A Worthwhile Read

As distraction from the current farce called 'Probation Day', and I can't help but notice Napo are ignoring it this year (only its second year), lets highlight a paper published in the latest edition of the Probation Journal. As with most academic papers, there's a lot in it and sadly the audience will almost certainly be small, but it pretty much covers the mess we're in and the fact it's not certain probation can survive to bake any future bloody cakes. This is but a small extract and the complete paper can be found here.

The reflective practitioner in transition. Probation work during reintegration of probation services in England and Wales

Abstract

This article evaluates the recent history of probation services in England and Wales. The author – currently working as a Practice Teacher Assessor in the Probation Service – considers the politicisation of probation, identified as one outcome of a rhetorical narrative to ‘act tough’ on crime and the impact of the New Public Management model of organisational accountability, its focus on performance and targets, and, arguably, the diminution of the professional role. Following semi-privatisation, and currently reintegration, of probation services, the article puts forward an argument for a realignment of practice, to focus on the supervisory relationship, professional autonomy, and the reflective practitioner.

Challenges to reflective practice - workloads

The whole thing about professional identity I feel has gone and you can’t measure that, can you. You can’t quantify what that means to you as a practitioner, what you see going on around you. But it just feels like a series of tasks, every day you have a to-do list and a set of targets to meet. You are making decisions and, somewhere in the middle, you might exercise your professional judgement. It doesn’t actually feel that way, because all the time it's about a process rather than about looking at anything, having the capacity to reflect on what you’re doing and look at the bigger picture and understand what's going on and have time to talk to anybody about what it is you’re trying to do at any point in time (NAPO branch official and Probation Officer in Kirton and Guillaume 2015).

The work is not manageable, in the sense that you can do the basics, but have no time to dig into the detail. No time for reflection or professional curiosity (Probation Officer, National Probation Service. HMIP, 2021).

The first quotation above is derived from a research study conducted in the immediate aftermath of Transforming Rehabilitation, which sought to evaluate the impact of the restructure on probation practitioners and, in particular, on their sense of professional identity. The second is from an HMIP report, considering the impact of caseloads and workloads on probation practitioners. (HMIP, 2021).

In addition to performance and targets, there seem to be two further key issues which currently shape and determine the nature of the work which probation staff undertake; and, importantly, how they feel about it. The first relates to the volume of work – the number of cases held, and the impact of the type of work undertaken. A recent HMIP (2021) report identified that excessive case and workloads were proving highly detrimental to standards of supervision, as well as to the health and well-being of staff. Additionally, the impact of TR resulted in highly specific caseloads for each sector of The Probation Service, with potentially deleterious effects.

Consequently, an aspect of practice which has changed significantly has been the longevity of supervisory relationships. At one point in its history, a probation officer would complete a Pre-Sentence Report for the court, a full assessment of needs and risks relating to offending and harm. Sentencing disposals would be considered and a proposal made. Post sentence, it was likely that the court report author, or a colleague in the same team, would take responsibility for supervision. This localised and simple model of assessment and allocation brought enormous benefits, in terms of the engagement of service users in the process, resting in large part on the validity of assessment, and the formation of a relationship with the Service and its practitioners from the outset. In addition, I would argue that it provided practitioners with a sense of mastery, agency, and ownership over their work.

In this context, the TOM is encouraging, in that it notes the delivery of probation via PODs (Probation Operational Delivery structures):

a small cross grade grouping of Probation Practitioners and a case administrator that draws on the skills and experiences within that team to support each other's probation work and enables service users to benefit from a familiar relationship with a small team to help improve continuity and engagement (HMPPS, 2021, emphasis mine).

This model seems designed to foster a sense of belonging and continuity which could provide positive benefits for supervisees and practitioners – with a possible positive impact on successful completion of orders and licences, and the retention of staff over time.

Training and continuing professional development

Secondly, the current model of Probation Officer training, the PQiP encompasses all the tensions relating to current probation practice. Several authors have suggested that PQiP learners consider that the training programme as currently configured presents a model of practice which is not borne out by their experience (see L Annison et al., 2008; Tangen and Briah, 2018). It is disturbing that trainees continue to experience these dissonances in probation officer training – perhaps in part reflecting the tension in their (binary) role, in that they are employed as Probation Service Officer grade staff, with operational commitments; and as trainee probation officers, with notional workload relief to enable both academic study, and opportunities to develop professional competence. Competence is assessed via the Vocational Qualification (VQ) element of the award; assessment is based upon key indicators of effective practice which have been evidenced in several studies. The assessment of skills of engagement with service users is the first VQ unit required for completion – in recognition of the reality that an absence of these skills and attributes is likely to nullify the effectiveness of supervision. Yet, to revisit an earlier argument, Tangen and Briah suggest that there has been:

a move from individuals educated to critically reflect on their practice, to technicians trained to implement specific processes, eroding the professionalism and autonomy of probation practitioners (Tangen and Briah, 2018).

Carr (2020) asserts that training for probation practitioners is required to encompass theoretical knowledge, alongside;

Advanced skills demonstrating mastery and innovation required to solve complex and unpredictable problems, (and) a degree of responsibility and autonomy involving the ability to manage complex professional activities (Carr, 2020).

The current culture of probation work seems to oscillate between dual tensions, firstly between the managerialist approach, and the motivations for practitioners to sustain the professional relationship with the people whom they supervise, and which, for most probation workers, is the primary driver for motivation to do the job (Phillips, 2014; Tidmarsh, 2020). Secondly, within a context of managerialist approaches, the artistry of the reflective practitioner described by Schon seems a remote vision. The reality of overwork, targets, now set against a backdrop of further organisational change – which is additionally likely to involve an extension to remote working, at least in part, in the wake of the Exceptional Delivery Model response to the COVID-19 pandemic – suggests that at least some of the aspirations of the TOM may be difficult to realise, in the short term at least

These latter tensions are explored by Ainslie et al. (2022) in a paper which evaluates the findings from very recent research into the implementation of the Reflective Practice Supervision Standards (RPSS) within the NPS (RPSS is a key component of the SEEDS framework, originally delivered in probation in 2013/14, shortly prior to the implementation of Transforming Rehabilitation). The study highlights the value placed by practitioners on opportunities for reflective supervision, whilst simultaneously noting the barriers to its effective implementation (as outlined above). The title of their paper, ‘A nice idea, but…’ neatly encapsulates this conflict in demands on probation workers, and on their supervising managers.

Conclusion - the future of probation work

If events of the last decade teach us anything, it is that prediction and forecasting are futile endeavours, as much in probation as in the wider global context. During the early years of the 21st century, Nash (1999) considered it likely that probation officers would become much more aligned with the police – and possibly become known as ‘polibation officers,’ with the loss of autonomy that such a job title implies. In 2016, Mair suggested that ‘the probation service is under threat […] faced with extinction…’(Mair, 2016). Subsequently, writing in 2018, Vanstone noted that:

The probation service in England and Wales is much reduced, a substantial amount of work transferred to private sector community rehabilitation companies. It may not survive but now, part of the civil service and confined to the oversight classified as being at high risk of reoffending, more than ever it needs innovative and effective practice in order to continue its unique contribution to the rehabilitation of people who have offended (Vanstone, 2018, emphasis mine).

So – it is impossible not to be acutely aware of predictions of the demise of probation as a unique and valuable part of the criminal justice system, by several authors, over a period of time. And yet – against the odds, the Probation Service remains, unquestionably battered and diminished, but with the appearance of seeking to hold its core values and approaches intact. Mair (2016) asserts that these traditional values and approaches of probation work will inevitably place the service at a disadvantage in fighting its corner with regard to tougher approaches, and achieving measurable outcomes. He attributes this, in part, to ongoing bemusement about the mystery of the core professional relationship; and, also, to the fact that probation practitioners are notoriously bashful at asserting their professional skills, and the evidence base for their practice. Mair asserts that, historically, the identity of probation was that of ‘doing good work with bad people - and that was its own justification.’ (Mair, 2016). Phillips (2020), citing Tomczak, suggests that ‘there are too many ‘directors and detractors’ who highlight what has gone wrong and what needs to happen next, but an insufficient number of ‘effectors’ to put those recommendations into practice.’ Probably both are correct, placing probation work in the invidious position of being good at what it does, yet limited in its capacity to assert its validity as an organisation, and seemingly reluctant to aggressively pursue its unique agenda in the political arena – a significant deficit within the context of an increasingly politicised service. Deering (2010) suggests that ‘ultimately, perhaps, probation practice is based in faith that it is an effective moral good’. In this regard, the values and approaches of contemporary probation practitioners would not seem out of place to the original Police Court Missionaries.

Much has been lost and much has been gained in probation work over its hundred-plus years of existence. It is ironic that, at a point in time when significant organisational change is being revisited for overtly positive and constructive reasons, it also could be at most risk of losing its defining characteristics – of purposeful, humane, one-to-one work with people to effect change; and the informed, reflective approach of practitioners to operate effectively in the liminal world of probation practice. It is possible to applaud the retreat from privatisation, and to remain fearful for the survival of the core values of probation work.

Mawby and Worrall (2013) refer to probation as ‘an honourable profession,’ and conclude by asserting that:

It would be courageous for…the government to respect that this work inevitably involves a willingness to work holistically and optimistically, though not naively, with uncertainty, ambivalence and (to a degree) failure. Someone has to do it.

With these thoughts in mind, it seems ironic that, at a time when there is much to celebrate, in the reintegration of probation work into one public sector organisation, there is also much to fear. The current phase of probation organisation provides grounds for optimism; and yet, it seems possible that this is a period of considerable jeopardy for the traditional values and culture of probation work, the primacy of the professional relationship, and the professional identity of practitioners. These concerns reflect the tension between official stated aims and objectives; and the reality of the lived experience of people who work in, and who are supervised by, probation. Subjectively, I remain of the view that it is entirely possible that the Probation Service will survive in recognisable form for another century, for the reasons outlined by Mawby and Worrall; and, perhaps perversely, I remain hopeful, if appropriately sceptical, regarding its future organisation, and the delivery of its service.

Anne Burrell

Bread and Circuses 2

And lo, the diversionary nonsense starts! (Edited to disguise region)

Probation Day Activity Calendar

All are welcome to join local activities. Please contact your local office if you would like to attend any activities.

Wednesday 17 August
❖ Retired colleagues meet with trainee POs and new starters for coffee and cake
❖ Team games
❖ Team Quiz
❖ Belonging – Dress Code, something beginning with ‘B’
❖ Prize for the best outfit
❖ After dark wine tasting
❖ Away day in October
❖ Bring a story about your time in probation; what led you here, what kept you here, something you have done that your proud of or made you feel a part of probation etc
❖ Create a visual on what belonging means to the team

Friday 19 August
❖ Office lunch and games will take place, with [prison] colleagues invited to join in the fun

❖ Social lunch buffet
❖ History of Probation Quiz
❖ Staff to write on petal shaped post-it notes what Probation means to them so that they can be put together to resemble a Hydrangea flower, which symbolises togetherness.
❖ Feedback from PoPs on how Probation has supported them, which will be read out to the team.
❖ Playlist of uplifting songs to generate a celebratory atmosphere.

❖ Launch Event on MS at 10am
❖ Team lunch and walk 
❖ ‘Bring and share’ picnic lunch where staff are bringing dishes to share with a theme of ‘Belonging’ so childhood favourites, family recipes etc.
❖ There will be a car boot sale and cake sale in the car park with partnership staff invited and all proceeds to the local foodbank/charity.
❖ All teams will also be participating in the photography competition.

❖ Purple Party – all to wear purple. Office decorations purple. Party food.
❖ Creating a yearbook of Probation 2022
❖ Bake-off competition. 1 person from UPW, Interventions, Courts, Reception, Admin etc to bake a cake 
❖ Virtual Guess Who (baby picture edition) – prize for winning team
❖ Tea at 3, team photo and share positive achievements
❖ Appreciation tree to be drawn in communal area of the office. Post it notes showing appreciation for co-workers to be added as leaves of the tree. Sows the seeds on Probation day and watch how it grows over time.

❖ Opening of Probation Celebration Day/Quiz
❖ Local office buffets and activities

❖ Get to know each other session – face to face each PDU
❖ Virtual session with whole team: `Things I am proud of, things that I have accomplished’
❖ Each HOMD in the prisons will be hosting a quiz which will be open to all OMU staff (both prison and probation POMS) admin and the resettlement team. Prizes will of course be available!
❖ A Service Integration manager away day is being organised for September to support and celebrate belonging.

❖ UPW project visits to be undertaken by senior leader teams and magistrates Saturday and Sunday

Monday 22 August
❖ Programmes Team - BBR taster session for ‘Belonging’ themed team meeting, buffet. Probation bingo and Blockbuster quiz
❖ Reflective theme team meeting and reflections over a tea/coffee
❖ RJ Team – delivering a session from the RJ Group Intervention via teams. This session is open to all.

Tuesday 23 August
❖ Programmes Team - Belonging theme team meeting/buffet/quiz

Wednesday 24 August
❖ Bring in a dish
❖ Baby photos quiz
❖ We would like you to sit in a different office (applies to all grades) to meet more of your colleagues.

Guest Blog 86

Belonging

I don’t belong to the Probation Service. I used to, I want to, but the thing I belonged to is fading, and possibly gone. The Probation Service I belonged to believed that our clients are citizens and individuals entrusted to our care. We advised assisted and befriended. We understood that the state fails some of its citizens and our role was to get onside and help the hapless navigate the clumsy state arrangements for them, sort themselves out a bit, keep them out of trouble.

How far have we fallen? There used to be poetry and love and fun. The media and The State would disapprove but as an independent organisation, we could shrug that off and go make some friends on the bench and be human about it all. We were removed from, but funded by the State: I was always inspired by that: that the State was generous enough to know that it had failed some of its citizens, and to fund an institution that would be critical as well as helpful.

That balance has been over-tipped. The State is not generous. We are in very dark times and the darkest will be for those we ought to be caring for.

I am proud to count on my cv, come the day of reckoning, some wonderful people who I have advised assisted and befriended and who I will probably never see again. To them: I am grateful for your company: I salute your strength, thank you all of you, for enriching me: and to you I belong

Pearly Gates

Probation to Disappear

Call me a cynic, but the Napo leadership must have woken up to the fact that the Eastbourne AGM is fast approaching and the membership will be eagerly expecting some rousing contributions from the top table. This from Friday's mailout to all members:-

Your Friday News from Napo HQ

‘One HMPPS’ – even more reason for Probation to be moved out from the department

Katie Lomas and Ian Lawrence write..

In yet another display of bad faith by senior HMPPS management, communications were issued earlier than had been agreed with the unions about the launch of the so called ‘one HMPPS’ programme.

What is it?

Members will recall the appalling message from the Prime Minister earlier this summer, which talked about reducing the ‘size of the state’ and cutting Civil Service numbers to 2016 levels. Following this, ‘One HMPPS’ is purportedly being launched to ensure closer regional alignment between Prisons and Probation in terms of high level operational matters and localised administrative functions.

Why we oppose it

Napo’s view is clear: this further major restructuring is being presented as a mask for future staff cuts across HQ functions in Prison and Probation despite the thin assurances that staff below Regional Probation Director level will be unaffected. This will not fool our members, who are seeing the daily populist tirade against public sector workers and their trade unions from both of the contenders for the Conservative Party leadership.

The General Secretary has sent a withering critique of the ‘One HMPPS’ programme to senior Probation leaders. Among other things this sets out our serious concerns about the stripping away of any semblance of separate support systems for Probation and the further de-professionalisation of the work carried out by our members.

We also reflect on recent history and how privatisation had such an egregious impact on the Probation Service.

The constant attempts to introduce more and more unwanted initiatives that are designed to instil a prison-centric culture into Probation and the regular insulting suggestions of the need to ‘professionalise’ Probation staff are unacceptable.

Probation is different and must always be

The letter also reminds management that we warned how the move into HMPPS many years ago was a risk to the profession and the threats posed by the needs of our larger and more costly partner in the prisons.

Finally, we say that if the Civil Service headcount needs to be reduced, then Napo have the perfect solution which is ‘oven ready’. Move the Probation Service out of the Civil Service into a non-departmental government body. In the public sector but freed from prison and removed from the Civil Service. Give Probation professionals the freedom to practice, give senior leaders the freedom to truly lead. Make the Probation Service locally accountable, enabling partnership working while retaining its unique culture and values.

Napo will be ramping up our campaign against this project in and outside of Parliament.

Calling all Napo members (Probation England and Wales) - your chance to hear about what Napo is trying to do on your behalf

Discussions on a number of major issues which directly impact on members have been taking place over the summer and are still ongoing. That’s why you are being invited to take part in the following meetings below. Come and listen to your National Officers and Officials about updates on Pay and Professional issues.

There will be 2 sessions on each of the following dates and we very much hope that members will be able to work one of these into your schedules. The First online meeting is: Tuesday 6 September at 12.30pm to 13.30pm and 3.30pm to 4.30pm. The Second online meeting is: Friday 30 September, again at 12.30pm to 13.30pm and 3.30pm to 4.30pm.

--oo00oo--

That 'withering critique' in full:-

Jim Barton
Director
Probation Reform Programme

By E-mail only
4th August 2022

Dear Jim,

Napo response to ‘One HMPPS’ announcement

While Napo intends to issue a report to our members this Monday to align with the release of the employers communications, I did indicate that Napo would offer our perspective on the ‘One HMPPS’ initiative.

Before doing so, I thought it would be helpful to reflect on some recent history to explain the basis of Napo’s antipathy to this project which, as you will see, we believe to have grave consequences for the Probation Service.

As a result of the disastrous Transforming Rehabilitation Programme in 2014, That part of Probation which was not subject to privatisation was brought into the Civil Service as the National Probation Service. This shadow of its former self was markedly different to the Service that existed before, with the Probation Trusts being abolished despite all having performance assessed as ‘good’ or ‘outstanding’ and many having externally assessed marks of excellence.

The cancellation of the CRC contracts in 2021 moved the final elements of Probation work into the Civil Service and now all of the Probation System exists either as a direct provider, or in small regionally managed contracts for specialist support services. While reunification was obviously welcomed, the centralisation into a Civil Service culture has been a disaster for the profession.

The move away from Trusts that valued and supported the professionalism of their staff into the top-down command and control mechanisms of the Civil Service has stifled Professionalism so much that there is now a move, (led as ever by Senior MoJ and HMPPS Leaders) to introduce even more unwanted initiatives, purported to ‘professionalise’ Probation staff. As Napo has continually stated, this is an insulting term to highly skilled and committed professionals who have struggled to deliver a service in the face of cuts to budgets and staffing, following the previous disastrous and dangerous split in the system under TR, and its long term damage simply cannot be under estimated. It is unlikely that the decision makers in the Ministry of Justice will ever hear the true voice of the profession however, as they are so far removed from Probation, a tiny but hugely important part of the bigger machine that delivers Justice across England and Wales.

Now we are told that, in response to the announcement made by the outgoing Prime Minister about Civil Service Job Cuts, Probation will be subsumed into HMPPS and no longer exist with a separate framework to support it. Early versions of the communications about this move promised that decisions would be based on evidence and data which we have yet to see. It is not clear if this information will even make it into the final cut after Napo pointed out that this is the latest in a string of harmful decisions made on the basis of political whim with no appreciation of the facts.

Probation is different and must always be

The Probation System is markedly different to the Prison System. That does not mean that either one is better or worse, they are fundamentally different. The Prison system works on strict rules, security and hierarchy. These are necessary for the safety of staff and those in prison. The Probation system works on transparency, constantly questioning everything including instructions and rules. Probation training encourages the professional to question the system in which they, and their client, exist and to seek to understand and explore issues relating to power and control in their working relationships. This inevitably affects the way that those professionals respond to their own working relationships in their own supervision and management arrangements. Probation professionals should be expected to ask for evidence and data, to scrutinise the motivation for instructions and policy changes and, above all, to have an active voice in their own management.

For many years Napo has been warning that the move into HMPPS was a risk to the profession; the ‘One HMPPS’ programme is likely to realise these fears.

Probation as a profession will be under threat due to the needs of our larger and more costly partner in the prisons. Senior leaders will continue to struggle to make the voice of Probation heard and, in order to survive, will adopt more of a command and control approach, discouraging questioning and becoming more remote. The mantra of: ‘that’s not how Civil Service/HMPPS/Prisons do it’ will continue to be the stock response when those who retain Probation values and approaches try to be heard. It is important to note that in all the work done since 2014 to rebuild Probation in the Civil Service you never hear anyone say ‘that’s how Probation do it’. It is a great shame, there is much that our colleagues in the wider HMPPS and Civil Service could learn from the former Probation Trusts, especially those who were outstanding performers with externally verified excellence standards.

If the Civil Service headcount needs to be reduced, then Napo have the perfect solution which is ‘oven ready’. Move the Probation Service out of the Civil Service into a non-departmental government body. In the public sector but freed from prison and removed from the Civil Service. Give Probation professionals the freedom to practice, give senior leaders the freedom to truly lead. Make the Probation Service locally accountable, enabling partnership working while retaining its unique culture and values.

As previously stated, and for the formal record in all our future discussions about ‘One HMPPS’, Napo is implacably opposed to what we believe to be a direct threat to the profession, it’s staff and it’s vital role in the justice system and wider society.

In light of the foregoing you will not be surprised to hear that Napo will vigorously campaign in and outside of Parliament to achieve the aims outlined above.

Yours sincerely

Ian Lawrence
General Secretary

--oo00oo--

From the HMPPS job advert, April 2022:-

The HMPPS vision is based on working together to protect the public and help people lead law-abiding and positive lives. Whether staff work in prisons, probation, youth custody or HQ, we share the same vocational commitment to change lives. We are ‘One HMPPS’. 

The outcome of the Spending Review gives us clarity on the scale of investment to be made in improving the service we can offer. That certainty allows us to think afresh about how we operate to best deliver on our strategic priorities by enabling more effective ways of working.

To do this thinking, we are setting up a One HMPPS Programme. The programme will work with staff across the agency to develop proposals for a new service delivery model that: 

• Allows for a “whole sentence” approach to the way we deliver our services, ensuring offender management services are better joined up across the whole of the offender journey; 

• Empowers decision making at a regional level, enabling our leaders to ensure that the services they offer are tailored to the needs of and improve outcomes for users of our services; and 

• Supports the sharing of resources, knowledge, information and skills through a new organisational structure that enables better outcomes and provides value for money.

We believe successful delivery of these objectives is critical in supporting the agency to meet the department’s key strategic priorities - to improve public protection and to reduce reoffending. 

This is an exciting opportunity to get in on the ground floor of a fast moving and far-reaching new programme that will offer ample opportunity to work across boundaries to design and implement change, and gain a unique insight into how large government agencies operate. 

I look forward to working with you! 

Amy Rees Programme Sponsor

Director General for Probation and Women, 

HMPPS.

A Smart Future

Never mind all this 'Probation Day' nonsense, here's the big HMPPS news, a lovely new, high tech, carbon neutral, job-creating, local economy-boosting prison! 

Prison-build revolution continues with construction of new Yorkshire jail

Building work on Britain’s newest ‘smart’ prison will start this autumn – delivering over 1,400 modern places to get more offenders into jobs and away from crime.

The date has been set in stone as a result of a new £400m contract signed today with construction firm Kier, who will build the cutting-edge jail in East Yorkshire in time for it to open in 2025.

Following close on the heels of HMP Five Wells in Wellingborough which opened in February this year, the new Category C prison will be designed from top-to-bottom with the latest smart technology to cut crime and protect the public.

The jail will include an unprecedented array of workshops and classrooms, so prisoners spend their time behind bars learning new skills to find work on release – factors known to significantly reduce reoffending.

It will also be the first new prison to operate as zero-carbon in the future, with an all-electric design, solar panels, heat pumps and more efficient lighting systems to reduce energy demand significantly.

In a boost for the local economy, the new prison will create hundreds of jobs in construction, and a further 600 once the establishment opens.

And at least 50 construction roles will be earmarked for ex-offenders - giving them the opportunity to rebuild their lives, gain new skills and get back on the straight and narrow.

The new jail is the latest major step in our commitment to building 20,000 new prison places and in turn protecting the public.

Prisons Minister, Stuart Andrew, said:

"I am delighted work can begin on yet another modern, innovative prison that will skill-up untold numbers of offenders to live a crime-free life while making our streets safer.  The new prison at Full Sutton will also support hundreds of jobs, in construction and afterwards, representing a major boost to Yorkshire’s economy."

Group Managing Director of Kier Construction, Liam Cummins, said:

"Delivery of the new prison at Full Sutton represents over a decade of Kier operating as a successful partner to the Ministry of Justice and highlights our ongoing commitment to the New Prisons’ Programme. This project will create hundreds of jobs as well as providing opportunities for prisoners on release, and we’re proud to give people the opportunity to work with us to deliver a best-in-class facility built on modern methods of construction and engineering excellence."

The new buildings will sit opposite the existing HMP Full Sutton and will be the third of six prisons to be completed as part of the New Prisons Programme, following HMP Five Wells and HMP Fosse Way in Glen Parva, which is due to open next year.

Locations for the remaining three are being finalised, and of the four final builds, one will be run by Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service and three by private operators.

The process of naming the new prison will be confirmed in due course and as with Five Wells and Fosse Way, will involve close consultation with the local community.

Around £4 billion of investment will create thousands of jobs for local communities and see millions invested in local roads and infrastructure while rehabilitating thousands of offenders and keeping the public safe.

Notes to editors:

Work to build the new prison at Full Sutton will commence in the coming months, with a firm date to be confirmed. Like Five Wells and Fosse Way, the new prison will include a range of cutting-edge technology. At its peak, the construction phase will employ as many as 1,000 workers, with many employed from the local community. Making Ground is Kier’s prison engagement and employment programme, designed to support serving prisoners and prison leavers into sustainable employment in the construction industry.

Bread and Circuses

Given the current staffing crisis, I'm not at all sure how this will go down amongst the ranks, but since when was senior management known for being conscious of 'tone deafness'? Thanks go to the reader for forwarding the following:-

Celebrating Probation Day on 21 August

I can appreciate that for many it is difficult to think about celebrating Probation Day when everyone is working in such challenging circumstances not only due to workloads, but with the added emotional demands of the job and additionally, the current cost of living crisis. Yet despite this, I ask that teams do find time on 21 August to reflect on the life-changing work you do, be that giving someone an opportunity to change their lives for the better or making a decision to protect a victim. A toolkit has been prepared by our national colleagues providing ideas and information on how you can celebrate Probation Day; you will find this attached. When I go out to visit teams or read the Reward and Recognition nominations for all grades and roles, I am uplifted and feel truly grateful for the work you do that makes our communities better.

Most join Probation as a vocation and this is not just about our sentence management or intervention practitioners, but includes our amazing business support and administrators who are often the hidden heroes.

There remain issues regarding pay and retention and whilst they are not in our control, I continue to raise the on-going impact on service delivery with central colleagues.

As an organisation, our goal is to provide people with an opportunity for change. We continue to collaborate with our many partners and often act as the conductor bringing all the component parts together. There is so much to be proud of.

On Probation Day, I would like you to think of a community without the Probation Service. We are an organisation that deserves more recognition, especially at this time given the exceptional challenges we face. Perhaps you can arrange a partnership event with local organisations to celebrate the work you do.

I have been fortunate in working nationally and also in Europe and I recognise that we can easily take things for granted. This is not about accepting the status quo, but appreciating what we achieve and how we continue to strive for further improvement.

Celebrations and ceremonies are important, especially when many feel battle-fatigued. When new colleagues join us we will be able to distribute the work to reduce the demands you carry. The recruitment pipeline is strong as we are able to advertise more widely using different paid-for platforms. Remember, Probation Day is about celebrating the amazing work the Probation Service has done in the past, what we do now and what we will do in the future.

Last year, the Probation Service staff voted to select a flower to represent us – the foxglove stands for protection and healing.

Most of you know I always have a song in my mind that links in with my thinking... today, I have two songs for you: Redemption Song (Bob Marley and the Wailers, particularly the point about ‘emancipating ourselves from mental slavery’) and the other Don’t Give Up (Kate Bush/Peter Gabriel), and they remind us that we are not alone.

Finally, major congratulations to the England Women’s team for their incredible victory against Germany on Sunday. It really was a wonderful thing to see – not that any of us doubted!

Kilvinder Vigurs
Regional Probation Director

--oo00oo--

Welcome

This toolkit is your “one-stop shop” for all things #ProbationDay

So, what is Probation Day?

Probation Day is an annual opportunity for staff & partner agencies, to celebrate the work we do and share why we have pride working in the Probation Service. Probation Day celebrates the past, present and future of Probation. We chose the date of the 21st of August, as it coincides with the Royal Assent of the Probation of Offenders Act in 1907, so it is in effect the birthday of the Probation Service! This is the 2nd year of Probation Day. Get involved using the hashtag #ProbationDay

More about our flower emblem

You may have seen the use of a foxglove flower (digitalis) when people have mentioned Probation Day. This is because - in our inaugural year we ran a competition to choose a flower, whose symbolism, would be an emblem for Probation. The digitalis won, for its symbolism of protection and healing. You have the option to adopt this in any way you see fit.

Theme of Probation Day 2022

Now that you know a bit more about the commemoration, we’ll explain the theme for this year. This Probation Day we want you to swap as much screen time for real-life reunions, where possible. We want you & your teams to focus on the theme of belonging and talk about all the positive motivation, for why we continue to choose to work for the Probation Service. We want Probation Day to be an annual reminder of the heart & soul of Probation.

Activity Ideas

As Probation Day falls on a Sunday this year, feel free to hold activities either on Friday 19th August or Monday 22nd August. Centrally we’ll hold Launch Event on Friday 19th August from 10am – 11am. You’ll receive details on this soon. If you need some inspiration for local activities, to commemorate the day, then look no further…Pick an idea or two, or even go for them all, to participate with your team. Please feel free to adapt the activities to your needs.

Guess who

How well do you know your team? Could you guess who is who from their baby photos? This short team bonding activity is bound to get everyone talking whilst providing the ‘building blocks’ to gain a sense of belonging of one another and glimpse into baby outfits. Materials needed: Pen, paper, baby photos. Setup: Either virtual or face to face. Arrange your photos so everyone gets a chance to see the photo & devise a system to track guesses. Participants: Ideally no more than 20 people and do allow time for participants to discuss and confer. Estimated time: 30-60 minutes. Top tip: Try not to use original prints if you’re doing this in person, scan or take a photo of the picture.

Two truths, One lie

Another chance to get to know your team but this time through a conversation game. Tell two outlandish facts about yourself and then one plausible lie, without letting on which one is which. Your group must guess which one of your responses is a lie. Try to be creative in your storytelling without out compromising your believability. Materials needed: Pen, paper. Setup: Either virtual or face to face. One member gives their response to the group and the group get discuss on the which response is a lie. You have the option to keep score if you want to add in a bit of competition. Participants: Ideally no more than 10 people. Estimated time: 30-60 minutes.

Show & Tell

Show a memorable probation item and share the probation memory that comes with it. Use this as an opportunity to reminisce on a positive memory of working in probation and the team’s you’ve been part of. This item could be in the form of ‘teddy bear’ mascot, an award or even a song. Share those items & memories with your immediate, as a chance to showcase the positive motivation we all have when continuing to choose to work for the Probation Service. Materials needed: Memorable item. Setup: Either virtual or face to face. Participants take turns to show their item to the group and share their memory. Make sure you leave enough time to discuss & reminisce. Participants: Ideally no more than 10 people. Estimated time: 30-60 minutes.

Reflect on the good stuff

A reflective activity to focus on the good stuff and share a couple thoughts, with your team. Take some time to think about answers to the following prompts; Something I worked hard to achieve. Something going well for me. Two people I can always count on at work. Something I’m looking forward to at work. Take some time to reflect individually and share your positive motivation with your team. Materials needed: Pen, paper. Setup: Either virtual or face to face. Give your team time to reflect on the prompts and come back as a group to share your thoughts. Participants: Ideally no more than 10 people. Estimated time: 10-15 minutes.

Appreciation tree

A chance to show your appreciation to your team in an anonymous way. Draw a tree with bare branches in a suitable area in your communal space and use post-it notes (or something similar) to anonymously post your appreciation for all the small & big things, as the leaves of a tree. Sow the seeds in Probation Day and watch how the tree grows over time. Materials needed: Pen, post-it notes (or something similar). Setup: Face to face, allocating some space in a communal place at work. Draw a tree with bare branches. Place the anonymous post-it as the leaves of a tree. Feel free to come up with any other suitable arrangement. Participants: As many as needed. Estimated time: 5-10 minutes.

Brew at 2(pm) or Tea at 3(pm)

Another reason to make yourself a cuppa’ and importantly catch-up with one another. Use this time to talk through anything on your minds as it’s a chance to build a sense of belonging with one another. If you feel particularly inclined, you could also invite individuals you don’t speak to regularly or partner agencies you may want to get know more. Materials needed: A suitable refreshment. Setup: Either virtual or face to face. Organise a time, send invites and meetup. Participants: Ideally no more than 10 people. Estimated time: 30 minutes.

Team photo

Take a team photo and create a lasting memory for years to come. Feel free to dress up or down or even decide to have a fancy dress theme. If you’re doing this in person, to get the best photo quality make sure you take your photo with good lighting & capture your image in landscape orientation to get everyone into the frame. Materials needed: Camera or screen recording software. Setup: Either virtual or face to face. Organise a time, send invites and meetup. Decide on the theme to be either formal, informal or both. Participants: As many as needed. Estimated time: 10-20 minutes. Top tip: For anyone who is absent why not print out their picture, so they can still be included.

Great Probation Bake Off

Bake a difference and create some tasty treats for you and the team. Whether you decide to bake it yourself or purchase it from a boulangerie, this activity will create that positive motivation for Probation that all the team can participate in. Feel free to create categories, raise money for a charity, hand out ribbons or even give out a ‘Paul Hollywood handshake’. Materials needed: Baked goods, with a place to store and serve them. Setup: Best done face to face. Organise a time, send invites and meetup. Create categories and rules if wanted. Remember to include all allergy advice in anything you bake or purchase. Participants: As many as needed. Estimated time: 30 minutes.

Share what you get up to

We’d love for you to share what you get up to whether it’s through one of the suggested activities or something completely different. Please use the following MS Teams Form or scan the QR code, to share your images, videos and audio clips. In addition, you can also share a favourite memory of yours from Probation. We want to create a ‘memory bank’ for them, to share with one another. Once we’ve collated these we hope to display & share the best submissions on our internal digital communication channels. The deadline to do this is by the close of 24th August 2022. Top tip: Be as descriptive as possible when submitting your files, to help decipher what you’ve been up to.

An Existential Battle

If you work in probation you will be very familiar with the court process and almost certainly the legal profession in the shape of solicitors and barristers. Many of us with some service under our belts will be aware of significant changes in process over the years and in particular cuts in Legal Aid and court closures. 

Things have come to a head in recent weeks with barristers withdrawing their labour. Just as with probation, the press, public and politicians don't understand, or choose not to understand, what's going on and the truth of the situation.

This set of tweets from @edwardhenry1 yesterday sets things out in stark detail and we should all be concerned, not least because it will affect us all, and clients especially. (I have made adjustments to aid clarity).  

The Criminal Bar facing oblivion.

Max J L Hardy wrote perceptively that the public would get a distorted impression of our justice system because of the #WAGATHA trial. Criminal justice is in crisis. And @jimrobottom suggested the same for the mass of civil litigation.

The Tabloids don’t want to run this narrative. Clichés work. People, without wealth or financial resilience are far more likely to get dragged into a Criminal Court, a Family Court, or an Employment Tribunal.

Then, they’re not likely to encounter a ‘fat cat lawyer’ but a junior barrister and/or a high street solicitor, from a small to medium size practice. We’re not talking Baroness Shackleton or Lady Ward.

I’m not qualified to speak about family or employment but imagine that family law practitioners who do not deal with ‘Big Money’ cases are in the same position, or soon will be, as the criminal bar.

Advocates practising in crime are an odd bunch, but likeable. As a rule they like their clients, and care deeply about them. Strange as it may seem, some have been accused of caring for their clients more than their families.

It’s not hype, but reflects a brutally demanding job, which can prove to be obsessional. Like Captain Ahab pursuing Moby Dick, some advocates relentlessly chase after that tantalising fact, or issue that might turn a case. Holidays are sacrificed, as are children’s childhoods.

You are told, as I have been, that you aren’t present, even when you’re actually there, because your mind churns that case or question over & over.

You’d have to be mad to practise in crime. I tried, from 2004 onwards to discourage my pupils from continuing in it, and to transfer. Not one did. Well done btw @MaxJLHardy

My first pupil, the wonderful Jake Hallam QC, started in practice in 1998. I could see then that the GFS [Graduated Fee Scheme for legal aid] would impoverish criminal practitioners as so much was left unpaid. The rates then set never kept up with cost of living & if we aren’t 40% down from 1997 I’d be surprised.

I had more success dissuading my adult sons from following me into the Law. They saw, all too sadly, the toll it took on their childhood, their parents’ marriage & the precarious financial fortunes of a self employed individual or sole trader.

I adore my job, and have deep affection and genuine respect for my colleagues. Every pupil who disregarded my advice and went on to greatness at the Criminal Bar - and those few who sadly did not in spite of their courage, determination and flair, I deeply admire and love.

Because I know what it’s cost them. The price you have to pay whether you succeed or fail (& chance plays a part in that.) So when a Politician derides what we do, I don’t care. I know my value, & part of that is what I’m worth; & I know my colleagues’ treasured value too.

The destruction of a profession, of an Art that can be traced to the prophet Daniel, through the Graeco-Roman era to our own time is shameful. If politicians don’t want to preserve an Independent Bar, incompetence & corruption will follow. Who benefits?

Back to that odd bunch of advocates. They’ll include the brief, hot on detail with an eidetic neuro-diverse mastery of regulations, those who can recite the codes of practice, and those who can hyper focus to a microscopic degree. Then there are those who trust nothing

Not because they are conspiracy theorists, but because they’ve been told “nothing to disclose” too often when there is. Those who venerate Marx & those who espouse anarcho-libertarianism meet as one. It’s a broad church. The link? They believe in Justice & the Rule of Law.

That’s ultimately what compels them to defend, whatever the personal cost, to keep the stream pure, to hold the prosecution to account. A word here about prosecution counsel.

A very considerable proportion of Barristers prosecute & defend. That’s why the Independent Bar is of incalculable value. It’s not partisan. I no longer prosecute but I grew up in the preeminent prosecution set, renowned for its fairness.

Pros Counsel are atrociously paid, & not enough is said about it. You can prepare a case & not get paid if it’s tried at a time you can’t do. The Government’s long term strategy is a mystery. Public Defenders & Pros cost tons more than the Bar. They’re just happy exploiting us.

But it will eventually come to an end. Even altruists will be deterred. The Criminal Bar shall die. No mistake. Then what will those in the other branches of the Bar say? What a pity? Such a shame? It’s time for the Inns and the whole Bar to come to the aid of CBA [Criminal Bar Association].

The Bar Council, paradoxically, might have put on a better show, but there are always those dependable in a tight corner, & others who (despite the best of intentions) are not.
@Ed_LeveyQC has always supported the Criminal Bar & @seanjonesqc is a legend. But we need more.

This is an existential battle. If we are really one Bar, kind words about how much the Criminal Bar is admired, with wistful regrets intimated of envying what we do, will be pure guff unless the whole Bar bends its efforts & potent influence on our behalf.

The leaders of the SBAs [Specialist Bar Associations] and others of titanic reputation & standing in other fields might like to reflect on what we’re all about to lose.

Edward Henry QC

Predictable, Populist, Confused

Does this sound familiar?

"But the solutions proposed are politically driven catchphrase-based policy making"

It's a statement that could be applied to any number of probation-related issues over the last few years and it's regarding a topic we've not covered for some time : drugs. Of course it's a well known fact politicians talk nonsense on the subject and the latest headline-grabbing government initiative is no different. I can't be bothered to read it, but I notice Transform have and the quote is from their recently published analysis:-  

REVIEWING THE GOVERNMENT’S NEW ‘TOUGH’ CONSEQUENCES FOR DRUG POSSESSION

The Home Office has set out its plans to reduce the current levels of recreational drug use across the UK in its new White Paper Swift, Certain, Tough: new consequences for drug possession. The paper follows on from the Government’s most recent drug strategy; it was promised at the time to address the objective of ‘demand reduction’- reducing use - which the drug strategy mostly overlooked in its focus on service provision.

The White Paper’s demand reduction strategy for ‘so-called recreational users’ proposes a model for public consultation (to be piloted in three locations) for how drug possession offences would be dealt with, summarised in this graphic:

Some elements of the proposals appear relatively promising. At first glance, there seems to be a desire to try and avoid the tens of thousands of people caught committing minor possession offences from being drawn into the criminal justice system. Implicit is an acknowledgement that criminalisation of minor possession is both expensive and counterproductive; there is no evidence that blanket punitive sanctions are an effective deterrent and there is substantive evidence that they fuel stigma, create obstacles to proven public health interventions, and undermine the life chances, particularly of people from socially and economically marginalised communities.

This is why ending criminalisation of people who use drugs is recommended best practice from the Government’s own expert advisers (the ACMD), all 31 lead agencies of the UN including The World Health Organisation and UN Office on Drugs and Crime, as well as the Royal College of Physicians, the UK Faculty of Public health, the Royal Society for Public Health - and many other authoritative voices.

Moves in this direction are already underway in 14 police authorities - a range of ‘drug diversion schemes’ where people caught in possession are ‘diverted’ into health interventions rather than the criminal justice system and prosecution. While the law criminalising the act remains in place (often lurking as a threat behind some of the diversion programs), perhaps the best we can say is that diversion represents a form of partial or de facto decriminalisation. Transform has a dedicated page of information and resources about these initiatives.

Notably, the schemes have been lauded by the Drugs Minister, Kit Malthouse, recommended by the Government’s own recent expert review from Dame Carol Black, and are prominently flagged in last year’s new Government drug strategy. So the idea in principle is not a new one.

The White Paper, however, makes no mention of either decriminalisation or diversion schemes (although it does refer to ‘diversionary cautions’, see below). Instead, it promotes language around ‘swift certain and tough’ consequences - proposing the escalating tiers of sanctions described above. The first tier looks a lot like many existing diversion programmes but, worryingly, with a series of financial penalties as well as an offender-paid drug awareness course, which most diversion schemes do not implement. Tiers 2 and 3 move increasingly far away from emerging best practice and, indeed, the entire underlying conceptual thinking around diversion/decriminalisation relating to avoidance of harmful engagement with the criminal justice system, criminal records, stigma, and so on.

Before critiquing some of the details (where the devil inevitably resides), it is worth noting that we can all agree that there should not be a ‘postcode lottery’ for how police deal with drug offences. Currently, you can get very different treatment responses to possession offences depending on where you are caught - ranging from a life-impacting prosecution, to an informal telling-off. This variation is obviously problematic; equality before the law is a fundamental part of the rule of law and the aspiration in the White Paper to address this problem is welcome.

But the White Paper proposals, even acknowledging the vague nod towards diversionary pragmatism, are a step backwards from the best practice lessons emerging around the country. We should not pursue national consistency at the cost of entrenching bad practices more widely and undermining the positive work already being done throughout the UK. Equality should be about equally good policy, not equally bad. If rolled out these proposals would, in many areas, represent a form of levelling down (the proposals have already been rejected by the Scottish Drugs Minister - as a regressive step backwards from their existing diversion program).

We are all too familiar with problems created by drug prohibition - such as the empowerment of organised crime and related violence and exploitation - being blamed on the drugs or people who use them. These problems of punitive enforcement are then routinely used to justify even more punitive enforcement. But with this White Paper, the Government seems to be tacitly acknowledging the harms of criminalisation and the benefits of reform - but showing a pathological inability to make the case for such reforms, show leadership, and call them what they are. It is so invested in the drug war narratives that it seems unable to perceive reform as anything other than weakness or surrender. The result is this strange and confused mess of proposals.

A key problem of the White Paper is that it confuses, or deliberately conflates, issues relating to people who use drugs recreationally with issues relating to people with drug dependencies or problematic use. The paper, including its prominent ‘Swift, Certain, Tough’ title, draws heavily on the US literature on 'swift, certain and fair’ (SCF) sanctions. But while this scholarship on SCF has explored maintaining abstinence amongst drug-dependent offenders (enforced with drug testing - and sanctions, such as 48 hours of immediate custody, for positive results) the focus of the White Paper is specifically on ‘so-called recreational users’ who are not the focus of the SCF literature. Hawaii’s HOPE programme is referenced twice and appears to have been a big influence, but it is a programme for people with histories of dependence in probation-mandated treatment having left prison. None of that is relevant to recreational users - most of whom will not have criminal records, and none of whom, by definition, need treatment.

The White Paper has also pointedly replaced the ‘fair’ element of ‘swift, certain and fair’, with ‘tough’ - a reframing symptomatic of the performative ‘tough on drugs’ populism that runs through the whole paper and its accompanying media messaging. Even for the drug awareness courses mandated in Tier 1 (not dissimilar to the diversion programme in place in Avon and Somerset for example), there is a proposal to not just make the offenders pay for the course but for them to pay more than the cost of the course - an overtly punitive element thrown in for good measure.

The second tier, for those caught in possession a second time, includes what is called a ‘diversionary caution’. This is a formal police record that would appear on certain forms of background checks - in other words, a criminal record. It also involves random drug testing (presumably supervised urine samples - with all the indignities and human rights issues this entails) over a three-month period. A formal charge will be brought in the event of a positive test. So, far from progressive reform, this would de facto criminalise ‘internal possession’ and use (i.e. a positive test) in a way that only a small number of countries, such as Sweden, do at present.

Seemingly drawing on the disastrous and discredited ‘three strikes you’re out’ US policy from the 90s, third-time offenders would not only be automatically charged and receive a criminal record but would additionally be subject to a range of new, non-coincidentally headline-grabbing, punitive sanctions that include:

• Exclusion orders - Preventing access to certain ‘night time economy’ venues. The paper acknowledges there’s no evidence these would work, and it’s not clear how they would be enforced.

• Drug tagging - Remote monitoring of drug use with technology that they concede does not exist yet.

• Passport and driving licence confiscation - Ideas seemingly borrowed from some EU countries (such as Italy - which is unable to show they were effective), these seem particularly disproportionate, having the potential to devastate someone’s life or career - for a possession offence as minor as being caught smoking a joint.

And who is likely to move beyond tier 1, be criminalised, urine-tested, and subject to an additional raft of draconian new punishments? It is not going to be the ‘middle-class drug users’ that the Government seems so keen to single out, but whose drug use tends to take place with the protection that private space and privilege offers. In reality, it will be people who are already most exposed to drug policing and the glaring disproportionality in stop and search; those from economically and socially marginalised communities, and urban black youth in particular. These are also people less able to pay punitive fines or course fees, and therefore more likely to default and end up with a criminal record regardless, even from tier 1. It will be regressive in its impact on the poor and institutionalise the criminalisation of poverty. Yet more levelling down.

It is appropriate to welcome some elements of this White Paper - the acknowledgement of rising use and some of the problems with criminalisation and postcode lotteries, and the commitments to support problematic users. But the solutions proposed are politically driven catchphrase-based policy making, which ignore existing best practice. The proven diversion/decriminalisation approaches that the paper seems to want to benefit from, by their nature require a paradigm shift away from punitive enforcement. That’s the whole point. But the Government's obsession with maintaining its ‘tough on drugs’ posturing has perversely led to proposals that will be incredibly expensive, and are likely to lead to increased criminalisation and harms for the most vulnerable in society - with few, if any, corollary benefits.

Transform will be submitting a more detailed response to the consultation, and we encourage others with relevant personal or professional experience to do the same.

Madness 7

That letter reported by the Guardian on Saturday:-

Dominic Raab
Secretary of State for Justice
By E-mail

19th July 2022

Dear Secretary of State

Single Secretary of State’s View

We are writing to you as the three recognised Probation Service trade unions to share our significant concerns over your recent decision to prevent Probation staff from making recommendations, in written reports and oral evidence, to the Parole Board under any circumstances. The ability to do so has long been a vital and valued part of the parole process, as reflected in the various reviews and surveys of those involved in the system over many years.

Your decision – taken without any consultation with relevant stakeholders in the months after the publication of the ‘Root and Branch Review of the Parole System’ in March 2022 – fatally undermines the Government’s own stated plans to pursue a “professionalisation agenda” for the Probation Service. At the same time removing at a stroke the ability of Probation staff to offer crucial expert opinion in the arena of public protection, which they currently do on thousands of occasions each year.

The decision you have taken to prohibit Probation staff from offering recommendations on prisoner’s progression and release severely endangers the ability of the Probation Service to protect victims of the most serious offences, and indeed the wider public, from the risk of serious harm posed by many individuals involved in the parole system. We offer the following as one of the starkest examples of the clear dangers your decision will unleash on the communities we serve in England and Wales.

Under the catastrophic change you have chosen to proceed with, only a small minority of cases each year will have recommendations presented to the Parole Board by a Secretary of State’s Representative. What you do not appear to have comprehended is that the consequence of your decision is that in thousands of cases annually no recommendation will be offered to the Parole Board, unless it is from an individual commissioned by the prisoner’s legal representative. At an ill-conceived and haphazardly executed stroke you have prohibited Probation staff from being able to explicitly argue the case against progression to ‘open conditions’ and/or release on licence in the multitude of cases where it is the expert opinion of Probation staff that the risks posed by these individuals cannot be managed in such settings. Unfortunately, the clearly foreseeable consequences of this is that the number of prisoners absconding from open conditions, being returned to closed conditions, being recalled to custody and reoffending (including committing Serious Further Offences) will increase as a direct consequence of your decision in this regard. In addition to creating more victims this will also weaken the confidence which the public have in the criminal justice system and increase both public expenditure and the workload of various workers and agencies involved.

This is a truly momentous and dangerous shift in the field of Probation practice, one which brings with it a huge range of easily foreseeable harms such as the increased risk to previous victims as well as others in our communities, the destruction of public confidence in this part of the criminal justice system, increased Government expenditure, potential legal liabilities and significant staff demoralisation (leading to an exacerbation of the employer’s current problems in recruiting and retaining Probation staff). The communications we have been provided with so far by HMPPS – such as they are currently available given the manner they have had to be rushed out and the lack of substantial detail available, both further consequences of your failure to engage in proper consultation on this substantive issue – are riven through with such a variety of contradictions and flaws that our fear is that, if introduced as planned, the parole system in England and Wales will be plunged into abject chaos. We would ask that lessons are learnt from the previous tragedy of the so-called ‘Transforming Rehabilitation’ reforms, where a predecessor of yours failed to listen to those with a wealth of knowledge and experience urging caution in that regard with all too disastrous consequences.

Given the significant concerns we have outlined here we again ask that these plans – such as they are currently constituted – are halted at this stage pending a meaningful period of consultation and engagement with the trade unions, as well as other relevant stakeholders.

We look forward to hearing from you, and as always would be pleased to meet with you at the earliest opportunity.

Ian Lawrence, General Secretary Napo,

Ben Priestley National Officer UNISON

George Georgiou National Officer GMB/SCOOP

Cc: Amy Rees Director General Probation
Sonia Flynn Chief Probation Officer

Madness 6

I notice that the Prison Reform Trust is engaging robustly with the new minister over the parole changes:-

The Rt Hon Stuart Andrew MP 

Minister of State for Justice Ministry of Justice 

102 Petty France 

London SW1H 9AJ 

21 July 2022

Dear Minister, 

Eligibility for Open Conditions 

Thank you for your letter of 16 July in response to my letter to your predecessor dated 16 June. It was good of you to respond so soon after taking up your new role. 

Your letter clarified some of the issues that I had raised, in particular the fact that the new test for transfer to open conditions does not apply retrospectively. It also made clear that there was no consultation outside the department before the change was implemented and that the evidence considered was restricted to the circumstances of “several” recent absconds. It made clear that detailed reasons must be given for a ministerial decision not to accept a recommendation for transfer to open conditions but that the only avenue of appeal against such a decision will be by way of judicial review. 

Your letter also makes clear that the policy change was subject to a safety impact assessment, which concluded that there was no reason to believe that the future safety of those serving indeterminate sentences will be significantly affected. Given what we know about the disproportionate rates of self-harm and suicide amongst prisoners serving the IPP sentence in particular, that seems an optimistic conclusion. I hope it proves to be correct. I’ve also now had the opportunity to study the updated policy framework on the generic parole process, published today. That helpfully sets out the time limits within which ministers have guaranteed to operate (or officials acting on their behalf). Given that that framework has now been published, I would be grateful if we could be given a copy of the equalities analysis that your letter indicated would be completed. 

However, I’m sorry to say that the letter you were given to sign overlooked many of the questions in my original letter, and the revised policy framework sheds no light on them either. Given that the new criteria have been in operation since 6 June, I’m afraid I see no alternative but to ask again for the detail which is currently being denied to the people whose lives are so hugely affected by this change. The questions in my previous letter to which answers remain outstanding are these: 

• Whether any prisoners have had pre-tariff reviews cancelled or postponed because of the new criteria; (I’m distinguishing this from the decisions on hearings that occurred prior to 6 June because we have had heard from some people that consideration of pre-tariff sifts was postponed following remarks made by the Secretary of State in November last year). 

• What guidance about the new criteria has been issued to: 

- Prison staff 

- Probation staff 

- Specialist report writers, including psychologists 

- The Parole Board 

- Civil servants charged with advising ministers on individual cases affected by the change 

- Prisoners 

- Prisoners’ families (I note the intention to update the guide for families on Gov.uk, but that has not yet been done despite the new criteria having been in place since 6 June). 

I should explain that the updated policy framework contains no guidance about how the new tests should be interpreted or what evidence might be relevant in satisfying them. Both the requirement that a move to open conditions should be “essential” and the public confidence test are novel and the manner in which they are interpreted could vary dramatically. Simply repeating the wording of the new criteria does not seem to me to qualify as guidance. 

• Whether prisoners who meet the criteria of low risk of abscond will be denied the opportunity to benefit from open conditions on the grounds that it is considered as beneficial rather than essential to their resettlement; 

• Which minister will be charged with undertaking the scrutiny required by the new procedure; 

• What criteria will determine which cases are personally considered by that minister; your letter appears to imply that all cases in the so-called “top tier” based on offence, and in addition any “high profile” case, will be considered personally by a minister rather than an official. The policy framework does not contain this undertaking but instead makes clear that any case can be considered under delegated authority. Even if it is intended that every “top tier” case will be considered personally by a minister, the question of how officials will decide what represents a “high profile case which may impact public confidence” remains unresolved. On what basis will officials make this judgement, bearing in mind that it has very serious ramifications both for the individual concerned and potentially for the victim of the original offence or their loved ones.

 • What documentation the minister will receive and consider in order to reach a decision in the cases they decide personally; Your letter uses the phrase “full evidence”, with which I confess I am unfamiliar. The Parole Board panel will have considered the parole dossier, typically running to hundreds of pages and evidence given to a hearing if there has been one. Will you? 

• What evidence officials and the minister will take into account in considering the risk to public confidence element of the new criteria; 

• What training officials charged with advising the minister in these cases will receive in risk assessment; we have assumed that officials in the public protection casework section will be responsible for advising ministers on these cases, but we are not aware that all of those officials are probation practitioners. It would be helpful to be clear about who is doing what. 

• What specialist opinion, if any, will be made available to officials and the responsible minister; Your letter says that probation practitioners will consider the first two parts of the test and that you will have access to that advice. But it is not clear if that refers to the reports given to the Parole Board panel or whether there is to be a further assessment by probation practitioners that takes into account the Parole Board panel’s reasoning post-hearing; 

• Whether the ministerial decision-making process will be open to any form of public scrutiny, in line with the government’s approach to the parole process more generally; 

• Whether the Secretary of State will provide the Parole Board with a view on suitability for progression to open conditions at the original consideration of the case; I have written separately about the issue of a “single view” and it may be that you will choose to answer this question in the context of that letter. 

• What estimate has been made of the consequences of these changes for: 

- the casework capacity within the ministry to provide advice 

- the progression of ISPs and the consequential impact on prison capacity 

Given that the new criteria have been in operation since 6 June, it would be helpful to know how they are operating in practice. So I would be grateful if you could indicate: 

- How many pre-tariff sifts have been considered under the new criteria, and with what outcome 

- How many recommendations from the Parole Board have been considered under the new criteria, and of those: 

• How many have been considered solely by officials in the department, with what outcome and on what grounds; 

• How many have been personally considered by which minister, with what outcome and on what grounds;  

• How many in each category have involved a prisoner with one or more protected characteristics and what the breakdown in terms of characteristic and outcome has been; 

• How many have been decided within the timescales laid out by the policy framework for the generic parole process. 

I look forward to your response and the opportunity to clarify these issues for the many people who contact us about them. 

Yours sincerely, 

Peter Dawson 

Director Prison Reform Trust