Innocence and Risk

Clients who maintain innocence have always posed a particular challenge, and the following from InsideTime highlights some of the issues involved, particularly around 'risk':-   

My 10 probation officers cared about ‘risk’, not progress

I was on probation from 2018 until 2026. My main conclusion is that the experience you have in this bizarre process is entirely dependent on your probation officer (henceforth PO). Sadly, I had 10 different POs over these years. The focus of this female-dominated workforce is now entirely on ‘risk’, a long way from the ‘hand to hold on release’ which probation was originally set up for over 100 years ago. This ‘risk’ is monitored by something called an OASys report, which is updated after meetings.

Two of my 10 POs were men, the other eight women, and the ‘churn’ was unbelievable to witness. In prison the POs generally monitor progress and how the prisoner is doing; on the out, they are there to make sure the person they are supervising keeps on the straight and narrow. Many people on probation appreciate this oversight, recognising there is something in them that needs this kind of support. But many don’t, including those like me who maintain their innocence and don’t see the requirement for ‘rehabilitation’ or such intense scrutiny.

It is counterintuitive for POs to endlessly monitor their charges according to a risk criteria based on police or court records, when those records may have been fabricated or otherwise manipulated. This is the Probation Service ‘cleaning up’ after the individual has been put through the wringer of a broken justice system. When this purgatorial waste of time is put to the PO, their training is to say ‘We need to treat you based on the findings of the courts’ – which is the victory of Starmer-era bureaucracy over the humanistic founding principles of probation in Britain.

While nine of my POs may have been objective, care-focused professionals of the old school, I felt that one or two had a specific animus against the crime of which I had been convicted. This suspicion was confirmed when I made a Subject Access Request (SAR) for all notes about me and my case. It made for illuminating reading. While all the POs were reasonably polite to my face, any complaints I made about the system were minimised and even ridiculed in notes going back years.

Early on in my time on licence, I was offered a job as a magazine editor. The employer didn’t ask about convictions. But when I told my PO, she said I had to disclose them voluntarily. When I did, the offer was withdrawn. Just before this happened, in another early probation meeting I reported that I had been in contact with a well-known justice reform campaigner, and had done some media interviews and podcasts about my own case. The next week I had two new, extra conditions added to my licence – not to be in contact with people with certain criminal convictions (how would I be able to know that?), and not to talk in the media about my case. The reason given was that complaints had been received, but I could find no evidence of these complaints in the SAR response.

A year or so into my time on probation in the community I made a new friend via social media, who came to visit me once, staying overnight. She was splitting up with her partner at the time, and he accessed her phone while she was sleeping after she got home, investigated who I was, and reported it to probation. Without being asked, I was given another licence condition requiring me to take polygraph tests, even though I had disclosed to the friend as a matter of course (and we weren’t ‘romantic’ anyway).

I complained about this, and was then in a months-long struggle session with probation about the legality of polygraph tests – which don’t measure ‘lies’, just emotional responses. Still, other POs were excellent, professional and understanding. My time eventually came to a more peaceful, less scrutinised end.

As a result of these sanity-testing, counter-intuitive experiences, I am determined to push that people consistently maintaining innocence be released with NO licence conditions, only having them added if, after proper investigations, it can be proved that there is a real ‘risk’ factor. Because as it stands, while there are good people within probation, it suffers from a victory of bureaucracy over humanity. While people like former Prisons Minister Lord Timpson – who replied to none of my emails – may say that all cases are judged on an individual basis, probation is very much failing to ‘hold the hand’ of the released prisoner.

So, How's it Going?

There’s an enormous part of today’s story that seems to be getting lost in all the coverage about early release.

The headlines are understandably focused on how many prisoners are being released and whether probation has sufficient capacity to manage them. But 1 October isn’t simply an early-release date. A whole series of operational changes are landing in probation at the same time: OFPS, new tiering arrangements, Supervision Packages, the Progression Model, changes to licence supervision and all the processes sitting underneath them. And some of those changes create work before they create any of the capacity they are supposed to release.

Take Supervision Packages. Existing cases can now have a package tier identified, but during this transition period an OASys review is required to actually move a case into its Supervision Package and allocate the appointments. Regions are apparently being asked to prioritise particular reviews until a future digital change automatically transitions cases that haven’t already moved across.

I’m not convinced every PP yet appreciates the potential significance of that. It is very easy to hear “new tiering” and “Supervision Packages” and assume the system simply calculates something in the background. But if reviews are required during this interim period, that represents potentially significant additional practitioner activity across an already enormous existing caseload.

And an OASys review isn’t just pressing a button. If it is going to mean anything, somebody has to look properly at the case, consider what has changed, review risk and needs and make sure the assessment actually reflects the person being supervised. Otherwise we are simply generating another administratively compliant document to make the new system work.

That work lands alongside everything that was already there. Existing appointments still happen. New court orders still arrive. People continue to be released from prison. Risk changes. Safeguarding concerns emerge. Recalls happen. Enforcement happens. Assessments and reviews already due still need completing. And now practitioners have to understand and implement an entirely new architecture for supervision while doing all of it.

This is why I don’t think we’ll understand the impact of 1 October by counting how many people walk through the prison gate today. Watch what happens over the days, weeks and months that follow.

Watch caseloads as courts continue sentencing and prisons continue releasing. Watch the number of assessments and reviews practitioners are carrying. Watch how much additional work is generated simply by transitioning the existing caseload into the new arrangements. Watch what happens to appointment lengths, recording, risk work and the time available for actual supervision.

Because there is a rather extraordinary contradiction here. We are introducing changes partly on the promise that they will create probation capacity, while relying upon an already overstretched workforce to provide the additional capacity required to implement them. And once again, the question nobody seems particularly interested in answering is the most basic one:

Where are the practitioner hours supposed to come from?

That, rather than the number released on day one, may turn out to be the real story of 1 October.

*****
Even with the early release scheme there is over 80,000 people in prison. The crown Court backlog stands at over 80,000 cases too. Probation is supervising over 240,000 people. That is the equivalent of all the number of Crown Court backlog cases and the total prison population combined plus another 80,000, and there is more people going to prison through reall then are being sent there by the courts! Surely the answer is not how many can be released early from custody, but how can we get people to exit the CJS as early as possible? I think the universal imposition of post sentence supervision is one of the major contributors to the state of the CJS today. The capacity crisis is not just about prisons, it's the whole of the CJS thats bursting at the seams.

*****
Getafix raises what may be the bigger question underneath all of this. We keep talking about the prison capacity crisis as though probation exists somewhere outside it, waiting to receive whatever solution is devised. It doesn’t. Probation is part of the same system and is carrying an extraordinary volume of people in its own right.

The latest published figure is actually over 258,000 people under probation supervision. Put that alongside a prison population of more than 85,000 and a Crown Court open caseload of more than 80,000 and perhaps we need to stop talking about a prison capacity crisis and start talking about a criminal justice system capacity crisis.

And recall surely has to be part of that conversation. In January–March this year there were 13,193 licence recalls and 12,977 releases from custodial sentences. Those figures aren’t directly opposite sides of the same equation, but they illustrate the extraordinary churn now taking place between prison and the community.

So what exactly are we trying to achieve? If somebody leaves prison, enters an overstretched Probation Service, receives increasingly rationed contact, struggles with housing, drugs, mental health, relationships or whatever else brought them repeatedly into the system, breaches or deteriorates, is recalled, occupies a prison place, is released again and comes back to probation — where exactly is the saving?

We seem obsessed with finding ways of moving people around an overloaded criminal justice system rather than reducing the number of people who need to remain in it.

That is why the prevention argument matters so much. Success surely isn’t getting somebody out of prison slightly earlier so another person can occupy the bed. Nor is it keeping somebody technically compliant with probation for as long as possible. The real success is helping somebody reach the point where they no longer require prison, probation, police, courts or endless commissioned interventions at all.

And Getafix’s point about post-sentence supervision deserves proper examination in that context. If supervision is genuinely reducing reoffending and protecting the public, demonstrate it. If particular forms or lengths of supervision are instead increasing the opportunities for breach and recall without producing a corresponding rehabilitative benefit, we ought to be prepared to examine that too.

Because there is something fundamentally circular about responding to prison overcrowding by releasing people earlier into an overloaded probation system, then recalling large numbers of people back into the prisons we’re desperately trying to empty.

Perhaps the measure we should become genuinely obsessed with isn’t how quickly we can move people through the criminal justice system, but how successfully we can help them leave it.

*****
So its now just after 6pm & all I've heard on various news channels ALL DAY is "prisoners walking free", "victims are terrified", "prisoners set free by Labour", "Probation have had £700million to assist them".It's all utter bollocks. Not one report that I've heard has offered any sort of assessment, context or factual analysis - not even Casciani on the beeb, who repeated the £700million mantra, the additional numbers of staff and the amazing new hi-tech tags.

Dominic, everyone - it's all fucking lies. None of what this (or any previous) govt is saying about justice, jails or probation is in any way based in reality. It's political fluffing, prepping the public for the unholy fucking that's heading our way... "at pace", no doubt! They - the politicians & the advisers & the whitehall moneypits - haven't got a fucking clue what to do.

Bellend Norris - a man of many years experience of the justice system? No! - had the brass neck to say: "we've been preparing for this day for the last two years." BULLSHIT, you utter arse.

If only for once in their terribly comfortable lives would these wet farts slide down from their ivory chamber pots & see what's really happening, hear it, smell it... feel the fear, the despair, the pointlessness of their empty words about "seven hundred million".

Sorry for the many expletives, Jim, but today has been a calamitous shitfest of utter fuckwittery. The Grand Shafting (I liked that term, thanks) & the CRC debacle were mostly hidden from public gaze. Today's headline blog, I think, neatly sums up how the X Factor had her dabs all over the scene of so many crimes. They were NOT crimes of passion, but crimes against COMPASSION.

As an old skool PO, I'd love to know why. What was the motivation to cause so much damage & pain to so many people, particularly probation staff & those subject to supervision, but also the £billions of public funds re-directed away from public service provision & into the pockets of fatcat multinationals & their shareholders? It must have been one hell of a trauma to want to hurt so many so badly!

*****
Anyone else noticed the complete bait and switch they've done with OASys reviews? Everyone is now being expected to review their entire caseload.

*****
That comment about OASys reviews has just made my blood boil. Whether reviewing an entire caseload is the national expectation or something being interpreted differently locally almost misses the point. Why, after the endless communications, briefings, guidance, presentations, cascades and mandatory learning we have been bombarded with, are practitioners apparently still discovering the scale of what is actually expected of them on the day it goes live?

We have been absolutely drowning in information. Emails about emails. Guidance explaining guidance. PowerPoints. FAQs. E-learning. Briefings. Cascades. Yet somehow something as fundamental as the amount of reviewing required to get existing cases correctly tiered and onto the appropriate Supervision Package has not landed clearly with the people who actually have to do it. And if significant numbers of existing cases now require reviews, when exactly are we supposed to do them? Seriously. When?

The appointments are still in the diary. People still need seeing. New cases are still being allocated. Courts haven’t stopped sentencing. Prisons haven’t stopped releasing. Recalls, safeguarding, MAPPA, enforcement, risk management, home visits, referrals, recording, assessments and everything else haven’t conveniently disappeared while we implement the new model. So where are these extra hours coming from?

I am becoming genuinely furious with this constant assumption that practitioner capacity is infinitely elastic. Another requirement arrives and somehow we are simply expected to absorb it. Then another. Then another. Nothing meaningful comes off the other side. Apparently there is always another little bit of us available to squeeze. 

What are they trying to do, break us? Because I genuinely don’t know how much more people are expected to absorb before somebody at the top accepts that there are only so many hours in a working day and only so much pressure human beings can carry.

And please don’t tell us we have been “prepared”. Completing an e-learning package is not capacity. Receiving a cascade is not capacity. Reading another 30-page document is not capacity. A 98% completion rate on mandatory learning does not magically create the practitioner hours necessary to implement what people have been trained to do. That distinction seems to have been completely lost.

I can already imagine the assurance going upwards: staff briefed, tick; learning completed, tick; implementation commenced, tick; Progression Model successfully launched, tick.

Meanwhile at practitioner level the real question will be: how the hell am I supposed to do all of this as well? And this is only day one. That’s what people outside probation need to understand. The danger was never that the service would dramatically collapse at 9am on 1 October. Practitioners will do what they always do: scramble, prioritise, stay late, worry, improvise and somehow keep the plates spinning.

It’s the days, weeks and months after today that concern me. Because the courts will keep sentencing, the prisons will keep releasing, new work will keep arriving and all of this implementation work will be sitting on top of the caseloads people already had. You cannot keep solving a capacity crisis by taking more capacity from the people who have none left.

*****
Something else troubles me reading these comments. Look at what this is doing to us as a workforce. When people are under relentless pressure for long enough, empathy starts disappearing not only from the organisation but sometimes between colleagues. Someone is struggling and instead of asking what has happened to make an experienced practitioner reach this point?, it becomes well I’m managing, why aren’t they? That is a very dangerous culture for probation.

This work already asks us to carry things most people outside the job never see. We hear traumatic histories, make decisions involving risk and people’s liberty, deal with crises, worry about victims, worry about the people we supervise and occasionally go home wondering whether we’ve missed something important. There has always been pressure in probation. But there is a difference between a demanding professional job and an environment in which people are repeatedly prevented from doing that job to the standard they know it deserves. I think that’s the bit we don’t talk about enough.

It’s not simply being “too busy”. It’s knowing the home visit would be useful but having three other things that have to be done. Knowing somebody needed longer than the appointment you could give them. Knowing an assessment deserved more thought. Knowing you should chase something up and watching another urgent task land on top of it. You constantly make choices about what won’t get your time.

For people who came into probation because they actually care about doing the work well, that takes a toll of its own. And then scarcity starts turning practitioners against one another. Who has the easier caseload? Who isn’t pulling their weight? Who gets protected? Who works from home? Who leaves on time? Who is off sick? Who has managed and who hasn’t?

Meanwhile the much bigger question quietly disappears: why are highly trained professionals being placed in circumstances where doing the job properly has become something they have to fight to find time for? That’s why some of these accounts of people finally leaving and feeling an enormous weight disappear are so sad. We aren’t just losing a number from a staffing spreadsheet. We’re potentially losing experienced people who once cared enormously about this work.

A service can recruit another trainee. Replacing years of judgement, confidence, relationships, local knowledge and experience is considerably harder. And if the people who remain eventually protect themselves by caring a little less, giving a little less and emotionally detaching from what they cannot possibly fix, perhaps nobody should be surprised. You can't indefinitely run a profession on people’s goodwill and then wonder where the goodwill went.

The Discussion Goes On

Thanks to everyone for being part of it:-

I keep hearing despair from my colleagues. They don't think anyone who can make things better is either listening or bothered. It's like shouting in the wind they say. But I think the comments here are worse than that. They're actually reporting a collapse.

A workforce that’s carried the service through every crisis is now breaking. HMIP says the system is failing, staff are being injured, and leadership looks out of touch. Security gadgets won’t fix a service that’s haemorrhaging experience and hope. If ministers don’t rebuild probation :- retaining experience, real support for staff and real autonomy, then more violence, more burnout and more avoidable tragedies are inevitable. This is the warning — ignore it at your own risk.

******

Senior Management need to stop dressing this up as strain, transition or reform. Probation is in visible systemic failure, and the continued silence from those with the power to intervene now amounts to state negligence.

This is not a blanket attack on all managers. Many are trapped in the same machinery of impossible demands, reputational risk management and political cowardice. But that reality does not excuse the fact that harm is being absorbed at the bottom while truth is filtered out before it ever reaches the top.

We now have a workforce showing every recognised marker of institutional collapse: widespread moral injury, extreme sickness absence, and accelerating loss of experienced staff. That is not a resilience issue. That is a system issuing a distress signal, and it is being deliberately ignored.

At the same time, practitioners are being loaded with rising legal exposure, personal risk and expanding security functions such as searches, enforcement and control, without corresponding pay, status, authority or protection. This is not professional development. It is unmanaged role expansion with catastrophic consequences.

The contradiction at the heart of probation is now openly acknowledged while being actively sustained. Rehabilitation is still invoked in language, but containment, optics and political defensibility dominate in practice. That tension is being paid for daily by the workforce and by those under supervision.

And above all of this sits a political class that simply rotates through office while doing nothing to stabilise probation, nothing to rebuild professional sustainability, and nothing to confront the consequences of keeping it permanently tethered to a failing prison system. When Justice Secretaries can preside over this level of deterioration without consequence, the dysfunction is no longer individual. It is structural.

Unions, too, must be challenged here. Representation that documents harm without forcing structural change becomes part of the containment strategy rather than a barrier to it. When only practitioners are making noise, one conclusion becomes unavoidable: the human cost is being treated as administratively acceptable. You cannot hollow out a workforce through sickness, burnout and attrition, load it with coercive power, and still pretend public protection is being strengthened. This is not reform. This is managed collapse.

******

We have been pointed in the direction of the view from the other side of the table. This from Inside Time:-

Outside Voices: This system is broken

The National Probation Service is the government department responsible for ‘managing offenders’ in custody and the community, with an annual budget of £1.5 billion.

When I say ‘managing’ I use this term loosely, as effective management models are collaborative and subject to independent review. What I should say is, the government department responsible for dictating to offenders in custody and the community, an organisation which self-polices and often blames someone else when things go wrong. (Great model for prisoners, right?)

In over a decade of engagement with the Probation Service, I have seen the good, the bad, and the institutionally inept. There are, of course, good people within probation working hard in a broken system to make a difference. Here comes the ‘but’: in my experience, they are not the majority. I’ve had at least 14 probation officers, and I can honestly say that only three were genuinely there to make a difference. The rest were concerned with doing the bare minimum, with a pure indifference to the consequences of their actions. Hardly a surprise, when the system is so broken it will take anyone into its employ and call them a professional.

I’ve seen the 12 editions of my copy-and-pasted OASys reports produce over-inflated risk scores, affecting my chances of recategorisation, sentence progression, and parole, and resulting in excessively restrictive licence conditions. Probation officers change every year or two, so offenders have little consistency, and are constantly having to re-explain their lives. How is a professional and rehabilitative relationship supposed to be fostered and maintained under such circumstances?

As if to evidence my point, only last month, two weeks prior to my (cancelled) parole hearing, my most recent community offender manager (COM) told me “I think I’ve used out-of-date information and over-inflated your risk.” This same COM put in writing in my parole dossier that she wanted my (non-operational, civilian) prison offender manager (POM) to carry out “direct surveillance” on who I associate with, and “search my cell and my mail”, while accusing me of having “organised crime gang” links – all without any evidence to justify this. This resulted in my POM contacting my COM to say that what had been requested would be unlawful, and the prison would not do it.

This is the reality faced by many offenders in a broken system that is hidden from the public – underfunded, under-resourced, and understaffed. It helps no-one and is dangerous. It is not a mere topic of debate – it is our lives, our futures, our day-to-day. Probation needs investment, transparency, and collaboration – not lack of accountability, neglect, and political point-scoring.

V Lynch the Auditor is the pen name of a serving prisoner

******

What is described here is exactly what system collapse looks like on the ground: churn, inflated risk, copy-paste OASys, unlawful requests, and life-changing decisions being taken on rotten data. There is no denying that poor practice and indifference exist, but what this testimony exposes is not just individual failure. It is institutional design failure. High turnover, defensive risk culture, political pressure and chronic understaffing manufacture the very behaviour described here.

This is also why Reset, Impact and the wider sentencing reforms being sold as “supporting staff to manage caseloads” are, frankly, a joke. They do not reduce demand. They redistribute risk. For staff, that means legal responsibility without the time or relational control to manage it safely. For people on probation, it means shrinking support under expanding surveillance and an ever-present threat of recall. That is not workload management. It is liability management.

For those under supervision, this translates into control without consistency, restriction without stability, and liberty shaped by administrative fear rather than truth. For staff, it deepens moral injury, professional erosion and burnout. Both are being harmed by the same structural failures. This is not an outlier account. It is a warning about what this system now produces as standard.

******

I've been listening to the Reith lectures and was struck by the following from number 3 repeated on Radio 4 last night. This from the transcript:-

Crises were central to Friedman's thinking. In the preface of his masterpiece Capitalism and Freedom from 1982, he wrote words that became a neoliberal mantra. I think it's worth quoting them in full. "Only a crisis," Friedman wrote, "actual or perceived, produces real change. When that crisis occurs, the actions that are taken depend on the ideas that are lying around. That, I believe, is our basic function, to develop alternatives to existing policies, to keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes the politically inevitable."

And this from the questions section:-

IAIN WHYTE: I'm a Scottish Conservative councillor here in Edinburgh, so I'm probably one of your sceptics in the room, Rutger. I see a public sector that's spending all our money at the moment. We've got tax rates at the highest they've ever been in peacetime, as a share of GDP. We've got huge public spending. We've got a fifth of the working-age population in the UK not working. What is it that makes you feel that human nature won't get in the way of utopia?

RUTGER BREGMAN: Sure. Well, two things. One, yes, if you look at the whole share of GDP, the size of the public sector has grown. My point is that that is a good thing, and that is to be expected because of the Baumol effect. Because government is mostly responsible for things like education and healthcare, that are just much harder to make more efficient. Actually, if you make a doctor or a nurse more efficient, often you're destroying the very quality of — or the very point of, what they're doing. As I said, one hour of real human attention is not something you can easily automate. So that's one important thing. The second important thing is that, actually, the government is often doing the more meaningful work as well. So I talked about the phenomenon of BS jobs. It turns out that, according to a recent large-scale study, actually there are three times as many BS jobs in the private sector as in the public sector.

IAIN WHYTE: My concern is that I see a public sector here in Scotland where people are essentially working for themselves or within the system. And it's not really serving the public as the priority. Often, the way our trade unions and others work, they work for the workers in the system, or the middle managers work to ensure an easy life, your BS jobs, rather than making sure the front line is actually helping the public. 

RUTGER BREGMAN: So that is a concern that I share. What we've seen since the '70s, as tax rates for the rich have been going down, is that a lot of the most talented people have been going not to government or academia or NGOs, but instead to big tech companies, big finance, big pharma companies, where often they contribute much less to society. So I'm really interested in the allocation of talent. And I think we've got to find ways to make government great again, to make it the coolest place. Like the Fabian Society was one of the coolest places you could be, to really convince our best and brightest that to work for the public, for the public good, is the most prestigious and most meaningful thing you can do with your whole career.

My emphasis - it's absolutely what I felt in 1985 at the start of my probation career.

*******

This came in over night:-

A Plan for a Probation Service Recovery

So here’s my starter for ten. It's not perfect - but then I'm not paid to think:

1. Rebuild Purpose Before Performance
Probation has been pushed so far into metrics that the mission has blurred. The service needs a restated purpose — written with, not imposed on, frontline staff. A modern charter of practice. A commitment that professional judgement is not a nuisance but the core skill the public depends on. And a recognition that autonomy isn’t a luxury; it’s what keeps people safe.

2. Stabilise the Workforce
Nothing changes until caseloads change. That means enforceable caps, emergency relief teams, and a three-year recovery plan that focuses on retention, recruitment, protected training time and genuine psychological safety. If staff can’t speak up without fear, the system can’t learn.

3. End the Command-and-Control Reflex
The prison-service mindset has seeped deep: obey, don’t question, deliver the target at all costs. Flatten the hierarchy. Retrain leaders to coach rather than dictate. Protect whistleblowing. And start valuing managers who listen, not those who silence.

4. Stop Pretending Prison Expansion Is Progress
If building thousands of new cells is your headline achievement, you’ve admitted failure. Probation’s recovery depends on shifting investment away from incarceration and into community supports: women’s centres, young-adult interventions, housing partnerships, restorative options. More prison is not more safety — it’s more of the same mistakes.

5. Put Communities Back in the Frame
Recreate regional probation boards that involve courts, local authorities, voluntary organisations and people with lived experience. Give regions power to commission what their communities actually need, not what a template says they should want. Make probation visible again — not as a bureaucratic shadow, but as a neighbour, partner and problem-solver. I’m that desperate I’m even starting to think putting probation under the regional Mayors might be a good idea (accepting that some of them will likely be Reform).

6. Cut Bureaucracy Before It Cuts Us
Review every mandatory form, template and process. Scrap what doesn’t directly improve safety or rehabilitation. Fix the digital mess so staff aren’t duplicating work across systems. Free the time that has been swallowed by audits and command emails.

7. Put the Evidence Back in Charge
Create an independent evidence centre, insulated from political heat. Require proper research reviews before new policies land. Bring back research roles inside the service so staff can innovate and evaluate rather than firefight and hope.

8. Repair the Bond With the Courts
Courts need to see probation again — in person, not at the other end of a duty line. That means embedding staff in courtrooms, restoring time for proper pre-sentence reports, and rebuilding a shared sense of justice between judiciary and probation.

9. Real Accountability, Not Empty Praise
Inspections shouldn’t applaud leadership while delivery collapses. Create transparent oversight of senior leaders. Publish meaningful data on staffing, caseloads, reoffending and SFO learning. Stop blaming practitioners for structural failure.

10. Build a Long-Term Political Settlement
Probation cannot survive policy lurches driven by headlines. A cross-party Probation Futures Commission could secure a 10-year settlement — stable funding, evidenced direction, and annual parliamentary scrutiny. The public deserves a service built on safety, not soundbites.

********

But 'Getafix makes a very valid point about dispensing with some of the pointless work completely:-

Probation provides a very damaging environment for those employed in the service. However, for many of those subjected to supervision it's just as painful and damaging. In many cases supervision become counter productive. I refer particularly to the 12mth and under cohort that were ensnared by TR. There is really nothing probation can do for this group, and since TR they have only found themselves on the merry go round of perpetual release and recall. For this group post sentence supervision is akin to a community based IPP sentence. They represent a significant proportion of the 3000 recalls every month, swelling the prison population, and creating perpetual churn for both prisons and probation, only to be released again a few weeks later, ofen homeless, but certainly to the same circumstances, with the added complexities have having to jump through the same hoops as they've previously tackled with regard to registering for housing, benefit claims etc, etc.

The reality is it's costing a lot of money and resource to create unnecessary problems. The 12mth and under group need to be removed from automatic post sentence supervision. It's the last part of TR that hasn't been reversed. I'm in total agreement with anon [above], but I do wonder if its only 'practitioners making noise' now? There has been two very serious assaults on staff with weapons very recently, and it's a sobering and very serious and concerning thought, but perhaps those being supervised are starting to make noise too?

*******

You’re absolutely right about the TR cohort. It became a recall factory and a community-based IPP in all but name, and everyone in power knew it. Yes, automatic post-sentence supervision is now being rolled back, but only after years of human churn, wasted millions and swelling prison numbers. And you’re also right that the noise is no longer only coming from practitioners. When people on probation start making it too, through crisis, resistance or violence, that is the system speaking through those it is failing.

What replaces post-sentence supervision is not less control. It is more community supervision, more licence conditions, more tagging and more enforcement under a different badge. If probation continues to operate as the soft arm of the prison service, these reforms will not ease caseload pressure, they will not restore morale, and they will not reduce harm for the people trapped inside the system.

Reset and Impact sit squarely inside this problem. They are being sold as intelligent prioritisation, but what they really represent is the formal withdrawal of meaningful supervision in response to workforce collapse. For staff, they become another performance demand layered onto exhaustion and moral injury. For people on probation, they mean being left under legal control with minimal support, then recalled when predictably things unravel. That is not rehabilitation. It is managed risk disposal.

Rolling back one failed mechanism while entrenching surveillance, enforcement and withdrawal of support simply redistributes the same damage across a wider population and calls it reform. All that changes now is the branding of the machinery that breaks both staff and those supervised.

*******

Everyone wants someone else to fix the problem. It's someone else's duty, responsibility for this shit but it isn't mine. I'm at the coalface and I'm suffering. You keep on wearing it, keep on accepting it, then frankly you deserve what you have. If you don't resist, you're complicit.

*******

The idea that probation is collapsing because frontline staff “don’t resist enough” is a comforting fiction. It lets the people with real power off the hook. This system is not failing because practitioners lack courage, it is failing because those with the authority to change direction have chosen, repeatedly, not to. The architecture crushes dissent, absorbs challenge and punishes anyone who dares to stick their head above the parapet. Calling that “complicity” is not analysis. It is victim-blaming dressed up as toughness.

And yes, Napo’s inaction deserves anger. But the real question isn’t where the union’s spine went, it’s why a government department can preside over a decade of workforce collapse, moral injury, violence, burnout, recalls, unlawful practice and public-safety risk without being forced to answer for any of it. That isn’t a “spine” problem. That’s a power problem.

Meanwhile, Reset, Impact and the sentencing reforms are being sold as relief for staff, but they exist for one reason, which is to compensate for a government that has gutted the service to the point where it can no longer deliver its own mandate. They don’t reduce caseloads; they ration supervision. They don’t support people on probation; they strip away the little support that remains. They don’t help practitioners; they expose them.

So if we’re going to talk about who “deserves what they get,” let’s be honest. It isn’t the frontline workforce. It’s the political leadership and senior machinery that built, defended and doubled-down on a model that everyone can now see collapsing in real time. If blame is going to land anywhere, it should land where the power sits and not on the people already carrying the consequences.

Contribution Selection

There's an awful lot going on in the criminal justice world at the moment with crises in most parts of our criminal justice systems and particularly the probation and prison service's. As a consequence, I'm particularly heartened by what appears to be the fairly recent re-energisation of our readers and contributors. It's re-energised me and I'd like to thank you all! Here's my recent pick:- 

Tone deaf doesn’t even begin to cover it. The MoJ and HMPPS simply don’t listen to their staff. The people designing policies and making the big decisions are so far removed from the frontline it’s almost laughable. My head in hands in despair I’ve just watched the news about deporting foreign national prisoners, electronic tags, and ‘tougher’ unpaid work, all to achieve the only thing they seem to care about: reducing prison overcrowding. They have no insight into the causes of offending and imprisonment. Just as with the all these probation officer recruitment campaigns peppered with young white middle-class female graduates claiming to ‘make a difference’ or represent diverse communities, it’s so out of touch they might as well rip up the half-baked, back-of-a-fag-packet blueprints, wait for ChatGPT-5, and just do what the computer says. Forget waiting for “probation leaders” to say anything above the parapet.

All we ever ask for is simple: fairer pay, better access to support services for the ‘PiPs’ and ‘PoPs’, legislation to make it happen, give probation some credibility instead of running it into the ground as an overflow tank for the prison service, and to stop being forced into pointless, performance-driven, civil service tick-box practices that don’t work.

There’s been a lot on here recently about staff-led initiatives and recommendations, but the reality is stark no matter what we think, feel or say. I came across this comment on one of the recent Napo articles by a fellow probation officer, and it sums it up where we are perfectly.

“…it will likely be overlooked by probation services, HMPPS, and much of the academic establishment.”

******

I’ve got nothing against white, middle-class females or graduates training as POs, but we do need a broader range of backgrounds, experiences, and skills. Right now, everyone tends to look and think the same. At 26, fresh out of university, how much real insight can most have into offending or the causes of crime? Selling probation as a “career protecting the public while supporting rehabilitation” doesn’t help either, it’s vague to the point of meaning very little.

******

The only positive of being a civil servant is that you can transfer across to another department relatively easily. Have a look on Civil Service Jobs for example. Better pay, work only contracted hours, proper meal breaks etc. Goodwill is dead, it is a one way street. Look after yourself and get out!

******

All I can see happening from these proposals is the recall rate rocketing, which will hardly ease the pressures on the prison population. There is just TOO MANY PEOPLE being shoved through the probation service. Increasing the probation capacity is not going to reduce the prison population. The focus needs to be about how best remove people from the criminal justice revolving door system, and not looking at how best to accommodate them within it.

******

And that’s exactly why they need to listen to the right people, whether the focus is on getting people out of the criminal justice revolving door, finding better ways to accommodate them within it, or preventing them from entering it in the first place.

I’m sick to death of seeing people who haven’t been near a probation office or held a caseload in years, if ever, dictating, designing, and inspecting what probation does. It’s demoralising for those that are there every day, making them feel frustrated and inadequate.

Many are proud to be probation officers, working daily alongside those on probation, with colleagues and services in every imaginable context. Real probation work. Real challenges.

Those delivering day in, day out deserve support, not endless criticism or the constant barrage of being done to. They don’t need people far removed from the frontline endlessly telling them what to do, constantly rewriting the rules, and never once genuinely asking for, let alone using, the insight of those actually doing the job.

Probation officers are all aiming for the same thing: helping people change for the better, overcome struggles, and live offence-free lives. It should be a network of encouragement and collaboration, not a hierarchy of managers and ministers in their ivory towers, academics in their cosy libraries, think-tanks detached from reality, or even certain ex-offenders with lived experience who’d rather take shots at probation officers than try to understand what’s really happening.

Because in the end, experience on the ground matters just as much as what’s on paper. I remember when probation was full of people who had a voice and spoke for probation, some were legendary, challenging senior management and ministers alike. Until we get back to that, until we have a less demoralised or docile workforce, until we have genuine leaders who know what probation is, or should be, until those in charge truly listen to the frontline, then nothing will really change. Because if we did, much of these policies wouldn’t pass quality control.

*****

A couple of observations if I may, first the inclusion of sex offenders is very sensible as that cohort has one of the lowest recividism rates. You can't see past your own prejudices when it comes to SO's and using them to appeal to public sympathy just stokes that prejudice further.

Second, the rate of recalls, which have reached absurd levels, was always going to come back to bite your backsides. The fact that you use tools to assess risk that by your own admission are all but useless suggests probation got many of those decisions wrong, the majority of them in fact.

I don't blame probation for this per se, it's on the politicians wanting to appear 'tuff on crime innit' but I also accept some will have abused that power because some always will.

*****

As a VLO I absolutely share these concerns. I’ve got 5 repeat DA perpetrators due out on 2nd September - they are SFOs waiting to happen. Victims have been extremely hard hit with all the chaos over the past 18 months with all the emphasis on reducing the prison population. I’ve never known a worse time.

With the proposals to immediately remove FNOs, there will be further upset, anger, devastation, and disillusionment in the CJS. Victims, quite rightly, expect offenders to serve their punishment in prison when a custodial sentence is passed. They’re often upset enough all ready with the current arrangements where they can be released early, back to their own countries as free men/women. This can include rapists, child abuses and death by dangerous driving. I don’t think the public have any understanding that deported offenders don’t typically serve their punishment/remainder of their sentences in their home country. Changing the legislation to allow immediate deportation is a huge slap in the face for victims, having gone through the stress and upset of a police investigation and court process - all the told that their offender will simply be returned home. I can’t help but feel that this new legislation will leave the door wide open for FNOs to come to this country with the intention of offending, knowing that IF they are caught they’re just likely to be put on a flight home.

The MoJ has completely lost all sight of putting victims at the heart of the CJS.

*****

It has been a some years since I last visited Probation Matters Blogspot. I was a regular contributor back when Probation had been largely privatised, a mistake of such enormity I am surprised noone has ever really been held to account. Some points to touch upon that struck me from reading some of the comments. OASys still an issue. Pay still an issue. Prison overcrowding still an issue. Probation workloads still an issue. Diversity and background of Probation staff still an issue. And so on. It really was better in the past as I remember, particularly protected workloads. There was a time when OASys was imagined as a tool to help probation professionals and not something that consumed an unsustainable and huge amount of time such that it almost became the job itself. 

Regards pay, it looks to me that Probation pay suffered a supercharged level of austerity measure and then some. The political ramping up of tough on crime message, always popular when looking to garner some votes, is now being supercharged by new kids on the block Reform. Other parties will follow and prison population and early release schemes will doubtless increase accordingly. Regards professional diversity, I became a Trainee Probation Officer, a rare male recruit, around the millennium without a first degree just bags of committment and some ability. I was ever grateful for the opportunity and did not disappoint, by my own say I did some very good work in MY local community. Keep on keeping on battling for your profession, it really matters. All the best.

Guest Blog 100

Probation Past but not Forgotten 

Just to be upfront with my readers this blog is focussed upon the use and development of Business Processes and Computer Systems within the National Probation Service (NPS) and then a Community Rehabilitation Company (CRC) being based upon my working experiences from 2006 to 2016. I am not a qualified Probation Officer. But I have a long career prior to joining probation in the private sector in Business and Computer systems. First employed in 2006 within the NPS West Midland Trust, Learning and Development Unit, Selly Oak, Birmingham as a Business Support Training Officer. 

Then I jointly supported the Learning and Development Unit and the Central Birmingham based Business Transformation Unit (BTU) initially supporting the System Testing and Implementation of Delius. Then in 2013 I was appointed as a Transformation Administration Manager within the Birmingham based Business Transformation Unit (BTU). I was then transferred to a CRC in 2014 before being made redundant in 2016. 

I cannot blog on the current (2024) HM Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) since I have been outside the Probation Service since 2016. So essentially it is more of a historical record but the effort to write it is based upon me wanting to communicate on “a lessons learnt” basis that may influence and benefit those currently working within the HMPPS. It is also an historical record of the events I experienced at the NPS and then CRC.

So why start blogging on Probation after 8 years outside of the service?

When I was at Probation, like many others, I followed Jim Brown daily since he was telling the “truth” particularly through the blitzkrieg period of change. But over the last 8 years I have only on rare occasions popped onto his blog to see how things are going at Probation, now the HMPPS. So having done one of my normal LinkedIn posts that covered a bit about Probation, I was surprised to get a personal message to call him. Which I did and we had a brief chat on Monday 23/09/24. He asked me if I had any more relevant contributions. I explained that obviously all my experiences are now from the 2006 – 2016 period so lacking relevance to HMPPS in 2024. 

Then it occurred to both of us during our conversation that those experiences might help those trying to sort out HMPPS today. I explained that particularly my NPS experience, not my CRC experience, was a very positive part of my career, particularly in respect of the people with whom I worked. Whilst my experience of the Business Systems and Computer Systems was just the opposite. But I had started in 2006 with the best intentions of improving both of these aspects and to be perfectly frank, after 10 years of hard motivated work, I achieved nothing. I don’t know another part of my career where it was so difficult to influence and effect change to Business Processes and Computer Systems. So if any contribution on here could help those now within the HMPPS family achieve these changes now, I wouldn’t feel my 10 years was such a waste of effort. My commitment can only be a positive and constructive one since I don’t do negative or political.

So I walked out of the Probation Offices in Central Birmingham for the last time on the 3rd July 2016, having been disposed of by Reducing Reoffending Partnership (RRP), a Community Rehabilitation Company (CRC) that was now trying to run the Probation Private Services for Derbyshire, Leicestershire, Nottinghamshire, Rutland, Staffordshire and the West Midlands. I was deemed redundant and my services were no longer required. Not the best of timing for them or me. In their case with me having a long career prior to Probation in Business Systems design and implementation in the Private Sector, they needed me and others like me more than ever with the chaos now being unleashed. Instead they were dependant on the ”all knowing” but “knowing nothing” highly paid consultant swarms now descended on Probation. Many just out of university but deemed chargeable to the Ministry of Justice no doubt with a cashback into the RRP coffers. But it also has to be acknowledged that there were some very smart experienced consultants with some clearly wanting to support our side of how we wanted change implemented. That is carefully and progressively.

These consultants actually listened and didn’t just feedback but actively joined us in trying to get some constructive steer on the changes themselves and the rate of change being planned. They also took some risks within their own Consultant Management Companies, who had won the lucrative change management contracts from the MoJ, in supporting our side of the story. But unfortunately they weren’t listened to either, so blitzkrieg commenced at pace.

The tide of change from Government and the MoJ was too strong and too fast for all of us to contain or control it. They had enforced a blitzkrieg approach to changing Probation. Probation had established its fundamental principles over 100 years and these were already being improved upon as a result of the Carter Report, by a Probation Officer, and its implementation through the 2006 to 2010 period. Things were improving in a Japanese style of incremental improvements like the national use of a new Offender Management System called Delius and access to the Police ViSOR System. 

Although OASys was in most need of re-engineering it was not on the to do list. Probation had never faced a blitzkrieg Government attack before and it was very ill prepared to counter it. Other Government Departments, particularly our own HM Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) never came in with any support since whilst we were under attack they could standby, avoiding being attacked themselves. Needless to say HM Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) was also being attacked under austerity principles with many local court closures impacting the application of good and tried local justice principles. The blitzkrieg approach funded by the Government threw money at the private sector to establish the principles of probation moving to the private sector in the form of the CRC’s. So I was transferred to a CRC.

We CRC staff, being ex- NPS staff, were now considered only eligible to be treated with a sort of private sector employment status. Essentially exiled out into the wilderness. With no doubt their planned lowering of pay rates to reflect our drop in both economic and social status. Yes I was now employed by a new lowly entity in the Government MoJ come Probation hierarchy, which was soon to be dropped a peg down on bloc below the unit with the lock and keys the Prisons which were to upstage Probation in the political hierarchy creating the illogical HMPPS.

NPS Induction Training in West Midland taught the hierarchy where the Courts were the very top, supported by the Probation Service with the Prisons as a service locking them up as punishment and to protect the public. Whilst the Carter Report rightly recommended the Prison’s rightly focussed on rehabilitation whilst in a custody setting. Training Prison Officers on Rehabilitation Practices, we were always amazed at how enthusiastic they were about acquiring these new skills and looking forward to applying them within their prison settings. Just the locking up although critical was very boring and contributing to prisoners futures much more rewarding. Probation was a highly respected Court Service which has been that way almost from the beginnings of Probation as detailed in the Probation of Offenders Act 1907. Totally integrated into the Court System allowing them to administer justice and protect the public. Probation was a service geographically distributed in the community operating in support of the Courts as a Court Service.

So that was it. Probation was over for me. I had tried very hard with many other like minded and motivated people to get the Probation Business Processes into a better state. We even organised a group of Trusts covering London, Devon and Cornwall, Nottinghamshire, Staffordshire, South Yorkshire and the West Midland to establish a common National Business Standards System on the TIBCO Nimbus business mapping product we all had installed and were using daily. Although we tried we got little support from the MoJ in terms of this initiative which was in fact seeded from the bottom of the organisation upwards. Never the right way to get something established. 

The West Midlands had already led on Business Change with its Modelling District Projects but it was only when we combined with the Staffordshire Trust that we gained access to their more advanced use of TIBCO Nimbus which we quickly adopted. Obviously other Trusts had quite independently taken to using TIBCO Nimbus no doubt being targeted by the TIBCO sales force. Whilst we had some MoJ meetings in London where they were impressed by our TIBCO Nimbus efforts, it was never formally adopted and was not included in any MoJ Directives to the Trusts.

I suspect many in Probation may not even be aware of this TIBCO Nimbus initiative taking place in some Trusts. Even within the TIBCO Nimbus active Trusts their own staff were not always aware of its purpose and presence. Not being a subject included in any National Probation Communications for many using it was not seen as a priority. There was certainly no national sign off of the TIBCO Nimbus Business Processes thereby not making them the de facto way of working for everybody. It was a mess. Had it been better established it may have helped us better deflect some of the blitzkrieg attack on our undocumented working practices. We really had nothing concrete or national to defend ourselves with in respect of standardised business processes. With no defences it was inevitable we would lose the battle.

But the one last stand I took supported by my Business Process Design colleague along with surprisingly an RRP Consultant, was to try and convince the Reducing Reoffending Partnership Board to use our Business Processes already mapped in TIBCO Nimbus as a basis for building the new business models brought about by the creation of the CRC’s It made so much sense. This proposal to the RRP CRC Board was dated the 9th July 2015 and I still have a copy I can share on here in the future. I also initiated a brilliant commercial negotiation with TIBCO to virtually have free use of Nimbus for a period to get it established. What was there not to like. But the proposal got rejected by the RRP CRC Board.

The TIBCO Nimbus Servers were torn out of their server racking and sent for scrap. Somewhere I have photos of them lying on the scrap pile representing many years of process design and data entry work. Then beyond belief they started a Business Process Mapping Project to go around collecting all the information again from relevant Probation staff groups and then re mapping it all in Microsoft Visio a product considered very unfriendly for everyday business users being more aligned with the needs of IT Staff.

So to the end of my story at Probation with the CRC RRP making me redundant on 3rd July 2016. Exactly 1 year after our TIBCO Nimbus proposal to the RRP CRC Board had been rejected. My work Nimbus colleague was kept on to continue but without having TIBCO Nimbus and having to return to using Microsoft Visio the objective of installing business systems onto all employee desk tops where they would be used daily by the service was now impossible. My Nimbus work colleague soon left since Business Process Planning was not a priority in the midst of all the firefighting now required to maintain some sort of Probation Service.

Now just to complete the conversation I had with Jim Brown. He said write me a “taster” and I will see if I want to link to it. This is that taster. But included in it is a early High Level Flowchart for use in the West Midlands that I produced way back to illustrate the importance of having a holistic view of all the Business Systems.

The truth is I have many other resources that are now dated like all the original TIBCO Nimbus Process Maps extracted in a PowerPoint format. Along with various other methodologies and techniques we developed and used like iPresentation and iProcess along with Work Instructions. In fact lots of my historic bits and pieces accumulated over 10 years at Probation that may possibly interest probation staff historically or maybe in some cases prove worth reusing today in the HMPPS.

But to be effective though what Probation needs is what my last American Company had which was what they called its own university (Pollak University). In fact it wasn’t a University in our sense of the use of the word meaning a verified academic learning institution. But it was where all product knowledge, manufacturing knowledge, research knowledge, business processes knowledge and computer systems knowledge was documented, co-ordinated, researched and communicated. It had dedicated librarianship, research and training capabilities. Research papers could be submitted and reviewed and so forth. Essentially a “one stop” place for all knowledge and processes within the business entity. So they called it a University. 

Now if this blog got to the MoJ and it triggered them to setup up a “Probation University” that would justify all the 10 years I spent and enjoyed at the National Probation Service. The first thing that needs researching, documenting and standardising and communicating is all the Business Processes. This is about adopting an ideology that Probation can have a common set of Business Processes applied right across all geographical and business areas. To make it happen it needs a champion in this ideology and that champion being in a position at the top with the powers to implement it. There is an argument that computer systems in the future will have built into them workflow principles and this has been accelerated by the AI developments. But until these systems are developed and made available it is vital that all Business Processes are standardised and documented in a user friendly way.

Some may consider the Probation Institute established in 2014 could act like the Probation University I have proposed. My view is it should definitely form part of the Probation University. But a concern might be that once it became MoJ financed would it as a "membership" financed organisation have its independence compromised. I don't see it this way. The membership of the Probation Institute are working at the front line of the Service and their constructive contribution is vital and should be within the proposed Probation University framework. 

But the scope of the Probation University is much larger than that of the Probation Institute. The Probation University defines and drives the operational activities of Probation both staff and systems. I appreciate it's a much used cliche to suggest we should all operate like Amazon and some strong views exist suggesting you cannot apply their methods of effectively shipping goods to essentially the practice of a social science. All I would just say is let an Amazon IT system designer with their keystroke counting audit techniques and workflow engineering skills redesign OASys. The time we waste on OASys could then be spent with our clients (Do we call them clients or offenders these days?) doing our social science best practices more effectively.

Within the Probation University the study of Social and Behavioural Sciences should far exceed the focus on Business and Computer Systems. They are our prime activity. It is what we do working with our clients. So Psychology, Sociology, Anthropology and Criminology along with an endless list of other subjects that need to be included within the Probation University framework. If this blog post achieved the setting up of a Probation University whilst I am now outside the organisation it would be amazing since I could never achieve it whilst working within the organisation.

Now to share with you a High Level Offender Management Vertical Workflow Map which is now 12 years old covering Offender Management Process Flows (circa 2012) within the Staffordshire and West Midlands Probation Trust. I am sure this could be edited in less than a few hours to accurately represent current HMPPS Probation Business Processes since I suspect much of the supporting documentation (paperwork) has remained unchanged. Although the computer record updating may have changed. I just don't know. Maybe it is a starting point to commencing Business Workflow and Process Mapping. Certainly Indeterminate Prison Sentencing has changed with the removal of IPP's by coincidence in 2012 (As usual just after the map was drawn !!!!) although their removal was from memory not retrospective. If it generates any interest I have another High Level Horizontal Workflow Map I can share showing the relationships between all those parties linked to Probation once again somewhat dated but easily updated. 

Enjoy, 

Banno

Link to High Level Map below.

Once launched use the normal "pinch-to-zoom" gesture to zoom in and zoom out of the PDF to read the small print.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Pw4dIYts48SVHQxhE1iKxl5r6eil4RJE/view?usp=sharing

PSR Lament

Over the years we've covered this subject a number of times and once again it's become the focus of attention with a recent HMI report revealing that:-  

• Less than half of all inspected court reports were deemed to be sufficiently analytical and personalised to the individual, supporting the court’s decision making.

• There were notable differences in quality between the types of court report. Oral reports met the overall quality judgement in only four out of 10 cases, short format reports in half of the cases, and standard delivery reports in more than six out of 10 cases. 

• Court reports for those individuals from a Black, Asian or minority ethnicity background were less likely to be deemed sufficiently analytical and personalised, supporting the court’s decision making.

Right from the introduction the HMI report proudly confirms:-

The provision of pre-sentence reports (PSRs) has been a key part of the Probation Service’s work since its very earliest days, providing advice and information to help judges and magistrates decide upon the appropriate sentences for those appearing before the courts. The importance of this work has been highlighted as follows: 

‘it can be argued that the provision of reports for the courts is – in some ways – the most significant task. Pre-sentence reports (PSRs) are the primary point of contact for sentencers, who are the main customers for probation work.’ (Mair, 2016).

so it might come as some surprise to many that over the last 20 years or so all manner of interventions and policies have conspired to downgrade the task, marginalise it within the criminal justice system and make the task as difficult and unwieldy as possible. Once a key part of every field Probation Officers role and often informed by their extensive knowledge of a person's offending history, the task is now performed by dedicated court-based staff with limited time and no prior knowledge beyond that possibly gleaned from crap IT systems such as OASys.

Oh and this again as outlined in the HMI report put a tin hat on the whole thing:-

Over the last decade, under the Transforming Summary Justice and Better Case Management efficiency programmes, and in line with long-standing efforts to reduce the length of the court process, there has been a move away from the more thorough and detailed standard delivery reports (with their typical turnaround of up to 15 working days) and towards fast delivery reports, first towards oral reports (which can often be delivered on the day of request or within 24 hours) and later to short format written reports (turnaround time of around five working days). Following concerns about the numbers of people being sentenced without any form of PSR, there has most recently been a focus on reversing this downward trend, particularly for cases where a community order was most likely; in 2014, 85 per cent of community orders had involved a PSR, which had reduced to 45 per cent by 2019. Research shows that, at least for community sentences, completion of the sentence is more likely when a PSR has been requested and provided than where it has not (Ministry of Justice, 2023).  

Very much late in the day it now seems that dots are being belatedly joined up and realisation dawning that much of the mess we now find ourselves in is a direct result of having so successfully done away with a vital element of probation's work in informing sensible sentencing decisions. But it's all too late as the damage has been done by the absurdity of moving skilled PO staff into prisons under OMiC, thus breaking down the local knowledge base and de-skilling PO staff in the field who now struggle with the whole report writing concept and task.

In my view this HMI aspiration will not improve the situation one bit:-

The measures set out in the 2021 Target Operating Model for probation services aim to increase both the number of cases that receive PSRs and the quality of those reports, leading to increased sentencer confidence in the probation service and potentially helping to reverse the recent decline in the use of accredited programmes (HM Inspectorate of Probation, 2024). High-quality PSRs also have a positive impact in terms of supporting well-informed, analytical, and personalised post-sentence assessment and sentence planning, which is the starting point of the well-established and recognised ASPIRE model for case supervision.

Probation practitioners working in courts now use the Effective Proposal Framework (EPF) digital tool to ensure that ‘interventions recommendations and licence conditions address risk and need, are in line with policy and sentencing guidelines and supports consistency of practice, proportionality and the reduction of bias’ (HM Prison & Probation Service, 2021). The EPF tool contains a list of all available interventions and their eligibility criteria. Court officers can input the details of the individual before the court, such as risk levels, gender, age, geographical location and offence details, and the EPF provides a shortlist of interventions that are suitable and available to that individual.

Just more alphabet soup bloody processes and tools to add to an endless list of them, but failing utterly to understand and get to grips with fundamental flaws that now inhabit all aspects of probation work that have made it part of the problem and not any part of a solution. The new Labour Government promised a wide-ranging 'Probation Review' in their election manifesto and they'd better bloody get on with it before there's nothing much left of a once proud gold standard profession worth saving. 

At this point can I flag up the following quote from a blog from a former Probation Officer now working for Revolving Doors:-

As a former probation officer myself, I can say that probation officers took a real pride in these reports, and sentencers were immensely grateful for them. The other benefit was that if the person received a community order and was supervised by the probation officer that wrote the report, there was already a level of trust and good faith between them which helped set up a purposeful relationship which made meaningful work more likely.

I wholeheartedly agree! The blog continues:-

Failed reforms and increased time pressures

However, reforms aimed at expediting criminal case resolutions and improving efficiency, including initiatives like Transforming Summary Justice, promoted an increase in pre-sentence reports with quicker turnaround times. This shift led to a decline in the use of standard delivery reports, which typically take up to 15 working days, in favour of fast delivery reports, which take around five days, and oral reports, often completed on the same day or within 24 hours.

The problem with oral and fast delivery reports is that the interview happens over a very short period of time: often within the court building, with maybe just 20 minutes to spare and with the officer under pressure either to get back to the court and deliver the oral report, or to get to another person also waiting for their interview.

Under such circumstances it is not surprising that the officer is not able to build a relationship with the interviewee that allows them to extract the same level of information and so the assessment is less detailed and so, in our view, holds less validity.

The irony of this move towards speed is that it has happened in the context of mass court backlogs, meaning cases take longer than ever before. The rush to sentence is in contrast to the glacial progress of cases through the system.

Impact on the revolving door group

In 2022 we published the Probation Inquiry, exploring the experiences of those in the revolving door on probation, including in relation to court reports. Many people reflected on how rushed their interview felt, and how disappointed they were with the process.

However, others reported it as a transformative experience, where they had been able to disclose things they had never felt comfortable to before, including domestic abuse experiences, and others reported the report resulting to them finally getting them the interventions they needed. We think this demonstrates that report interviews need to be done over a good length of time – with opportunity for both parties to build a rapport.

It is worth noting that the Inspectorate also reported that Court reports for those individuals from a Black, Asian or minority ethnicity background were less likely to be deemed sufficiently analytical and personalised, supporting the court’s decision making. It is our belief that short interviews do not allow for nuanced discussions around cultural and racial issues within the interview, disadvantaging those who already face discrimination within the justice system and society more broadly.

We believe the reduction in longform standard delivery pre-sentence reports has significantly contributed to the decline in the use of community orders by sentencers, with these decreasing by more than half (54%) between 2012 and 2022.

Reports no longer offer strong enough analysis as to why a specific community sentence will be so rehabilitative. This is just one of the reasons why we believe that the decline in standard delivery reports has significantly disadvantaged those in the revolving door group, whose offending is driven by unmet health and social needs.

Presenting for sentencing without the opportunity for previous convictions and former failed sentences to be contextualised seems more likely to end in a custodial sentence in our already calamitously overcrowded prisons, rather than with the targeted, rehabilitative non-custodial support our group so desperately need.

Return to more thorough PSRs to break the cycle

The findings of the Inspectorate’s report underscore the critical need for high-quality, detailed pre-sentence reports to support effective sentencing.

The shift towards faster, less comprehensive reports has unfortunately compromised the ability of sentencers to make fully informed decisions, particularly for those with complex needs, such as individuals struggling with substance use or mental health issues.

This trend not only undermines the goal of rehabilitation but also disproportionately impacts those who are already vulnerable, perpetuating the cycle of crisis and crime.

To break this cycle, it is imperative that we advocate for a return to thorough, personalised pre sentence reports that truly inform sentencing decisions and promote more equitable outcomes for all.

Kelly Grehan
Policy Manager

Guest Blog 96

Reflections 2

I thought I would offer an update regarding my employment. My leaving the service approx 3 years ago was published anonymously as Guest Blog 84 in November 2021. 

I took early retirement after 21 years as a probation officer (in 2021). however I then worked elsewhere for approx 18 months. My old senior and the chief then persuaded me that my experience was sadly missed and asked if I would return on a part time basis? The promise of a mentoring role, guiding inexperienced and newly qualified officers whilst supporting my old team was, I thought, an opportunity to return to the work I once loved.

I have now achieved 15 months back in post as a part time PO, my case load currently sits at 170% capacity (workload management tool). I am told what to do by numerous SPO’s who all have differing agendas. I have had no refresher training and yet the way OASys is now written bears no resemblance to how I was trained. I am micro managed in every aspect of the role and told all decisions regarding enforcement, breach, recall, transfers, amendments and warnings etc ‘must’ have management oversight. 

The team is short staffed and cannot fill vacancies. I am told my role will change ‘when’ the vacancies are filled. People are now being directed to work at my office and sickness absence has reached new highs. Morale is lower than I have ever seen.

I am told that in order to complete mandatory training as part of the CBF framework I should now undertake that work as overtime! If I don’t, I simply won’t get my incremental pay rise! Under the current circumstances I have now tendered my resignation. I have undertaken an exit interview and was asked if I wanted more time to think about my decision (twice). I was then asked to defer my decision for a couple of months! (declined). 

The Service is broken beyond repair. The core skills of a professional Probation Officer are no longer required or desired. Good performance is measured in OASys timeliness and constant management oversight. The development of effective and meaningful relationships with offenders is no longer encouraged or required.

Prisons are at capacity, early release is now common place, PSS licence is on the cusp of being ditched, IPP sentences are being revoked due to the lack of capacity rather than the effectiveness of risk management. When it all goes wrong and the inevitable SFO’s start to occur, it will be the hapless ineffectual and over worked Probation Officer who will be thrown under the bus!

I am done, I give in, this Gold Star Service is no more. I have become a square peg that could never fit the shapeshifting demands of the HMPPS. Hope this helps the cause.

Best wishes,

Anon

--oo00oo--

Have something to say? Want space to reflect? Want to get something off your chest, but anonymously? Why not hit the keyboard and send it in for publishing? jimbrown51@virginmedia.com  

Another Graphic Illustration of Failings

With quite astonishing testimony coming in on the state of probation, including cocaine use and 90% of the job being work on the laptop, one cannot escape the conclusion that fundamental restructuring cannot be far off. As the latest SFO review from the new HM Chief Inspector confirms, the present state of affairs is untenable. Here's the press release:-  

Independent serious further offence review of Joshua Jacques

Background:

On 25 April 2022 police forced entry to a property in Bermondsey, London, where the bodies of Denton Burke (aged 68), Dolet Hill (aged 64), Tanysha (Raquel) Ofori-Akuffo (aged 45), and Samantha Drummonds (aged 27) were found. All four victims had suffered stab wounds and lacerations. Joshua Jacques was charged with these murders.

In June 2022, the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State asked the Chief Inspector of Probation to undertake an independent review into how the Probation Service managed Joshua Jacques, as he was under probation supervision when he was arrested for these offences. This review was completed in November 2022 and can now be published following the completion of criminal proceedings.

Statement:

Chief Inspector of Probation Martin Jones CBE stated:

“There were serious failings in the supervision of Joshua Jacques. Despite concerns about repeated non-compliance with his licence conditions, enforcement practice was inconsistent and opportunities to recall Jacques to custody were missed.

“Joshua Jacques was incorrectly allocated to a newly qualified probation officer who had only finished their training three months before being assigned the case. Under guidelines by HM Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS), Jacques should have been allocated to an experienced, qualified probation officer. The probation practitioners in this case lacked the required experience to respond adequately to the complexity of the case. The management oversight of the probation practitioners involved in this case was also insufficient. Probation staff reported a lack of confidence in decisions made by their line manager, contributing to a reluctance to seek out further management oversight.

“There was a lack of professional curiosity in all areas of probation practice in this case. This meant several events, such as an arrest for further offences, disclosure of declining mental health, problematic behaviour towards neighbours, a new relationship, and the unpermitted use of social media, were not responded to or explored sufficiently.

“Joshua Jacques was appropriately assessed as posing a high risk of serious harm to the public prior to his release from custody. However, his risk in other categories, including to staff or potential partners was underestimated. No risk assessment was completed for Jacques following his release which resulted in no risk management plan or sentence plan in the community being completed.

“Probation practitioners were aware of Jacques’ mental health history, including that he had been sectioned in 2018 and that he had behaved violently during a period when his mental health was not stable. Jacques had also reported that random aggression could be a symptom of declining mental health. In February 2022, Jacques disclosed to probation court staff that he was experiencing a decline in his mental health; however, no action was taken. Inspectors found during this review that probation staff felt ill equipped to understand and respond to mental health concerns, with limited training and support being available to them.

“The case records show that Jacques was routinely using cannabis whilst on probation, and his licence contained a condition to engage in a drug abuse intervention on release from prison. No such intervention was organised by the Probation Service and our inspection found no evidence of a referral to a drugs agency.

“Sadly, this case is symptomatic of the issues we have observed across the probation service in recent years. A reliance on an inexperienced cohort of probation staff, a lack of support for mental health and substance misuse issues alongside insufficient management oversight are concerns which have been highlighted repeatedly. As a result of this review, eight recommendations were made to HMPPS. They have accepted all these recommendations and responded with an action plan for implementing them.”

The following extracts are from the full report and although lengthy, give a graphic illustration of the fundamental flaws in how the probation service as simply not fit for purpose as part of HMPPS and under civil service control.  

1. Foreword 

In April 2022, Joshua Jacques was charged with the murders of a family of four: Denton Burke, Dolet Hill, Tanysha Ofori-Akuffo, and Samantha Drummonds. On 21 December 2023 he was found guilty of murder following trial. 

Joshua Jacques was under probation supervision when he was arrested for these offences, having been released from prison on licence in November 2021. Ordinarily, the Probation Service would conduct a review of the management of the case, in the form of a Serious Further Offence (SFO) review. In this case, the Secretary of State for Justice asked HM Inspectorate of Probation to complete an independent review into how the Probation Service managed Joshua Jacques. 

The impact of these shocking crimes cannot be underestimated and will have had a profound impact on their family and the wider community. We offer our sincere and heartfelt condolences and recognise that the family need information about how Joshua Jacques was supervised in the community and answers as to whether there were failings in this practice.

This report presents the findings of our independent review and sets out that the practice in this case fell below the expected standards. 

As a result of recent recruitment drives and of experienced staff leaving the Probation Service, many probation teams now have large numbers of newly qualified officers (NQO) or recently qualified officers. In the Southwark Probation Delivery Unit (PDU), this situation impacted on the level of experience in the teams available to manage high risk and complex cases, something our core inspections have also routinely found. 

We found Joshua Jacques’ case was incorrectly allocated to an NQO, and the lack of good quality management oversight of this member of staff impacted on the quality of decisions made. There was a notable absence of professional curiosity1 across all areas of probation practice from court through to sentence management, and a failure of the probation practitioners overseeing the case and their manager to meet fully their expected responsibilities. As a result, several significant events, such as an arrest for further offences, disclosure of declining mental health, problematic behaviour towards neighbours, a new relationship and use of social media when not permitted to do so, were not responded to sufficiently. 

While appropriate referrals were made to Multi Agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA) and to Approved Premises (AP) by the probation practitioner, these critical elements of increased supervision did not fulfil their potential in supporting the management of risk of serious harm posed by Joshua Jacques. An initial OASys assessment was not completed upon his release, which meant that his management in the community was not supported by a robust risk management plan, nor a sentence plan to inform his supervision on licence. The pace and level of engagement of Joshua Jacques with his licence was seemingly determined by him, rather than the probation practitioners, who viewed his engagement and progress too optimistically.

There were concerns Joshua Jacques was not complying with the conditions of his licence and, though this happened repeatedly, they were each dealt with in isolation. Practitioners did not see the bigger picture and missed opportunities to respond sufficiently to his concerning behaviours, for example through a recall to prison. 

Many of the findings of this review mirror those of our thematic and regional probation inspections. This review makes eight recommendations to His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service which we require implementation of as a matter of urgency to ensure learning is implemented quickly and nationally, not just in the PDU where this case was supervised.

Martin Jones CBE 

HM Chief Inspector of Probation

5. Summary of Key findings 

JJ’s supervision was characterised by several practice deficits and missed opportunities which impacted on how JJ was managed on licence. Nine key themes identified from the independent review are outlined below. 

Risk of serious harm assessment 

In custody, two OASys assessments were completed which concluded that JJ posed a high risk of serious harm to the public, specifically identifying the public to be drug users and peers operating in drug supply. This was an appropriate assessment, however it failed to identify all factors that were linked to the risk of serious harm such as his mental health, substance misuse and current accommodation. JJ was assessed as posing a low risk of serious harm in all other categories, which was an underestimation of the level of risk he posed. 

An initial OASys assessment was commenced upon release, however, this was never fully completed and remained an incomplete document. This was poor practice and was not in line with organisational expectations. 

The failure to complete an OASys assessment on release resulted in no assessment of risk of serious harm and no risk management plan in the community to inform how the risk posed should be safely managed while on licence. Additionally, there were no sentence plan objectives to support and inform the supervision appointments, which should have been targeted to address those factors most likely to contribute towards further offending. Further reviewing did not take place following MAPPA meetings, nor in response to changes of circumstances and significant events. Completing a review would have enabled the probation practitioner to consider the significance of new information, and review the sentence and risk management plans accordingly, to ensure the necessary arrangements were in place to protect the public. 

The pre-sentence report prepared for court, and the OASys completed following sentence to the suspended sentence order, both replicated the pre-release assessment and did not take the opportunity to consider all available information to support an updated and holistic assessment. 

MAPPA meetings considered the level of risk of serious harm posed by JJ; however, this did not negate the need for an OASys assessment to be completed. This is essential probation practice to ensure that the management of each case is supported by a robust and defensible assessment of risk of serious harm and need. In the absence of a formal assessment using the OASys tool, inspectors would have expected to see other evidence of assessment and planning within case management records. However, there were no such records to satisfy us that a clear understanding of how to manage the risks posed were in place. 

Professional curiosity and optimism bias 

PO1 and PO2 put a strong focus on addressing JJ’s needs, such as accommodation and employment. Though these were important factors and progress was made, the supervision sessions were not underpinned by a sentence plan and there was no evidence of interventions which focused on offender behaviour being delivered. Inspectors found that this strong emphasis on relationship building and addressing JJ’s needs was not balanced against the need to manage risk of serious harm. 

Probation practitioners viewed JJ’s behaviour on licence through an over optimistic lens and did not fully understand the expectations on them to be professionally curious and proactive. As a result, they did not adequately explore issues such as why he had purchased a vehicle, or his problematic behaviour in his accommodation and they failed to inform police of a second breach of the criminal behaviour order (CBO). 

These skills of professional curiosity grow and develop with practitioner confidence and experience, and with the effective support and oversight from peers and managers. There was a lack of experience within the probation practitioner staff group at Southwark PDU and lack of robust management oversight further contributed to this. Where a workforce has limited experience, they need guidance from those with a more established level of knowledge to provide support and oversight to aid their development. 

Enforcement 

Good probation practice seeks to motivate people on probation to comply and engage positively with the requirements of their sentence. While this should include a focus on desistance from further offending, it should also include appropriate enforcement action being taken when required. Instances of non-compliance should be responded to in a proportionate, fair, and transparent manner.

Enforcement practice in this case was inconsistent, with instances of non-compliance considered in isolation rather than seen in the round. Opportunities to escalate and consult with the delivery unit head (HOS1) were not sought. There was a failure to act upon a pre-release assessment that identified that swift enforcement of the CBO and licence were required to manage the risk of serious harm posed by JJ. Enforcement guidance issued in October 2021 was not followed. Our inspectors felt the decision not to recall JJ following his arrest for further offences was defensible. However, in making the decision, senior manager oversight should have been sought by SPO1 and the failure to do so was against expected practice. The enforcement practice in this case did not analyse the behaviour being displayed by JJ, nor did it explore whether additional supportive or restrictive measures short of recall were needed to manage his licence. 

Resourcing and workload 

Southwark PDU had been operating under ‘green’ status under the national prioritising probation framework but had several vacancies, particularly at probation officer and probation service officer grade. Many staff within the PDU were at early stages of their career and there were limited numbers of experienced staff available. The probation practitioners in this case lacked the required experience to respond adequately to the complexity of the case and behaviours being presented. In addition, the pace and volume of work impacted on the quality of work undertaken in this case. 

HMPPS’s Tiering framework and case allocation guidance was not followed, and JJ’s case should have been allocated to a more experienced probation practitioner. The allocated probation practitioner in this case was within their newly qualified probation officer (NQO) period and in allocating the case, the SPO should have been assured that PO1 had the required knowledge, skill, and experience to manage the case effectively. JJ’s tier increased following the initial MAPPA meeting and this should have prompted re-allocation of practitioner in line with the expected practice for NQOs. 

Management oversight 

Management oversight was of an insufficient standard. Staff reported a lack of confidence in decisions made by their line manager, contributing to a reluctance to seek out further management oversight. When sought, decisions made by the probation practitioners would generally be approved without the necessary discussion or scrutiny needed to ensure that the most appropriate course of action was being taken. Opportunities to escalate to HOS1 were also missed. 

Similar to the findings from the Inspectorate’s broader local inspection programme, the workload, and responsibilities of line managers in this Probation Delivery Unit were found to be concerning. SPOs were managing large teams and were expected to provide support and oversight of their staff and manage human resource issues, as well as provide oversight and scrutiny of each probation practitioner’s caseload. SPOs also have additional lead responsibilities, such as MAPPA, which impact on their ability to perform their role to the expected standards. 

Inspectors also found insufficient processes in place to manage staff absence. PO1 was absent from work for a period of three months. While during this time PO2 had maintained contact with JJ on their own initiative, the process for caseload reallocation during an absence was not clear, which resulted in a lack of clear ownership of this case and many of PO1’s other cases during this period. 

Multi Agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA) 

JJ’s index offence (the last set of criminal actions that brought him into contact with the criminal justice system) meant that he was not automatically eligible for management under multi agency public protection arrangements (MAPPA). Therefore, it was good practice for JJ to have been referred to MAPPA as a Level 2, Category 3 case. However, there was insufficient evidence that this MAPPA referral positively impacted upon the management of the case. 

The MAPPA referral for JJ was completed late, only one month prior to release. To allow effective coordination this should have been done six months prior. In recognition of the complexity of the case and imminency of need, it was positive to see that JJ was listed promptly for discussion once he had been referred. However, the initial delay in referral resulted in little time for MAPPA to effectively contribute to the pre-release planning, with PO1 having already set licence conditions with the prison, without a contribution from the MAPPA panel. 

The minutes from each of the four the MAPPA meetings held to discuss JJ were of an insufficient standard, providing limited evidence that partner agencies were active in supporting the management of risk of serious harm he presented. 

There were missed opportunities for meaningful actions to be set in response to new information, and a lack of oversight of outstanding actions. JJ was de-registered from MAPPA oversight without an adequate rationale, whilst two actions which had already been carried forward remained outstanding. 

Approved Premises 

The Approved Premises (AP) placement was an opportunity to positively contribute to the management of JJ’s risk of serious harm. Key work sessions were held by AP staff which were appropriately focused, with structured sessions on the immediate needs of JJ; exploring issues such as registration with a GP, finance, and education, training, and employment (ETE), which supported his resettlement into the community. However, professional curiosity was not applied during AP staff interactions with JJ. There is no evidence that there was sufficient exploration of his behaviour and movements, which would have aided the probation practitioner’s understanding of how JJ was spending his time away from the AP. 

AP staff should play a significant role, both in providing relevant risk information to the probation practitioner and in contributing to effective risk management. It is essential that they understand the risk of serious harm presented, are actively involved in the delivery of the risk management plan and are part of MAPPA meetings. An AP representative was not able to engage in pre-release planning due to the delayed referral, and subsequently did not attend the MAPPA meetings held, which impacted on pre-release planning, information exchange and the effective risk management of the case.

Mental health 

JJ had been sectioned previously in 2018 and had informed probation practitioners that feelings of anxiety and paranoia were normal for him. Prior to release, JJ’s mental health was described to be stable, and probation practitioners stated that there were no obvious signs of a mental health decline upon release into the community. 

However, he was described by PO1 as presenting as ‘low’ on occasion, which was attributed to boredom and need for structure in the community. Days prior to the SFO, JJ was described as talkative and going off on irrelevant tangents in his conversations with probation staff. Furthermore, JJ informed PSR1 that when committing the further offences on licence, he had been experiencing poor mental health. This was not explored further and there was a lack of significance given to this statement, resulting in no analysis or action. 

Probation practitioners were aware of JJ’s mental health history but lacked any detailed information. They were also aware that he had behaved violently during a period when his mental health was not stable, and JJ himself had reported that random aggression could be a sign of his mental health declining. However, this was not identified as a factor linked to risk of serious harm within OASys assessments. Additionally, the correlation between his continued use of illegal substances and his mental health was not sufficiently explored or responded to. Prior to JJ’s release from custody, information on JJ’s mental health was sent by the prison mental health in-reach team to his registered GP, however they were not aware that the GP had retired. Upon registration with a new GP, this prior information on JJ’s mental ill health was not passed to them. 

There was a reliance on JJ recognising and self-reporting a decline in his mental health and on the one occasion he disclosed such concerns no action was taken. Probation practitioners stated that there was a gap in services available to support those with mental health, particularly if there were also substance misuse concerns. As emphasised by the report published in 2021, A joint thematic inspection of the criminal justice journey for individuals with mental health needs and disorders, mental health can present significant challenges for probation practitioners, and is often characterised by insufficient information exchange and the need for better training and support. Inspectors found during this review that staff felt ill equipped to understand and respond to mental health concerns, with limited training and support being available. 

Substance misuse 

JJ had used cannabis since he was a child and was described to be lacking insight into the harmful effects of his substance misuse. Probation records and a psychiatrist’s assessment indicate a link between JJ’s substance misuse use and mental health, and that JJ’s sectioning in 2018 had been preceded by the consumption of medication, alcohol, and cannabis. Additionally, much of JJ’s offending was linked to substance misuse. 

Probation case records show that JJ was routinely using cannabis while on licence. He had completed substance misuse intervention programmes in custody and his licence contained a condition to engage in a drug abuse intervention on release from prison. However, such an intervention was not organised by probation practitioners, and we could find no evidence of a referral to a drugs agency. 

Inspectors found that probation practitioners did not explore the underlying reasons for JJ’s substance misuse, and minimised and tolerated regular use while he was on licence. This was underpinned by a failure to adequately analyse the impact of substance misuse to the risk of serious harm he posed.