no more money because the unions are involved bowing serf like to the bosses selling the membership out. 

Roll on Friday, laptop off until Monday, whatever happens over the weekend you don’t pay me enough to give a damn. In fact as a seasoned and experienced PO I miss the meeting the punter in the cafe for breakfast, popping to the building site for a brew, a leisurely home visit on a sunny day, that was when we had a professional, advise, assist and befriend, now its let’s do 15 months, get my degree and a DBS and off I go. 

There is no loyalty as loyalty works two ways and there is no respect, you have to earn respect and frankly I don’t respect those above me all they want is the targets met no matter how and no matter what the cost whether that be a mental breakdown or resignation. 

Happy Tuesday.

Anon

The Inspector Speaks

Sentencing Act January 2026

I was pleased to see the Sentencing Act receive royal asset yesterday evening, together with the government’s reassurance that the reforms are supported by plans to rebuild the Probation Service – including investment of up to £700m over the next three years, increased ability to tag offenders, and new technology aimed at reducing administration, so staff can focus on work that reduces reoffending.

It is positive that the Act will not take effect immediately, giving the Probation Service time to prepare for the incoming changes. However, we know that some measures, including the extension of Suspended Sentence Orders and changes to Remand, will come into force in just two months, while implementation planning continues for more complex changes.

I have spoken recently about my support in principle for many elements of the Act and the opportunity it provides to transform the justice system.

However, I have been clear that there will be challenges in ensuring the gap between probation resource and the requirements of the Act are reconciled, and that difficult choices will need to be made around what to prioritise for maximum impact.

I have also warned that there is a danger of the reforms collapsing public confidence in probation unless they are implemented with great care and thought, and the right investment is made in the service in the short to medium term. Failing to address these point risks setting the service up to fail.

I look forward to continuing to work closely with the Department throughout 2026 to advise on how our inspection findings can inform next steps. In particular, I will be sharing the results of our Dynamic Inspection of Public Protection programme, which publishes its first report next week (29 January), with a focus on what improved probation practice can do to make the public safer and reduce harm to victims.

--oo00oo--

Dynamic Inspection of Public Protection in Kent, Surrey and Sussex

Chief Inspector’s judgement

This review of the Probation Service’s public protection across Kent, Surrey and Sussex revealed that, whilst there had been improvements since our last inspection, concerningly, work to keep people safe met the required standard in less than half the cases inspected for ‘assessment’ and ‘implementation and delivery’. In addition, just over half the cases met this standard for case ‘planning’ and ‘reviewing’.

The region’s public protection work had been made more challenging by large-scale national changes in response to prison overpopulation. We found that more support was needed for staff managing complex cases, particularly those involving domestic abuse, and work needed to be done to ensure consistency across all cases.

A primary concern was a lack of quality information sharing of the risks posed by individuals on probation, with probation service and police colleagues highlighting the challenges faced by both organisations to balance public protection with proportionate, compliant information sharing. We were encouraged to see work underway and resource allocated to strengthen relationships. However, there remained no centrally driven directive on what should be shared. This was a long-standing issue which continued to undermine the region’s ability to understand fully the risk posed by those they supervised. A national strategic approach to ensure consistency and compliance from both probation and partners was required to facilitate effective public protection work.

The region was affected by ongoing workforce challenges, with understaffing at both probation officer and senior probation officer grades at the time of the inspection. This inevitably affected capacity to manage demanding caseloads and risk to the public. Constraints including proximity to London, associated high costs of living, lengthy vetting procedures and limited autonomy in recruitment continued to compound these workforce pressures.

In response, the region had introduced a range of innovative strategies to optimise resources, including the use of technology and artificial intelligence, and was working to address training gaps to improve the quality of case management, despite limited resources.

While sufficient work to keep people safe was not evident in enough of the cases we inspected, following the region’s inspection in 2024, we also saw strategic progress in strengthening public protection work, improved staff accountability and engagement, and a commitment to building a culture that supported learning and psychological safety.

--oo00oo--

Inspection commentary (highlights)

Case inspections highlighted that, for both assessment and implementation and delivery, less than half the cases met the required standard to keep people safe. Planning and reviewing met the required standard in just over half the cases. There were indicators that the sufficiency of work to keep people safe was on an upward trajectory in Kent, Surrey and Sussex across all the above areas. Practitioners were completing meaningful home visits and speaking to the families and support networks of people on probation where appropriate to improve risk management. MAPPA cases (multi-agency public protection arrangements) were also managed effectively. Planning for restrictions and monitoring was generally stronger than planning for interventions and programmes to address risk. Restrictions were consistently included in plans and compliance arrangements were clear, although there was less detail on interventions that would take place to address attitudes and behaviour.

Large-scale national change and responses to prison over-population, as well as delays in sentencing, had a destabilising effect on people on probation, making public protection work in Kent, Surrey and Sussex more challenging. Those sentenced and released on the day from court, due to time served on remand, meant pre-release planning could not be delivered in a meaningful way. The increase in people on probation due to early release from custody schemes also affected the time available to set services up to meet their needs and manage their risks. Short recall periods were at risk of disrupting continuity and partner agency involvement, often leaving probation practitioners as the only consistent presence throughout the sentence.

Although Probation Reset arrangements were outside the region’s control, they had a detrimental impact on public protection work. Planned service delivery including challenging conversations or interventions were often disrupted by reset, a concern that was most pronounced in complex domestic abuse cases. Regional leaders were implementing a model to transfer all reset cases to a dedicated hub, though this process was still being refined and audited. ‘Quick guides’ outlined eligibility criteria and checklists for pre-reset tasks, with guidance focused mainly on recording and concluding processes. However, casework inspections highlighted varied and inconsistent practices in which victim and risk information was prioritised at transfer, creating a sense of instability and lack of coherence. Reset hubs were in the early stages of implementation, with communication and monitoring mechanisms already in place, though their intended effect on consistency had not yet been fully realised.

Challenges faced in managing risk to the public were compounded by long-standing staffing challenges, influenced by proximity to London and the associated high cost of living. Since the previous inspection, the percentage of qualified probation officers in post had declined, with current staffing at approximately two-thirds of the target level. There was also understaffing of senior probation officers by over 10 per cent. This inevitably affected capacity to manage demanding caseloads. The region was actively implementing measures within its control to optimise resources, such as a focus on the retention of PQiPs, where significant numbers were resigning or withdrawing. However, additional constraints, such as vetting processes and limited autonomy in recruitment, continued to complicate efforts to address these workforce pressures.

In response to continuing staffing pressures, the region had introduced a range of innovative and accountable strategies to optimise resources. These included the use of technology, artificial intelligence, and the See the Way Forward approach, which streamlined complex or duplicate processes. Sometimes tasks were reallocated, to free practitioners’ time for meaningful work, including activities that promoted public protection. The region sought to identify gaps in training by conducting training needs analyses and exploring new ways to improve this activity. The region introduced a range of activities to strengthen staff capability and support informal learning. Examples included deploying quality development officers (QDOs) to provide specialist guidance and development in key areas and implementing pod structures to promote informal learning and peer-to-peer knowledge sharing. Technology had been particularly effective, offering practitioners practical support and reassurance that solutions were being developed to alleviate workload pressures. The region was proactive in engaging in trials from central HMPPS, designed to improve the recording and accessibility of information for practitioners.

Capacity issues with APs were identified in both weeks of the inspection, compounded by lack of available bed spaces, transfers, co-working arrangements, and contingency measures that were not always effective. The region was concerned about this issue and had pursued conversations with national AP colleagues, which they felt had reached a conclusion but with no resolution. People on probation posing the highest risk of serious harm in Kent, Surrey and Sussex were often refused an AP bed due to capacity issues or placed throughout the country. This contradicted public protection principles of developing stability through support networks and resettlement.

Thought Piece 3

When there was or still is a crisis in APs because of bedspace issues and capacity, the community probation officer is then expected to administer a tedious crapshoot of housing referrals- the CAS-3 being War and Peace and the AP one following close behind with a Duty to Refer and then a CRS referral to Single Homeless Project etc. 

Since when did probation become an annex of Right Move and Purple Bricks? I haven't got time or energy to write out form after form after form to cover myself in terms of contingencies because there are too many releases and not enough bed spaces and only certain tiers of offender get priority for those spaces. Where is the planning for all this? Where is the contingency? Where are the temporary APs to deal with the increase? Where is the extra funding? Where is the accountability? It's a complete farce. I don't blame the AP or CAS-3 system- they must be beleaguered, but why put them in that position? 

Probation in the community is a miserable dumping ground for the ill-thought out policies that favour prisons that are in no great shakes themselves. We are sullied with this lack of professional respect and are a clearing house for failure of will, leadership, joined-up thinking and a lack of planning. Yes, the prisons need to reduce capacity. But if you don't just warehouse them in the first place and make sure their needs are identified and addressed rather than wait until they are in the community, we are less likely to have recalls. 

Having an offender off the books of prisons for a few weeks only to be placed back in there is just musical cells and distorts figures.There needs to be proper investment in community probation and for those officers to be given their dignity and professional acumen back and, if necessary, be able to voice concerns before release. It seems the most efficient thing prisons do, is have the POM's name removed on Delius about 5 seconds after they've left the prison gates: Not our problem, matey. Yours now. Ta! Ta! Although... the tapping of that Part A is often not a long way off.

Anon

Can Consistency live with Creativity?

In yesterday's blog post I sought to highlight how extremely difficult it is for innovation and creativity to co-exist within a command and control structure. Traditionally, these were features that made probation work so rewarding and was routinely encouraged by management. I raised the somewhat anomalous position of independent hostels, now referred to as Approved Premises and my concern for their future. The following paper by Andrew Bridges, former CPO and HMI, cogently sets out the issues I think:-    

What should the ‘independence’ of IAPs look like? 

A personal viewpoint piece by Andrew Bridges, Strategic Director, NAPA (views not necessarily shared by every NAPA Associate) 

1. Why are there independent APs (IAPs) at all? 

There are historical explanations, described elsewhere, of how ‘Approved’ homes for delinquent boys and others, run by charitable bodies, evolved over time through several changes of use into the IAPs of today. But now, in the first three decades of the 21st century, there are ‘business case’ reasons why IAPs have moved from being an anomalous relic from the past into becoming a key component of the Criminal Justice System (CJS) of England & Wales. 

This transition started once all the APs in England & Wales began to be used almost exclusively for men and women being released from prisons, a change of use that had been long overdue. Once this new usage had become established, demand for AP places began to grow. Rightly, the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) – established in 2007 – sought to ration the supply of places by restricting eligibility primarily to individuals who were assessed as being of high risk of harm to others, stipulating that the principal purpose of APs was for “public protection”. Nevertheless, the demand for AP places generally has remained high, and projections made by the MoJ still predict further future increases in demand, especially with rising pressures in the prison population overall. 

2. Why does MoJ/HMPPS now want IAPs? 

Because the MoJ is forecasting an increase in demand for AP places, HM Prison & Probation Service (HMPPS) wants to increase the number and range of them that are available at any one time. At first sight, the position looks positive, with HMPPS already directly managing c90 APs itself, besides which the dozen or so independent APs (IAPs) might seem to be making a very modest contribution. But the difficulty is with how to increase the numbers of AP places. Sometimes a few bedspaces can be added to existing premises, and this has been done sometimes, but the need to try to meet potential future demand requires new APs altogether, especially in those geographical areas where there are not enough APs – or any, in some instances.

Opening a new AP is a remarkably difficult task. Not only does there have to be a building that needs to be either purchased or built from scratch, but more importantly it has to gain the right planning permission for it to be used as an AP – and any application to house “ex-prisoners” in a local community almost always leads to a strong adverse public reaction. It is not impossible for HMPPS to establish a new AP directly itself, but in the main it is instead a much more attractive option for HMPPS to invite independent providers to bid to provide an IAP in a specified area of the country. To illustrate this point: During 2021 and 2022, HMPPS managed to open one new directly-managed AP itself (though this was replacing an existing AP), but in contrast was able to gain four new IAPs by commissioning them from independent providers.

So although there are, as ever, financial restraints, HMPPS sees APs generally as a key component in its overall task of managing and supervising individuals who have offended, and sees the IAPs as making a particularly important and valued contribution within that component. 

3. Are there other potential considerations? 

The ‘outsourcing’ of some public services can sometimes be driven by overtly ideological motivations, as was the case with rail privatisation in the 1990s, and the part-privatisation of Probation services in 2014. However, although the commissioning of services by IAPs is consistent with Conservative ideology, there is little in its history or development to suggest that ideology has been the main driver in the case of IAPs – instead it has been the pragmatic ‘business case’ outlined above. Nevertheless, within the ‘business case’ approach, when commissioning any service, the question of ‘competition’ arises, which has two potential elements: competition between potential independent providers, and competition between the independent sector overall and the public sector: 

• Competition between independent providers takes place at the stage of awarding contracts, and in the first two decades or so of the 21st century, MoJ/HMPPS has developed increasing care to ensure that contracts for any of its services are to be awarded following full and fair competition between providers, both current and potentially new providers. This process for awarding contracts is heavily regulated within Government, and in the 2020s decade it is being applied conscientiously. 

• Competition between the independent sector and the public sector, however, is rarely discussed openly at all, and probably with good reason. The lesson from prison privatisation has been that it is next to impossible to make a useful and fair comparison on primarily financial grounds between publicly managed and independently managed prisons because of factors such as the costs of public service pensions, of Crown Immunity (compared with commercial insurance), and the various capital costs, which mean overall that you will never really be ‘comparing like with like’. Although direct ‘competitions’ have been run between public and private prisons the evaluations have necessarily had to be made on a series of qualitative judgements on the information provided. Given that, in such competitions, ‘Government’ is acting as both the commissioner and as one of the competing providers, those competitions have been considered by some to be in principle unsatisfactory too. For this reason, and for the pragmatic reasons outlined further above, the question of direct competition between IAPs and the state-run sector may be unlikely to arise.

4. What does MoJ/HMPPS therefore want from the IAPs? 

Despite the many practical obstacles that make it difficult for Government to compare like with like when evaluating competitive bids, nevertheless the desire to maximise value for money for the public during times of continued financial restraint will still apply. But, for the reasons given above, a desire to drive down cost does not seem to be the main motivation for HMPPS to develop the IAP sector. The ‘business case’ for consolidating, and ideally expanding, the provision of IAPs would appear to be a pragmatic one: There is a growing demand for places, and the independent sector seems to offer a much more promising route to meeting that growth in need. 

This then leads to the key question of this paper: If the provision of AP places for individuals being released from prisons in England & Wales is to be met by a mixture of state-run and independent institutions, how far should those institutions be exactly the same as each other, or can there be differences? (and if so, what?) NB A similar issue arose with ‘public’ and ‘private’ prisons. 

As ever with a national service of any kind, there is a strong drive within HMPPS for consistency, and the reasons for this are understandable. When differences can be found between provision of any public service in different geographical parts of the country, a cry of ‘postcode lottery’ is easily raised by critics, and legal actions based on such arguments have been successful in the past. But how far should that drive for consistency go? 

One lesson that has perhaps been learned from the prison privatisation experience is that certain elements of national ‘infrastructure’ must apply to both sectors, notably the facility to allocate and manage individual cases. Standards of physical security etc need to be consistent nationally too. 

But when we focus specifically on managing residents within each local IAP there is some scope for variety that is both feasible and desirable - a mix of national consistency and local creativity. However, the problem is that although MoJ knows it wants, from its providers, some of that enterprising creativity within a high degree of national consistency, it doesn’t have a framework (or rationale, or ‘strategy’) for defining how that mix of consistency and creativity should be made up. 

Without this framework, MoJ/HMPPS goes into its ‘default mode’ of driving for consistency; it has a tendency to slide into setting increasingly detailed prescriptions about how the work should be done. The unfortunate effect of this is to ‘squeeze out’ much of the creativity that MoJ actually wants to see from IAPs. 

In short, MoJ knows that it wants a mix of consistency and creative initiative from its providers (it talks helpfully of “Social Value”), but – I argue – it does not know how to define that mix. 

5. Therefore, how should the mix between consistency and creativity be defined? 

As already indicated, this question probably needs answering under two separate sub-headings, National infrastructure, and Local delivery:

 i) National infrastructure: 

It might sound unnecessary to say it, but there does need to be a high level of consistency in the way that the IAPs function as part of the ‘national system’: standards of building security, drug testing arrangements, being part of whatever case allocation systems that HMPPS establishes, and operating the same national case management, and email/comms systems. The reason that it perhaps needs saying is that with early private prisons they were allowed to establish their own case management IT systems, which led to difficulties with maintaining case management when individual prisoners were moved between prisons and were then release on licence. This arrangement had to change. 

In the AP world, it is already the case that HMPPS acts almost as direct management when it comes to such matters of ‘national infrastructure’, including direct arrangements for providing upgraded security equipment in IAPs. To a very large extent, under this heading there is very little scope for ‘local creativity’, and therefore for good reasons ‘consistency’ is the dominant consideration.

 ii) Local delivery – work with individual IAP residents:

Here, the picture should be quite different. In principle, the answer to the question is not complicated, even though the detailed implementation requires some additional thinking-through: The principle is: 

Prescribe WHAT is to be achieved, but only Advise HOW it should be achieved: 

• The commissioner should specify, wisely, the operational outcomes – the measures of what success looks like – and Prescribe that this is WHAT it requires from its independent providers – 
• But although it might offer Advice, it should avoid prescribing HOW those outcomes should be achieved, because working with individual residents is – of course! – an individualised service. 
• For example: You commission the taxi, the destination and the agreed price, but you don’t then ‘backseat drive’ the driver through every step in the journey. 

The difficulty is in the application of this principle within the ‘messy reality’ of the AP world - indeed in Probation work generally – especially while MoJ/HMPPS continues to make a poor job of defining and managing the outcomes it wants for Probation. However, I have previously demonstrated, both in principle and in my own past practice, how the core outcomes of mainstream Probation work, the Three Purposes of Probation, can be defined, managed, implemented and even inspected. 

The Three Purposes are: Reducing Likelihood of Reoffending, Implementing the Sentence, and Containing Risk of Harm to others. I have also set out how these should be measured as outcomes (and have done so in practice myself in the past). It is difficult to operate this, but it can be done, though it requires a determined focus.

There is then the further additional challenge of trying to focus on just one, relatively ‘short’, stage in the rehabilitation journey that is being undertaken by each person on Probation, such as a period of residence in an AP. (Individuals deemed to be of High Risk of Harm to others will normally stay at an AP for no more than 12 weeks on their release from prison.) In principle there is the need to set ‘interim’ outcomes for this stage of the rehabilitation journey – i.e. achievements by the individual that will mark progress towards, or ‘stepping stones’ towards, future desistance and the other longer-term outcomes. It is these that provide the basis for the ‘WHAT’ that the commissioner needs to specify for AP work. APs make their contribution to the longer-term outcomes by enabling residents to achieve such ‘stepping stones’ of progress on their individual desistence journeys, and APs – particularly IAPs – need to be able to demonstrate that they are delivering that contribution. So, it is argued here, IAPs should be accountable for demonstrating that they are making that contribution, but there should be the scope to be creative in how they make that contribution. 

Accordingly, when MoJ/HMPPS asserts that it wants a mix of consistency and creativity from its IAPs, it is logical to argue that the consistency should be with WHAT it wants to see achieved during the period of residency, and the creativity is about the HOW it is to be achieved.

6. For example ….. 

Quality of practice: Rightly, both managers and practitioners like to talk about this. It can be defined as a key ‘Enabler’ in the process – that enables the individual to progress on his or her desistance journey. Assessment and preparation before arrival, induction and assessment after arrival, and continuing interaction during residency, all require good quality practice by IAP staff. 

Unfortunately, there has for many years now been a tendency to try to promote such Quality by issuing ever more detailed stipulations, guidances, checklists, forms and formats – all with the best of intentions – often designed by skilled current or former practitioners; but this is a mistake. These wellintended initiatives are based on the fallacy of ‘comprehensiveness’ as they endeavour to cover every eventuality. Yet a single format, such as OASys (Offender Assessment System), cannot cope with every eventuality anyway, and meanwhile it runs the great risk of becoming ‘a long form that you just have to fill in’ rather than an opportunity for the practitioner to engage with and think about the unique features of the individual they are working with. This ‘comprehensive stipulation’ approach is a classic example of Prescribing the HOW, which, as well as being time-consuming, also stifles creativity.

 Alternatively, when defining Quality of practice, it is instead possible to Prescribe the WHAT. You define what you want the individual to have experienced as a result of the interaction – i.e: the resident will have been assessed well before arriving, is inducted well on arrival, and is managed well during their stay. Doing each of these things “well” can be made more specific, e.g. For Induction, “The resident will have experienced a humane and respectful face-to-face interaction in which she/he has been made aware of her/his rights, responsibilities, constraints and opportunities while at the AP.” 

By Prescribing the WHAT instead of the HOW, skilled practitioners will undertake and write their assessments, plans and reviews in way that is focused, succinct and appropriate to the needs of the case, rather than as a series of ‘answers’ on a long form that was designed to meet some external ideal of comprehensiveness.

Staffing: In terms of staffing of any individual AP, this is also a matter for local delivery – not national infrastructure – so again it should be Prescribed in terms of WHAT is to be achieved – that residents will be in an environment which is safe, and where they are treated with respect, and are being expected to work to progress their own rehabilitation journey etc. It is not necessary or desirable to prescribe HOW the staff profile or establishment should be made up.

7. Why is this all very difficult? 

‘Drawing the line’ between the WHAT and the HOW is difficult at the best of times. It is especially difficult for the commissioning authority – MoJ/HMPPS – to do this while it remains insufficiently clear about the overall outcomes it wants from Probation work overall. While that overall strategy remains unclear at the macro level, it is not surprising when at the micro level its managers and commissioners find themselves composing increasingly detailed procedure manuals, guidance documents and forms in their efforts to stipulate how Probation work should be carried out.

It is not the purpose of this paper to set out the full case for how Probation work overall could and should be much better managed – that has been done elsewhere. But in a nutshell, a clear focus on the core Three Purposes of Probation would make it clear to Parliament and to the public what Probation work is aiming to achieve, and at the same time would provide a framework within which the various elements of the ‘Probation world’ should make their contributions towards the achievement of those Three Purposes. In the case of APs – both state-run and independent – although they generally keep a resident for no more than 12 weeks, they can still be expected to make their contribution towards that person becoming less likely to reoffend, complying with their sentence, and having their Risk of Harm to others contained and managed. When successful, a period of AP residency serves as a ‘stepping stone’ on an individual’s desistance journey. 

These ‘contributions’, or ‘stepping stones’, are difficult to define at the best of times, but when the overall strategy is insufficiently clear, then micromanagement, overprescription and setting plausiblesounding detailed objectives will seem to some to offer an attractive way of filling the vacuum, even though these can all easily stifle the individual creativity that is also wanted. That lack of strategic clarity by MoJ/HMPPS is why defining the boundary between the WHAT and the HOW, which is difficult to do anyway, has become especially difficult at the operational level. Instead, a strong focus on the Three Purposes could provide the clarity needed to enable Probation work generally to be managed with the ‘right mix’ of consistency and individual creativity.

8. Summing up: 

A commissioned service, such as an independent AP, should certainly expect to work within a centrally managed national infrastructure as it aims to achieve the outcomes that have been specified (“Prescribed”) by the commissioning authority – it should not expect to be able to decide, ‘independently’, to aim for different outcomes. However, what an IAP should be able to do – independently – is exercise its creativity in how it goes about achieving the Prescribed outcomes. Accordingly, the commissioning authority should Prescribe WHAT outcomes are to be achieved, but should do no more than Advise HOW those outcomes should be achieved. 

It is understandable that MoJ/HMPPS, the commissioning authority, finds it difficult to carry out this approach in practice because it does not yet focus clearly enough on the core Three Purposes of Probation supervision. Once that focus is reached, it will become a little easier to specify the interim outcomes – the “stepping stones” – that IAPs need to be aiming for in order to demonstrate that they are making their contribution towards making more likely the achievement of the Three Purposes. 

Andrew Bridges 

Strategic Director, National Approved Premises Association CIC 

December 2023

Is There Hope?

To be perfectly honest, I'm having trouble finding much in the way of hope right now for the future of our once gold standard and respected probation service. It's pretty clear it cannot survive as an agency for good under HMPPS and civil service control. In Clash of Cultures  I've already sought to highlight how the dead hand of government control have already conspired to throttle innovative and successful charity initiatives such as Circles of Support and Accountability and the Safer Living Foundation by witholding funding.

I worry about the future for the charity-owned and managed independent Approved Premises sector, reliant as they are upon HMPPS contracts and funding. Interestingly, I've recently become aware of one way to avoid HMPPS and MoJ completely and that is to find a wealthy and well-connected benefactor, such as Lady Edwina Grosvenor. Wikipedia confirms "She is a founder and a trustee of the charity The Clink, and founder of the charity One Small Thing. She is the sister of Hugh Grosvenor, 7th Duke of Westminster."

When you only have a few minutes with a person you can still make a difference.

One Small Thing’s vision is a justice system that can recognise, understand, and respond to trauma. Our mission is to redesign the justice system for women and their children, which has led us to open our residential community Hope Street. We also facilitate trauma-informed and gender-responsive programmes for the justice and community sectors.

Our name reflects the value of small acts – empathy, compassion, respect – and their combined power to make a big difference to the individual - and to society as a whole.

Hope Street: Frequently Asked Questions About One Small Thing 

1.What is One Small Thing and what is it trying to achieve? Hope Street is being developed by the charity One Small Thing. One Small Thing’s vision is a justice system that can recognise, understand, and respond to trauma. Our mission is to redesign the justice system for women and their children. We have three work strands: 

Redesign the way the justice system responds to women and their children in a way that can be replicated and scaled nationally. 

Educate prison residents to understand how trauma can affect them and equip them with the skills to respond; and train frontline staff to understand and respond effectively to trauma and adversity. 

Influence politicians and policy makers to encourage culture change across the justice system and the people who work within it. 

2.Who is involved? One Small Thing is a charity led by CEO Claire Hubberstey. The charity was founded by Edwina Grosvenor who is the Chair of Trustees. One Small Thing involves a number of leading advisers and experts in the area including Dr Stephanie Covington.

3.When was it set up? One Small Thing has been leading trauma informed work in the UK for eight years, and became an independent charity in 2018 (registered Charity Number 1180782). One Small Thing is a registered company limited by guarantee (Company No. 11516337). 

4.How is it funded? One Small Thing is supported by several generous funders, donors and philanthropists, and through its training offer. 

5.What is One Small Thing’s relationship with the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) and organisations like the Prison Service, the Crown Prosecution Service, the Police and other stakeholders involved in the justice system? One Small Thing is a separate and independent charity committed to working with Government and partners across the sector to make a positive difference. We work with the MoJ to support and improve the justice system and make it more effective. Through our policy and influencing work, we respond to and challenge national policy and systems where relevant. Improving the justice system requires input from a wide range of stakeholders. We work with stakeholders at all levels in pursuit of our mission to redesign the justice system for women and their children. We take a collaborative approach and recognise the benefits of multi-agency involvement.

6.What is Hope Street? One Small Thing has built Hope Street, a residential community for women and their children in Hampshire. Hope Street pilots a new approach to working with women involved in the justice system. From within a healing, trauma-informed, residential environment, women and their children have access to a range of specialist support including mental health, domestic abuse and substance use services. At Hope Street women have access to: 

• A safe, 24 hour staffed residential Hub, purpose built and specifically designed to create a trauma informed and trauma responsive environment for women and their children 
• Individually tailored programmes designed to enable women to address a wide range of issues in their lives that have resulted in them becoming involved with the justice system 
• Eleven move-on supported Hope Houses for women leaving the Hub in preparation for return to their own home 
• Ongoing outreach community-based support for women and their families once they have returned to their own home.

Hope Street is also for the local community to access a community café space and group activities. As well as the improved wellbeing of women and children, and benefits to the community, by working with women to rebuild their lives, we will also see a reduction in crime and reoffending. 

7.Why is it needed? Research has shown that 72% of women entering prison in England and Wales to serve a sentence have committed a non-violent offence They have invariably been victims of life-long neglect, abuse and disadvantage with a third having been in care as children. 60% of women receiving short prison sentences are mothers: their children then end up in care and they lose their homes.

After a short sentence, of only a few weeks, they are left with no family and no home and in a much worse situation, compounded by the trauma of prison and with little support to assist them in rebuilding their lives. A gender-specific and community-based alternative is needed if we are to create a more effective, successful and supportive pathway for women. The core and root issues addressed with a trauma informed approach ultimately means better outcomes for women and their children. Hope Street is backed by the evidence and is in line with Government policy: In June 2018, the Government’s Female Offender Strategy identified four strategic priorities: 

• fewer women entering the justice system; 
• fewer women in custody, especially on short-term sentences; 
• more women managed in the community successfully; 
• better conditions for women in custody. 

In June 2019 the Farmer Review for Women was published, and throughout the report there is huge emphasis on the urgent need to deliver a viable alternative to custody for most women who commit non-violent crimes but who invariably end up in our prison system. 

8.How is what you are providing different to the Governments planned Residential Women’s Centres (RWCs)? Plans for the Government’s Residential Women’s Centre released so far suggests it will be run by Probation and accommodate all women who would have been sentenced for 12 months or less. The provision will be short stay accommodation with a 12-week course. Hope Street is different because:

• The Government’s residential women’s centre is proposed to house women who would have gone on to receive a short custodial sentence. This misses a large group of women. Women will be able to stay at Hope Street instead of being unnecessarily sent to custody on remand prior to sentencing, if they are eligible for release from prison but this is not possible due to lack of accommodation, or so they can complete community service with somewhere safe and supportive to stay. We know 20% of women in prison are on remand3 and in July 2021 77% of women leaving the largest women’s prison in England and Wales faced homelessness.
• Hope Street will include a network of housing, Hope Houses, across Hampshire, allowing us to support many more women and over the long term rather than for just a 12 week period. 
• Services will be run by One Small Thing as an independent charity. This means that our priority can be the women we support rather than meeting any external targets. Women from minoritised groups who may have distrust of Government services, can be reassured that we are independent. By taking a positive, compassionate and trauma-informed approach, the aim is to achieve better outcomes for women, their children and society. 

9.Who is it for? Hope Street aims to be a community-based alternative to women receiving short custodial sentences, being unnecessarily imprisoned on remand or released to homelessness. Most women being sent to prison are without question some of the most disadvantaged in our society, have not committed violent offences and are not a risk to society: 

• Most women entering prison to serve a sentence (72%) have committed a nonviolent offence. 
• More women are sent to prison to serve a sentence for theft than for violence against the person, robbery, sexual offences, fraud, drugs, and motoring offences combined. 
•  51% of women were sentenced to six months and 64% of women were sentenced to 12 months or less April to June 2021.  
• More than 17,500 children were estimated to be separated from their mother by imprisonment in 2020. 
• Nearly 60% of women in prison and under community supervision in England and Wales are victims of domestic abuse. This is likely to be an underestimate because many women fear disclosing abuse.  
• Nearly half of women reported needing help with a drug problem on entry to prison—compared with nearly three in 10 men.
• Women are much more likely than men to self-harm whilst in prison. In 2020, women made up 22% of all self-harm incidents despite making up only 4% of the prison population.

10.Why Southampton? Of the 877 women arrested in Hampshire between 1 st November 2018 and 31st October 2019, 33% were from Southampton. Women from Southampton who receive a custodial sentence are sent out of area, often more than 60 miles away from their home, making it very difficult for their children and families to visit them. It therefore makes sense to prioritise Southampton as the preferred location for the Hope Street Hub because it has the greatest need. This is a significant region and it is not well-served at present, so there is an opportunity to make a positive difference. 

11.Who runs it? Hope Street is run by a team that will include a range of multi-disciplinary practitioners, colocated staff from a range of other agencies and partner organisations. The Hope Street team work closely with the council and health services as well as other voluntary sector agencies to ensure effective multi-agency working. We work in partnership with other local specialist services, to draw on their skills and expertise and to avoid duplication. We have extensively discussed our plans with both the statutory and voluntary services in the area. We deliver 1:1 support and group activities to women on Probation as part of the Hampshire Probation contract in partnership with the charity Advance and have built up strong local working partnerships through this work.

12.How do you provide for women with children? Hope Street provides family accommodation for women with their children wherever it is deemed appropriate following assessment to do so. We have flats that can accommodate women with their children at the Hub and provide play and support services for children on site. 

We know that maternal separation is traumatic for children and causes stress and trauma, which in many cases has a life-long impact. By removing the trauma of separation, the mental health and well-being of children are not put at risk. Keeping families together where it is in children’s best interests, is enshrined in UK law and is something we are proud to champion.

The offer of a safe residential option where children can continue to live with their mothers and be supported as a family will enable the courts to make better sentencing decisions and contribute to the aim of breaking the cycle of intergenerational trauma and vulnerability. 

We assess, with social services and other agencies, whether a woman who is eligible for Hope Street has dependent children who should accompany her. Subject to assessment and capacity, we will accommodate whatever number of children we need to, subject to having space, and will provide onsite childcare facilities to look after them while she is undertaking her treatment or training programmes. 

13.How many women will Hope Street support? The Hope Street Hub can accommodate up to 24 women – plus children - at any one time in shared flats. When including the network of Hope Houses, our ambition is that Hope Street Hampshire will accommodate 124 women and their children, with another 500 women accessing services on a day basis. 

14.How much will it cost? Constructing the centre has cost approximately £7.5m with around £3m per year needed to cover the operating costs across the Hope Street Hub and housing pathway. The costs were modelled on other public services and come in significantly less, for instance than a residential facility in the NHS. We estimate one year’s support to cost a quarter of what it costs to send a women to prison for 12 months. Hope Street aims to significantly reduce the overall cost to the public purse by addressing the root causes of the issues the women face, equipping them with skills and giving them an opportunity to build a new life and take a productive role in society.

15.Who is funding Hope Street? Hope Street is being made possible thanks to the generous support of our funders, major donors and philanthropists. We are in the process of securing the capital cost for the site and build plus 5 years running costs.

16.What taxpayer money is involved in building Hope Street if any? No taxpayer money is involved in the capital cost of the Hope Street Hub being established in Southampton. 

17.Where is the Hope Street Hub site? We have a site in Southampton situated in a community of other service providers and which is close to public transport.

18.What consultation have you undertaken? We have consulted with those with lived experience, members of the local and county council and local stakeholders in order to help us shape the Hope Street Hub so it can be a truly valuable community resource serving the needs of women and children affected by and at risk of trauma. The development of Hope Street has evolved over a number of years and has involved a range of experts, service providers and women with lived experience. 

19.What about neighbours directly affected? Our aim for Hope Street is that it is an asset to the local community and involve neighbours in accessing its facilities. The planning application process involved consultation with all directly affected and an invitation to submit views as part of the consultation process. We constructed the Hope Street Hub as considerately as possible and keep interested parties up to date on developments. 

20.What does the Hub look like? Who has designed it? The development of Hope Street has involved long term planning involving scoping out of the project, design principles and work on site specific design. After a thorough tendering process involving a range of local architects we appointed SNUG to work with us and in collaboration with Focus Design and Harris Bugg Studio to deliver an integrated healing environment. All have track records of collaborative and sensitive approaches. The Hope Street Hub is filled with natural light and greenery to create a calming and inspiring environment that allows for private reflection, healing and recovery as well as shared experiences. 

21.What is special or bespoke about the design? The Hope Street Hub is the first of its kind in the UK being specifically designed with women to meet the needs of women and to be trauma informed in both design and build. The design of the building is sympathetic to its locality and embodies the values of One Small Thing by promoting an environment through its design principles that enables compassion, understanding, respect, equality and justice. As a community asset, the Hope Street Hub hosts a community café and group activities such as keep fit classes

Hope Street was created along gender-specific and trauma-informed principles. This aims to recognise that the women who will be resident have experienced severe trauma, often since early childhood, and that this trauma needs to be addressed if the individual is to be able to achieve profound and long-term change to their lives. 

22. Is the Hub open? The Build is now complete and Hope Street's Official Opening by HRH The Princess of Wales took place at the end of June 2023.

A Good News Story

First Approved Premises report published

Published: 17 September 2025

The launch of our Approved Premises (APs) inspection programme comes at a pivotal point for the Probation Service. The number of places available in APs has been under pressure in recent years, and this is pressure is likely to increase following the introduction of Probation Reset, SDS40 early release scheme and the implementation of the Sentencing Review.

The national network APs is one of the least visible and least well-known corners of the criminal justice system, yet they provide essential support for people leaving prison who are assessed as a risk of serious harm. These individuals require an increased level of monitoring in the community and APs help them to rehabilitate and resettle while ensuring the public are protected during those early months back in the community.

Within our inspections of probation delivery units and regions within the Probation Service, we routinely find public protection to be an area of weakness, with insufficient work being done to keep victims and the public safe from harm. The role APs play in public protection cannot be underestimated and it is crucial that we gain some oversight into this extremely important aspect of probation work. AP staff and managers also deserve to know what they are doing well, and we believe there should be a mechanism for learning from best practice from the AP network.

Currently, APs face no accountability to the public through inspection processes to see how far they are achieving their aims. We believe people deserve to know how well the Probation Service is working to protect communities through the national network of APs.

I am delighted to announce the Southview Approved Premises, the first service inspected in the programme, has been rated ‘Outstanding’. While in our inspections of probation delivery units we routinely find concerning public protection work, at Southview our inspection team found no areas for improvement relating to public protection. Inspectors spoke enthusiastically about the leadership and staff working on the premises and I again want to congratulate them on the invaluable work they do to keep communities safe and reintegrate prison leavers back into the community.

Read the full report of Southview Approved Premises here.

Foreword

Approved premises (APs), formally known as probation hostels, play a key role in managing the risks posed by people released from prison who are deemed too complex or high risk to live independently. Until now, APs have not been subject to any form of independent scrutiny, despite the vital role they play in keeping communities safe and providing effective rehabilitation.

I am therefore delighted to announce that Southview AP – the first in our new AP inspection programme – has been rated as ‘Outstanding’.

We found strong and inspiring leadership, stable staffing, and a passionate and motivated team operating in a safe and welcoming environment within which residents felt respected and supported. As a consequence, managers and staff at Southview AP were deploying effective public protection strategies and engaging its residents in a meaningful programme of rehabilitation.

Striking a balance between protecting the public and rehabilitating people on probation, by establishing a quality relationship, is complex, and in other probation inspection programmes, we often find deficits here. It is clear that the psychologically informed planned environment (PIPE) approach embedded at Southview AP is succeeding in getting this crucial balance right.

We have identified a small number of areas for improvement which would enhance delivery at Southview even further – some of which are the responsibility of national leaders to address. In particular, the slow response to outstanding repairs and required building alterations is causing significant frustrations for staff and residents and must be addressed so as not to detract from the outstanding work being undertaken.

The team at Southview should be extremely proud of what they are achieving. I wish them well for the future.

Martin Jones CBE
HM Chief Inspector of Probation

Alternatives to Prison

The prison capacity crisis together with a new government is at last giving us the opportunity of having a grown up debate about everything, including the urgent need to look at sentencing policy. This from Rob Allen:-  

Intermediate Treatment

Not surprisingly, we’re seeing a plethora of proposals for new Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood about how to solve the prison crisis. If I was in her job, I’d be particularly attracted to the Howard League’s idea of returning responsibility for prisons and probation to the Home Office. But I think that’s unlikely and undesirable. Peter Hennessey rightly described the Home Office as the graveyard of liberal thinking since the days of Lord Sidmouth.

Most of the suggestions being floated by think tanks, charities and experts focus on reducing demand for prison places in the short term through early release. Implicit in many proposals is the notion that when the 20,000 new prison places are up and running in a few years’ time, some sort of equilibrium will be restored between supply and demand.

I’ve argued that a new way of developing policy about who should go to prison and for how long, distanced from party political competition, might reverse the sharp rises in the custodial sentencing rate and length of prison terms we’ve seen in the last 14 years.

In addition we need to diversify the range of options that can be used as alternatives to prison.

Some of these are institutional alternatives. Many people in prison should be in hospital but thresholds for transfer and waiting times are both too high. The Justice Select Committee asked then Prisons minister Ed Argar about the number of available secure hospital beds for prisoners but doesn’t seem to have received a reply. There are simply not enough.

Other prisoners could potentially be transferred to residential treatment facilities which are being expanded as part of the 10 year Drug Strategy.

Other options include hostels and other supervised accommodation. From 2019 to 2023 the Approved Premise Expansion Programme delivered 169 additional beds, including opening 4 new Independent Approved Premises (83 beds) and 51 additional beds in dedicated premises for women. But there’s a case for a much more ambitious increase in half way houses. It could be paid for by paring back the prison building plans to say 15,000.

Back in 2001, the sentencing review carried out by senior Civil Servant John Halliday recommended that the Home Office- they were responsible back then- should

“establish a review of the existing “intermediate estate” for accommodating and managing offenders in the community, with the aim of developing a strategic plan for its future use, staffing, management and development. The review should embrace all types of accommodation, whether owned by the prison or probation services, or the independent and voluntary sectors, and whether used for prisoners on temporary release; prisoners on conditional release; offenders serving community sentences; or ex-offenders receiving support voluntarily”.

I am not sure such a review was ever done – but it’s certainly needed now.

Three years after Halliday’s review, then Home Secretary David Blunkett announced that “satellite tracking technology could provide the basis for a 'prison without bars', potentially cutting prison overcrowding, and expensive accommodation”.

Progress with electronic monitoring has been chequered during the intervening years. But the review should look at whether the role its currently playing is optimal or whether it can serve to manage security risks for people placed in non-secure accommodation- what Halliday called “containment in the community”.

As well as the where of alternatives to prison, there’s a need to look at the how.

Back in 1979, I started work as a volunteer in IT- not computers (there weren’t many back then) -but Intermediate Treatment. With mixed results, I spent most of the next ten years trying to keep young people out of residential care homes, detention centres, Borstals and their institutional successors.

A generous description of the approach might be “eclectic”- camping trips, sports and drama sessions as much as counselling and groupwork. One troubled young man was placed on a ship in the Caribbean for several months, and an IT officer in a neighbouring area allegedly entered a crew into the Henley Regatta.

Quirky some of it might have been, but with relatively small caseloads, we were able to fashion a wide-ranging package of therapeutic and constructive activities for each individual which would help give them the best chance of staying at home, at school or work and out of trouble.

Of course there are resonances with the best of the approach in youth justice and even parts of probation today. There's a growing recognition that relationship based practice is a key to successful supervision and desistance from crime.

Practitioners need to have the opportunity and training to put that into practice so that more offenders can serve their sentences in the community and those that leave prison don’t go back. By enabling that to happen alongside a wider range of treatment and accommodation options, Ms Mahmood may be able not only to find a solution to the immediate crisis but chart a more positive long-term course. She will need to work with her colleagues responsible for health and local government to make it happen. Let's hope she does.

Rob Allen

--oo00oo--

This from Frances Crook 9th July:-

There has been a lot in the news about the crisis in prisons. They are full, rat infested, ridden with drugs and violence, and the most serious challenge is that they feed the crime problem thus creating more victims and mayhem in the community. This has been a problem for more than a hundred years and cannot be solved with a few quick fixes like extending early release.

There are plenty of papers from academics and voluntary organisations suggesting ways to ease the crowding in prisons that would get the issue off the front pages but I would argue that unless we want to revisit this every few years something more fundamental needs to happen.

A succession of ministers have come and gone and given speeches about making prisons work better and introducing initiatives to improve education and ‘rehabilitation’ and yet nothing has changed. Things can only get worse unless we do something radical.

It is interesting that the new government is planning to fix the front door of the NHS by diverting billions to local services. That is what needs to happen in the justice system. We should divert funding to front end services which means to probation but also to mental health, drug services and to support for housing and crime reduction. If we want to prevent crime, this is the sensible way forward. Just in the health service, the expensive use of residential services like hospitals and prisons, should be used as a last resort and the emphasis should be on the front end and prevention.

We cannot build our way out of the challenge. Building more prisons is a criminal waste of public money that embeds the problems. I have written about how new prisons simply replicate the problems of old prisons in a previous blog.

The new government has to get to grips with sentencing reform. The inflation in sentences has seen people spend many years longer in prison than before and I have never seen any research that showed that sending someone to prison for twenty instead of ten years makes them safer. Too many people are sent to prison in the first place and too many are sent to prison on remand. Big changes are required. It will take legislative bravery which is why it needs to be done in the early years of a government.

Secondly, money needs to go to probation. It deals with the majority of people convicted of a crime, either under sentence or on release from prison. It has been starved of funding and respect. Probation should be untied from the shackles of the civil service, linked to local democracy and the service given the freedom to act with professionalism.

Most importantly we need new leadership. It is depressing to hear some senior politicians repeating the tired and failed rhetoric of ‘we must build more prisons quicker (yes, I mean you Yvette Cooper) which will waste public money and embed more crime and drug addiction. New thinking, brave thinking, is needed that talks to the public as grown ups. With a massive Parliamentary majority and a crisis that is generating front page news, the new government should act with integrity and speed. It can do in the justice system what it is doing in the health system. Learn the lessons of past failures and make things better.

Frances Crook

A Pipe Dream?

Following on from the BBC Panorama AP programme, thanks go to the reader for contributing the following yesterday:-

The Panorama programme was carefully edited to show the worst of AP life. As others have said, they showed none of the rehabilitative work or reflective practice that is routine in a PIPE AP. Fleming House is one of the bigger hostels, so will have a Deputy Manager and a psychologist working there. However like all other APs, only 2 RWs working all night, trying to get curfews recorded, handovers updated, medication given out and the million little jobs that need doing. Yes, one of the residents didn't sign for his 7pm curfew, but he was in the AP, his whereabouts were known. (I'm not condoning him signing for him, but it could have been worse).

The AP manager didn't send off the tablets for testing. This is a new process, previously they would just have been disposed of. They would only really need testing if the resident was being prosecuted for them or if it was needed for proof for a recall. The programme also failed to mention the full span of control an AP manager has - all referrals, allocations, supervision of all staff, building manager, health and safety lead are just the tip of the iceberg. No workload measurement tool in APs. Oh and don't forget on call, where they may have to do a 12 hour night shift after a day's work.

The institutional appearance of the AP, along with the worst Facilities Management contract ever, means most AP buildings are unfit for purpose so staff work extra hard to make a residents stay as good as it can be. 

It's normal to let off steam in the office - no one expects to be recorded. AP staff work really hard. Where else would someone work a 12 hour shift without an official break? Men on 6 man lockdown in custody are brought to the door and left with 2 staff without a thought.

We aren't mental health practitioners but deal with residents that have serious diagnoses linked to risk. Then there's drug and alcohol testing. Vital for our duty of care, especially when giving out medication, but they stopped the instant mouth swab tests in favour of more expensive, more reliable urine tests, where you wait a week for the results. Now we can't even use those regularly due to the cost.

I could go on talking about the issues but I want to say that an AP is also one of the best places to work. You can spend meaningful time with residents and get to know some of them. Some residents have never had anyone who asked about their day or to share advice with. PPs are too busy and overworked to have time to get to know them properly and we can share valuable insights - both good and bad.

Despite everything I am proud to work at an AP and my colleagues feel the same. We may be the forgotten part of the service but that doesn't mean we don't perform our roles to our best ability.

--oo00oo--

Now we know the subject of the Panorama programme is a PIPE - and I have to say I hate this fetish civil servants have with giving everything stupid acronyms - we need to say something about them. This from Prison Reform Trust published by InsideTime is a good summary:-

We get regular calls asking us for information about ‘PIPE’ units, often after the possibility of a referral has come up in discussion with staff. PIPEs, which stands for ‘Psychologically Informed Planned Environments’, are residential environments which are specifically designed to support the progression of people with complex needs and personality related difficulties. They are part of the Offender Personality Disorder Pathway (OPDP) which is a connected set of interventions for people who are likely to meet the criteria for a diagnosis of personality disorder. It is important to note that a diagnosis of personality disorder is not required to be considered eligible for referral to a PIPE.

PIPEs are designed to have a focus on the environment in which they operate; recognising the importance and quality of relationships and interactions. They aim to maximise ordinary situations and to approach these in a psychologically informed way, paying attention to interpersonal difficulties, such as those issues that might be linked to personality disorder. Overall, PIPEs aim to improve the psychological health of participants, improve participants’ quality of relationships and relationship skills, and reduce the likelihood of reoffending.

The PIPE model incorporates some core components which are designed to support and develop individuals living and working within them. Staff working in a PIPE have additional training and clinical supervision to give them a better psychological understanding of their work. This understanding helps them to create a safer and more supportive environment, which can facilitate the development of those who live there. PIPEs will offer both ‘structured’ sessions and less formal ‘socially creative’ sessions in order to provide opportunities for relating and addressing issues that may be affecting progression through the pathway. Regular key worker sessions are also a core part of the model, providing an opportunity to coordinate and reflect upon your involvement on the PIPE, and your plans for the future.

In prison, a PIPE should be housed on a discreet unit, where influences from non-PIPE prisoners, and contact with non-PIPE trained/supported staff, is kept to a minimum. Residents may have to engage with the rest of the prison for activity such as employment or workshops but otherwise contact with non-PIPE staff/residents should be kept to a minimum to help contain and sustain the PIPE environment.

There are four different types of PIPE, each type with a different focus. Whilst some individuals do move from one type of PIPE to another, this is not always the case, or the expectation. There is not a ‘best time’ to go onto a PIPE unit as each person’s circumstances and sentence plan will be different.

Preparation: PIPEs focus on increasing motivation and readiness for the next phase of the pathway, whilst exploring any barriers there might be to treatment.

Provision: PIPEs are designed to provide a supportive environment to increase engagement with treatment activity, and support residents to actively apply skills and learning achieved through this treatment.

Progression: PIPEs are designed to support residents in consolidating and generalising their treatment gains, putting new skills into practice, and demonstrating improvements in behaviour.

In the community there are also ‘Approved Premises PIPEs’ which take a whole-premises approach to support effective community reintegration and resettlement.

At the time of writing there are 15 PIPE units in the men’s prison estate, located in category A, B & C establishments, and 3 PIPE units in the women’s estate. There is also a further 10 PIPE Approved Premises in the community, 3 of which are for women.

Individual suitability for a PIPE should be discussed with your Offender Manager, your key worker, or a psychologist in the first instance. They can then liaise with Units on your behalf and assist with the referral process.

--oo00oo--

This from 2014 was probably just aspirational:-

A guide to Psychologically Informed Planned Environments (PIPEs) 

Since 2010 the Department of Health (DH) and the National Offender Management Service (NOMS), in consultation with a team of clinicians, have jointly developed a new initiative now widely known as PIPEs, or Psychologically Informed Planned Environments. NOMS and NHS England are now in the process of commissioning PIPE services within the Criminal Justice System to support the progression of offenders with complex needs and personality related difficulties. 

PIPEs are specifically designed, contained environments where staff members have additional training to develop an increased psychological understanding of their work. This understanding enables them to create an enhanced safe and supportive environment, which can facilitate the development of those who live there. They are designed to have a particular focus on the environment in which they operate; actively recognising the importance and quality of relationships and interactions. They aim to maximise ordinary situations and to approach these in a psychologically informed way, paying attention to interpersonal difficulties, for example those issues that might be linked to personality disorder.

Approved Premises PIPE

A whole‐premises approach, focussing on a psycho‐social understanding of residents, and supporting effective community re‐integration and resettlement. PIPE Approved Premises will integrate PIPE model requirements into the core functions of the premises and aim to provide new experiences and pro‐social opportunities for its residents. The population will include a range of offenders at different stages of the pathway, for example a mix of those who have completed interventions and those who have not. The models above could be adapted to be delivered in a community setting, focussing on a specific population if required.

--oo00oo--

Letter to InsideTime 2013:-

I am an IPP prisoner that was released in December 2022 to a PIPE hostel. This meant waiting six months inside even after the Parole Board granted release.

I got to the hostel and for those that don’t know the PIPE system, it is meant to give you more support, often to those with personality disorders. I spent six months there and found it very supportive. The staff were really good. Like everything probation-related, it’s not perfect but it’s a start.

I have no family support or network and the staff, being aware of this, make it clear that when you leave the hostel to move on they are still there to support you. This gave me a bit more confidence when I moved, as I knew should I need help I could ask. However, I have now been banned by my probation officer from contacting the hostel as “when you leave, you’re supposed to move on”.

Now considering I had to wait to get into PIPE, you would think probation would know how it works and want me to make the most of the support available. No, not the case. Now, after 12 years inside and doing all those courses they insist you do about support networks and building relationships, I am sat alone in my own place seeing my probation officer for 20 minutes a week. The rest of the time I’m sitting alone, as I am not allowed to use the support network that consisted of professionals because probation says so.

So can anyone tell me the point of the PIPE, as the support it was meant to give is not allowed by the organisation that created it.

A former prisoner

Lifting the Lid on Hostels

Entirely as expected, last night's BBC Panorama programme on Fleming House Approved Premises in Kent was a tough watch. Although I've never worked in a probation hostel, I've visited many over the years and supervised many clients who have been through them. It goes without saying that such facilities are a vital element in how probation seeks to work with offenders making the transition from custody back into society, but I suspect have always been under-resourced and almost certainly, misunderstood. 

Watching the programme, with the constant reminders of 'protecting the public' ringing in my ears, I found it just served to remind me of Rob Canton's recent paper Probation as Social Work and his oft-repeated mantra that maybe the best way to protect the public is to 'advise, assist and befriend'.

Of course there was plenty of sloppy practice, administrative failure, budget constraint and possibly lack of training on display, but what about any 'work' going on with residents? Some evidence of interest in them; some constructive and supportive interactions or activity? (As an aside, in the circumstances it is unfortunate that the election announcement led to cancellation of Tuesday's Newsnight examination of sex offenders and treatment programmes because this is a vitally important area of work.)  

Clearly all the extra layers of control, monitoring, testing etc etc have changed the nature of hostels as they have become the exclusive preserve of the high and very high risk, but to be honest is it not a fruitless exercise should they appear to be losing any ability of fostering rehabilitative benefit along the way? There doesn't really seem to be much point in setting people up just to be recalled.   

The austere, institutional feel of the place hardly fostered any notion that any efforts at 'rehabilitation' would even be possible and it did rather confirm in my mind that Fleming House was directly managed rather than independent? In my experience there is a marked difference and I know there have been 'tensions' surrounding the contractual arrangements between HMPPS and the voluntary sector. 

It's very much to be hoped that the independent sector is supported and encouraged because in my experience, that is where innovation, positive role modelling, meaningful engagement and less bureaucracy is likely. Just as HMPPS and the civil service are proving to be the kiss of death to community probation, it would sadly seem to be the case with hostels as well.  

--oo00oo--

Postscript    

Panorama - Napo's Position

Many people will have watched last night’s Panorama programme and be left feeling angry, anxious, saddened and undervalued.

The footage shown was only a tiny reflection of what would have been recorded by the undercover reporter during their time at Fleming House, and so necessarily has been subject to significant editing. That said, we can’t avoid what appears in the footage to be some individuals doing and saying things that were difficult to watch, no doubt most of all for them and their immediate colleagues.

But an issue seems to be that the undercover reporter, and the production company involved in making the programme, didn’t seem to at all understand some important issues related to the nature and purpose of Approved Premises and the wider work of Probation. Also, the failings of others – such as the ‘tagging’ company involved and the Police – were attributed to us and examples of normal working practice were misunderstood and misrepresented. If Napo had been approached before the programme had been broadcast we’d have been able to help them make a better-informed programme. Instead, we got the ‘expert opinion’ of someone who, before they retired almost a decade and a half ago, spent the vast majority of their career in the Prison Service, and has no front-line Probation experience.

The pity of it is that there were so many themes that were raised by the programme that we’d completely agree with, and which we’ve been raising for years at every opportunity with Ministers, HMPPS, the media and campaigning groups. Examples of this include; the devastating impact on us and our families and friends from the impact on our mental and physical health of working in Probation; the ongoing harm caused by ‘Transforming Rehabilitation’; the impact of years of public sector cuts and the inadequate funding of Probation compared to other parts of HMPPS and the wider criminal justice system; the true nature of the work that we do and how vital it is in our communities. Unfortunately, because of the confused and misinformed approach of the programme, these could be lost and the opportunity to properly publicise these wasted, made even worse by the fact that it was by luck scheduled for broadcast on the first full day of a general election campaign.

In the coming days we will see what further response HMPPS have to this programme. Even at the earliest stage of our contact with them this week Napo have raised the issue of what appears to be an abject failure in their staff vetting processes to enable this undercover reporter to spend, by their own account, 6 weeks as an HMPPS employee. Similarly, we have questions for HMPPS over the use of covert surveillance, data protection breaches – including the naming of some residents and use of unpixellated images – and the potential for fraud that appear to have occurred in the making of this programme. Napo believe that the BBC, and the production company involved, have more serious questions to answer. Their idiotic and reckless decision to broadcast information that could help some people better avoid detection for the preparation or commission of sexual offences is completely baffling. While Panorama asked ‘Can Probation Keep Us Safe?’ there is no question that in doing this they have endangered members of the public.

As discussed, Napo has been in contact with the employer in anticipation of the programme to seek assurances from senior leaders on support offered to staff going forward as well as a full review to find out how this situation could have happened.

Please do check on your colleagues and if you have concerns speak to Napo either locally or via your National Link Officer and Official. If you or your fellow members have been impacted by this because you work at Fleming House or undertake sessional work there please contact your local Branch. Napo will provide further updates in due course.