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.

Prison Crisis Increases Probation Workload

With Napo members considering how to vote in relation to possible industrial action, I note this from Napo magazine:-

FTR48: A Reckless Gamble with Public Safety – And One More Reason to Vote ‘Yes’

The FTR48 scheme will see thousands of prisoners released early, despite known risks – and pile yet more work onto already overstretched Probation staff. Napo urges members to vote ‘Yes’ in the industrial action ballot to demand safe workloads and fair pay.

Napo’s members need to vote in the current ballot on industrial action on pay and workloads, saying ‘Yes’ to both options on industrial action. If members needed any further reason to do this then think about the FTR48 scheme – the huge expansion of fixed term recalls – that will see the imminent release of thousands of prisoners under the Government’s latest decision to sacrifice public safety for Prison beds.

FTR48 Means Huge Workload Increases

The Government has changed the law only because it needs to take desperate measures to reduce Prison overcrowding. Members considering their vote on the ballot on industrial action should contrast this with the abject failure of HMPPS to take any meaningful action on excessive Probation workloads. They should also consider how quickly the Government found billions to pay private companies to build and run new prisons but have been unable to find the much smaller sum required to meet the claims of Napo and other unions to pay Probation staff a decent wage.

When this comes into force from the first week of September the ‘FTR48’ scheme will see several thousand currently recalled prisoners start to be released over the following weeks. In addition, people being recalled from that point who would previously have been subject to a standard recall will now fall into this scheme. The thousands of hours of additional work this will transfer to Probation staff in the community has already begun to take effect – the latest example of an unprecedented, and apparently never-ending, increase in work we’ve been subject to from the various schemes introduced to try to reduce Prison overcrowding. Staff in the community are being forced to compress pre-release work that should be done over months into just a few weeks, all during a time of increased staff leave.

FTR48 – A Reckless and Dangerous Gamble

Napo continues to oppose the FTR48 scheme as a reckless and dangerous gamble with public safety. In the interests of trying to free up hundreds of Prison spaces the Government has chosen not to exclude people who are assessed as posing a high risk to others or those serving sentences for committing sexual, domestic abuse and stalking offences. All of those included in this scheme have, to have been recalled in the first place, been subject to an assessment by Probation workers that concluded the risk these individuals posed to others was such that they could not be managed in the community. Where previously they would have been subject to a Standard Recall, involving a much more robust risk assessment and management process in the months after recall involving Probation workers and the Parole Board, now they will be automatically re-released, regardless of any existing risk assessment.

For these reasons it remains Napo’s position the FTR48 scheme will increase Serious Further Offences committed by, and the numbers of recalls of, people subject to Probation supervision who would previously have remained in custody. The Government, and HMPPS, had other options available to it to reduce the numbers of people being recalled to custody. It could have implemented changes to the threshold for recall – for example bringing this in line with that in place for others released on licence, such as indeterminate sentenced prisoners – or undertaken a more wide-ranging change to the culture of fear and individual practitioner blame it promotes. It chose FTR48 instead.

Next Steps

We urge Napo members to vote in the current ballot on industrial action on pay and workloads, and to say ‘Yes’ to both options on industrial action. This is the only realistic remaining option to members to demonstrate the strength of feeling, and our commitment to force our employer to change course, on achieving a decent pay rise and safe workloads for all. Unfortunately, FTR48 isn’t the only reason for members to vote for industrial action in the current ballot, it’s just the latest example of the failure of the Government and HMPPS to think about when casting your vote.

Napo HQ

Napo has previously commented on the planned expansion of the eligibility for Fixed Term Recall after it was initially announced – Latest increase in Probation workload to address Prison overcrowding provokes outrage – NAPO Magazine.

May 16, 2025

Latest increase in Probation workload to address Prison overcrowding provokes outrage

Napo members have reacted with anger to Wednesday’s announcement by the Government on changes to the Fixed Term Recall process. This will effectively significantly increase the numbers of people who will now be automatically re-released 28 days after being recalled, where previously they would have been subject to a Standard Recall, involving a much more robust risk assessment and management process in the months after recall.

Changes To Fixed Term Recall Risk Public Safety

On the details provided so far it appears only very limited exclusions will be in place, meaning that large numbers of people who have committed sexual, domestic abuse and stalking offences will be subject to Fixed Term Recalls. All this despite a decision having been taken just 4 weeks before that the risk these individuals posed to others was such that they could not be managed in the community and should be returned to custody. Napo’s view is that, along with the person committing any further offence, the Government will share responsibility for the deaths and serious injury that will be caused to members of the public by those re-released early following this change.

This change has attempted to have been justified by the increase in the proportion of those in prison following recall. No mention is made of the leading role played by HMPPS over recent years in promoting the use of recall, including the climate of fear and blame created in their approach to Serious Further Offences. If it wanted to take responsibility for addressing the numbers of people recalled to custody each year the Government could have considered the immediate implementation of changes to the threshold for recall, for example bringing this in line with that in place for others released on licence, such as indeterminate sentenced prisoners.

Napo calls on the Government to urgently change course following this announcement, and to listen carefully to the range of opposition to this plan.

What This Means For Pay And Workloads

From the point where Napo representatives were informed about this change, just over three hours before the announcement was made, we have made our position clear.

We have made clear that again the Government has prioritised Prisons overcrowding over Probation workload, seeming able to find billions to expand the Prison estate as well as producing legislation in short order.

Our members are past breaking point with the approach of this Government and its treatment of the Probation Service and its workforce.

We expect the Government to find the money to meet our current pay claim in full and to instruct HMPPS to respond more positively to the workload relief demands that Napo and the other trade unions have made. If the Government can find billions to engage in the spectacle of prison-building it can find the millions required to improve the pay of Probation staff who have, by Minister’s own accounts, saved the criminal justice system from collapse by implementing various early release schemes over recent years.

Napo remains in a trade dispute with the employer on the twin issues of pay and workloads. Unless significant progress is made on both fronts in the next few weeks members will be left with no course of action but to progress the options available to us in terms of industrial action to force them to change their approach to us.

Napo HQ

--oo00oo--

I notice the piece generated this comment:-

After 4 years as a programmes facilitator (I left due to being lowered to band 3 from 4) I can see why was not wanting to start back into offender management. Out of 5 in the team I am the only full time person and with all of the team were overworked and firefighting all the time. Having to be reactive not pro-active which is frustrating. I am wanting to work less hours after 24 years in the job but can’t afford to. No tasks seem to improve including the worst.. Oasys.. The most time consuming over-rated peice of wirk there is. It’s not even really used we don’t look back at most of it, the person on probation rarely see’s it but we’re always told to ‘update it.’ plus it’s always on top of the other paperwork licences., delius, hdc’s, parole, tag and AP information etc..

More Trouble at MoJ

From this BBC investigation, I think we can see why the previous permanent secretary was keen to move on:- 

Courts service 'covered up' IT bug that caused evidence to go missing

The body running courts in England and Wales has been accused of a cover-up, after a leaked report found it took several years to react to an IT bug that caused evidence to go missing, be overwritten or appear lost. Sources within HM Courts & Tribunals Service (HMCTS) say that as a result, judges in civil, family and tribunal courts will have made rulings on cases when evidence was incomplete.

The internal report, leaked to the BBC, said HMCTS did not know the full extent of the data corruption, including whether or how it had impacted cases, as it had not undertaken a comprehensive investigation. It also found judges and lawyers had not been informed, as HMCTS management decided it would be "more likely to cause more harm than good".

HMCTS says its internal investigation found no evidence that "any case outcomes were affected as a result of these technical issues". However, the former head of the High Court's family division, Sir James Munby, told the BBC the situation was "shocking" and "a scandal".

The bug was found in case-management software used by HMCTS, the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) agency which administers many courts in England and Wales, and tribunals across the UK. The software - known variously as Judicial Case Manager, MyHMCTS or CCD - is used to manage evidence and track cases before the courts. It is used by judges, lawyers, case workers and members of the public.

Documents seen by the BBC show it caused data to be obscured from view, meaning medical records, contact details and other evidence were sometimes not visible as part of case files used in court. The Social Security and Child Support (SSCS) Tribunal - which handles benefit appeals - is thought to have been most affected.

Sources have told the BBC that bugs have also impacted case management software used by other courts - including those dealing with family, divorce, employment, civil money claims and probate. "These hearings often decide the fate of people's lives," Sir James Munby told the BBC. "An error could mean the difference between a child being removed from an unsafe environment or a vulnerable person missing out on benefits."

'Culture of cover-ups'

The BBC has spoken to several separate sources within HMCTS who liken the situation to the Horizon Post Office scandal, where executives tried to suppress evidence of the system's flaws. One says there was "general horror" at the design of the software, introduced by HMCTS in 2018, which they claim was "not designed properly or robustly" and had a long history of data loss.

Another says there was a general reluctance from senior management to "acknowledge or face the reality" of the situation, despite repeated warnings from the agency's IT staff. "There is a culture of cover-ups," one told the BBC. "They're not worried about risk to the public, they're worried about people finding out about the risk to the public. It's terrifying to witness."

When asked, the MoJ told us several organisations had been involved in the design and development of the software but did not supply a list.

'Totally insufficient'

The BBC has seen documents from the MoJ (obtained through Freedom of Information requests), including emails where the severity of the SSCS issue was discussed. A briefing prepared for the chief executive of HMCTS - dated March 2024 - reveals the risk to proceedings was initially categorised as "high" with the possibility of court outcomes being adversely affected assessed as "very likely", resulting in "severe reputational impact to HMCTS". However, an initial manual investigation by a team within HMCTS reviewed only a subset of the most recent three months' worth of cases heard by the SSCS Tribunal, even though the bug was thought to have been in the system for several years.

Out of 609 cases identified as having potential issues, only 109 (17%) were selected for further investigation. Among those, just one was said to have had "potentially significant impact". The briefing suggested standard court procedure would mean that staff would spot any anomalies and manually correct them. Subsequently, it was decided the risk to all cases was low and "no further checks" were needed.

Sources within HMCTS argue that a snapshot of three months' worth of data was "totally insufficient", given the nature of the problem. Their concerns are shared by a leading IT security expert, Prof Alan Woodward of the University of Surrey, who has worked for the UK government and consults on issues including forensic computing. "[HMCTS] conducted their investigation on a limited set of cases", he says. "To say that they found no impact of these faults doesn't make sense to me."

Leaked report

Documents show an employee of HMCTS was so concerned, they raised a formal whistleblower complaint, which prompted a further internal investigation. This was led by a senior IT professional from the Prison Service and resulted in a detailed report, distributed internally in November 2024. This is the report that has been leaked to the BBC. It was set up to "establish the facts" on data loss and data corruption issues affecting the Social Security and Child Support Tribunal.

Investigators interviewed 15 witnesses, including software engineers and developers, and reviewed internal documents, such as incident logs and diary entries. It found "large scale" data breaches that should have been addressed "as soon as they were known". However, the report said that HMCTS had taken several years to react despite multiple warnings from senior technical staff, from 2019 onwards. Investigators concluded that because HMCTS had not undertaken a comprehensive investigation, the full extent of data corruption was still unknown, including if case outcomes had been affected.

The report added that data loss incidents continue to be raised against the IT system used by the civil, family and tribunal courts. The concerns raised in the leaked report echo those raised by those speaking to the BBC. Sources inside HMCTS express concerns that missing evidence may have gone undetected. "This is quite a frightening possibility," one told the BBC, "That information gets lost, no-one notices, and there is a miscarriage of justice. I think that has to be the biggest worry."

'Missing documents'

In the family courts, a different IT flaw caused thousands of documents to go missing, sources say. In one instance, it is claimed a fault caused more than 4,000 documents to go missing from hundreds of public family law cases - including child protection cases.

The BBC understands this bug was discovered in 2023 and may have been present for some years. We have been told it has since been resolved but that no investigation was carried out to establish potential impact on case outcomes. We asked the MoJ if any emergency child protection cases had been affected. It did not respond to this question.

In a statement, an HMCTS spokesperson told the BBC that "parties and judges involved in these cases always had access to the documents they needed". It vowed to "press ahead" with digitisation, because it was "vital" to bring courts and tribunals into the modern era.

Anne Owers on Prison Crisis

I note that former HMI Dame Anne Owers has delivered her independent findings on the prison crisis and it's interesting to note her recommendations, especially regarding probation. The problem is, is anyone in the government going to take heed?

Independent Review of Prison Capacity

Introduction

In May 2024, following the announcement of a general election, an official-level COBR1 meeting was convened to discuss contingency plans in case the criminal justice system collapsed during the election campaign because prisons were unable to take in any more prisoners. This could involve invoking emergency powers under the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 to release prisoners early, in order to avert the risk of public disorder. Those meetings and discussions continued throughout the election period. 

The risk was real: at one point there were fewer than 100 places in adult male prisons. However, the system had in fact been in crisis for over eighteen months. From 2023 onwards, prisons were running very close to the edge of capacity. On three occasions, this was only pulled back at the last minute by the use of early release schemes, gradually decreasing the amount of time many prisoners spent in custody, using powers designed to allow release on compassionate grounds. Senior officials were so concerned about a potential breakdown in the criminal justice system that an audit was kept of all decisionmaking and documents, in case there was a public or parliamentary inquiry. 

The system in fact limped through the summer of 2024, helped by the knowledge that relief was coming, in the shape of the new government’s pledge to reduce the custodial element of most standard determinate sentences from 50% to 40% (SDS40). This was a similar measure to the one that had been energetically but unsuccessfully pursued by the Lord Chancellor in the previous government. That government had also proposed to suspend most short prison sentences, alongside other measures, in legislation which fell when the general election was called. The new government commissioned an independent review of sentencing,2 chaired by the former Conservative Lord Chancellor, David Gauke. It reported in May, at a time when prisons were within sight of yet another capacity crisis.

The 2022-24 prison capacity crisis was a conjunction of some specific circumstances. However, it was also a symptom of a systemic and long-running problem: the apparently irresistible pressure for more and longer prison sentences coming up against the immovable object of the difficulty, expense and overall effectiveness of building and running more prisons. In general, population pressure has constrained prisons’ capacity to operate safe, positive and purposeful environments that can reduce the likelihood of reoffending. From time to time that pressure erupts into a crisis that requires executive action, sometimes unnoticed and sometimes public.

In 2007-08, the last Labour government faced a capacity crisis, due to the mismatch between the number of available prison spaces and the demand created by legislation that had increased some minimum sentences and introduced the now abolished imprisonment for public protection (IPP) sentence. The then Lord Chancellor had to introduce an early release scheme, not dissimilar to the 2023-24 schemes, but under different powers, to avoid the system collapsing. 

During the austerity measures in the Coalition government between 2010 and 2015, the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) offered up savings based on the assumption that the prison population would reduce, but did not take any measures to reverse the inbuilt drivers of population increase. Eighteen expensive, mostly smaller, prisons were closed and only two new prisons were opened; overall prison officer numbers were reduced by 27%,4 with a significant loss of experienced staff; maintenance and capital budgets were cut or transferred to plug holes in running costs. By the summer of 2017, there were only around 900 prison spaces left,5 and real risks of a system collapse. This was averted by a series of barely-noticed executive measures, including a 60% increase in the use of home detention curfew6 (the use of electronic tags) and a steep rise in the executive re-release of recalled prisoners.

The 2022-24 capacity crisis, which is the focus of this review, is therefore only the latest among a succession of crises, though it was probably the deepest and longest, described by many of those who lived through it as an 18-month ‘permacrisis’. It affected the prison service at every level, as well as much of the rest of the criminal justice system. As recent events have shown, it is far from over, as recent prison capacity figures show.

Increasingly, during this time, the focus in the MoJ and the prison service, especially at senior level, was on managing the crisis, rather than managing prisons or supporting prisoners. Task forces, boards and committees, across and beyond prisons and the MoJ, were meeting weekly, and at times daily, to document, monitor and try to resolve capacity problems, at the expense of other aspects of prison strategy and policy (see Chapter 3 of this report). Only when this complex ecosystem signalled that the criminal justice system was within seven, and then three, days of collapse was action taken. On each occasion this was just enough to avert breakdown and buy time until the next predictable cliff edge was reached. 

During the crisis, senior officials struggled daily with the effort to keep the system running. This included those running prison escort services, transporting people to and from courts and prisons, as well as those responsible for population management or for working out how to implement the various interacting release and recategorisation schemes. At one point, under what was aptly called Operation Early Dawn, teams of officials worked from 5:30am until late at night to move people to and from prisons, police cells and courts, in a complex series of interrelated moves, many of people with risks and vulnerabilities. The capacity crisis also came with a financial cost. Police cells had to be used, under Operation Safeguard, to house prisoners overnight, or sometimes longer. Each police cell cost the prison service £688 a day, compared with the average daily cost of a prison place at £150: a total bill so far of over £70 million and rising. 

On the ground, the capacity crisis had a direct and damaging impact on those working and living in prisons, and on prisons’ capacity to carry out positive and rehabilitative work. In prisons outside the high security estate, initially most acutely in the north, day-to-day life was dominated by numbers: creating enough space by moving prisoners in and out of prisons and police cells, transferring prisoners from one part of an overheated prison system to another, trying to avoid releases in error while implementing ever-changing and increasingly complex release schemes. And this all dropped into a prison system that was still recovering from earlier severe staffing reductions and had only just emerged from managing the COVID-19 crisis.

Demand for prison places has risen inexorably, checked only temporarily by the COVID-19 outbreak. This has been driven by a number of factors, set out in Chapter 1 of this report. They include greater use of custody, an escalation in the length of sentences for more serious offences, and increases in the proportion of time spent in custody.10 In addition, there has been a significant rise in the number of those recalled to prison, who accounted for nearly a quarter of prison admissions in 2023-24. Nearly one in five prisoners are also remanded or unsentenced, due to the continuing backlog in the criminal courts. Though the number of short-sentenced prisoners has dropped to only 3% of the population at any one time, they account for nearly half of all new receptions into prisons. Proposals for a presumption against short sentences, by this and the previous government, are designed to relieve this pressure.

Governments have responded by focusing on the supply side, with ambitious plans for more and more prison places. However, in practice this has not been a solution (see Chapter 2). Financial pressures and planning constraints, together with the need to ensure appropriate levels of security, have severely limited the ability to create new prison places, or even, in the ambition of a previous Secretary of State, to replace old crumbling prisons with new and more efficient ones. At the same time, prison places were lost, due mainly to closures and critical infrastructure failings, so that total operational capacity fell between 2012 and 2025. But prison capacity is not just about creating enough spaces next month or next year: it is about whether prisons have the capacity and the resources to provide safe environments that can work effectively with prisoners to reduce the chances of reoffending. Moreover, prison capacity crises will keep recurring unless there is sufficient investment outside prison – both in probation and in other community services – to support those being released and to tackle some of the underlying causes of offending. 

In this context, it is important to note that there are groups which have bucked the trend of a steadily rising prison population. Over the last 20 years the number of under-18s in custody has dropped from over 3,000 to around 400. This is seen as a direct result of focusing on a multidisciplinary, community-based preventive and supportive approach, with imprisonment reserved for the most serious offending. That has not just meant disinvesting in prison: it has meant reinvesting in the community services that can prevent offending or reoffending.

The introduction of SDS40 in late 2024, combined with more extended use of home detention curfew, has provided breathing space, but not a solution. By the spring of 2025, prison numbers were once again butting up against capacity, police cells were again being used, and the forums set up to manage capacity were revived. Emergency action to expand the use of fixed-term recalls has been announced, and home detention curfew (‘tagging’) has been further extended. The recommendations of the Independent Sentencing Review aim to cap the projected rise in prison numbers at its highest ever level of around 95,000. That will still be a challenge for the prison service. Meanwhile, early release measures and greater use of community alternatives do not by themselves reduce overall pressure: they displace it from prisons to probation, third sector and community services, which, as this report notes, have their own, less well-publicised, capacity problems. Significant and much-needed additional investment in these services has now been promised. 

This report shows the risks and consequences of the cycle of prison capacity crises, and in particular the highly damaging impact of the acute crisis over the last few years. It also sets out the wider impacts: the opportunity costs at every level, of having to focus on capacity at the expense of more strategic planning, policy development and positive rehabilitative work. It concludes by proposing a change of approach from predicting to preventing crises, both in prisons and probation and community services.

Recommendations 

The Annual Statement on Prison Capacity, first presented to Parliament last December, is a step forward. However, this is a mechanism for reporting and projecting capacity, not a strategy for managing it, and it focuses mainly on prisons. Within five months of its publication, emergency action was needed to avert another capacity crisis. The accompanying ten-year strategy is the latest of many, and again deals only with prison capacity. 

I recommend that there should be a published ten-year strategy for developing capacity within probation and community services. 

Within the MoJ, it is helpful that there is now a separate strategic arm of the capacity options taskforce. However, past history strongly suggests that such strategies may not survive contact with reality, and also that the plethora of internal systems and processes set up in recent years has not been able to ensure timely action across departments and at governmental level.

I recommend that there should be an independent advisory body to provide advice and external validation of the capacity strategies and challenges in both prisons and probation, and in particular the impact of any proposed changes in the criminal justice system.

I note that the Independent Sentencing review, and a number of its witnesses, also recommend the creation of an independent external advisory body. There would need to be consultation on its precise composition and remit, but, like the Sentencing Review, I believe that it should assess the impact on prisons and probation of structural, financial or legislative changes or guidance planned or implemented in any part of the criminal justice system, including funding and organisational implications. It should provide independent advice and commentary on prison and probation capacity strategies and relevant policies. It should draw on the findings of the independent inspectorates of prisons and probation in order to provide a reality check. This process would take these discussions out of the shadows of inter-departmental or intra-governmental tugs of war, and move towards a preventative, rather than a crisis management, approach. The decisions on whether and how to legislate and where to invest resources are rightly political decisions, but this mechanism would provide greater transparency and accountability. 

In the course of this review, some strong views were expressed about the structure and focus of HMPPS. In prisons, this focused on the organisational structure, and the relationship between governors and local and central management structures. In probation, this centred on the need for a more local focus, including partnerships with organisations outside criminal justice. 

Even if the proposals in the Independent Sentencing Review are implemented and have the desired effect, the prison population will still be at its highest ever level, with pressure on the capacity to run safe and rehabilitative regimes. HMI Prisons will continue to report on the outcomes for prisoners in each prison, and those reports clearly show the scale of the challenge for most prisons, in the light of changing risks. However, some of those findings reflect, or are the result of wider organisational and resource issues within the prison service. There is no independent evaluation of the prison service as a whole – its central, regional and local management structures, strategic capability, and staffing, training and resource needs.

I recommend that the HMPPS Board should be mandated to carry out an evaluation of the prison service, in consultation with the Chief Inspector of Prisons. It should also monitor and report on progress against the 10-year prison capacity strategy and the proposed strategy for probation and community capacity. 

The capacity crisis in probation and the shortfalls in the provision of community services are much less visible than in prisons but are equally real and damaging. Given the changes proposed in the Independent Sentencing Review, and accepted by the government, those services will now have to take on much greater responsibility for supervision and support in the community. There is the promise of considerable additional funding over the next four years, but it is not clear how much of this will be in control mechanisms – extended electronic monitoring – and how much in the essential support services, within and outside criminal justice, that can prevent offending and reoffending. Probation, community services and the third sector are not pressure valves that can be turned on or off at will to relieve an overwhelmed prison system: they should be an integral part of leadership, planning and funding. That will require creating and strengthening genuine operational partnerships, not hand-offs, particularly at local level, learning from the failings of the Transforming Rehabilitation process.

I recommend that both the Chief Inspector of Probation and the third sector should be involved in discussing the design, as well as the delivery, of community services. This should include the engagement and resourcing of essential non-criminal justice support such as addiction, health, housing, and employment services. 

There have been tensions between policies and funding in different parts of the criminal justice system, particularly since the MoJ was detached from the Home Office. These tensions, both at national and local level, have at times led to blame-shifting, not problem-solving. More recently, as this review records, there have been examples of constructive operational relationships, developed during the COVID-19 pandemic and capacity crises, which can be built on to tackle underlying causes rather than symptoms. The integrated offender management (IOM) approach, when properly implemented and resourced, brought together local agencies to deal with repeat and persistent offenders.

I recommend that the IOM model should be reinvigorated, properly funded, and rolled out in a consistent way as a model for cross-agency work. 

The terms of reference of this review do not include sentencing, which has been considered by the Independent Sentencing Review, and I refer above to some of its recommendations. That review also referred to the impact of sentence inflation on the size and composition of the prison population, but did not have the time or scope to make specific recommendations. It notes, for example, that the rise in mandatory minimum sentences has created ‘additional and unsustainable pressure’ on prison capacity, as well as the nearly 70% rise in average minimum tariffs for murder. As both of these factors have a continuing impact on prison capacity, I support the Independent Sentencing Review’s proposal that there should be a separate review of the impact and effect of minimum sentences, and that the Law Commission should examine minimum murder tariffs as part of its review of homicide law and sentencing.

Dame Anne Owers

Independent Reviewer

Welcome to the Future

With the government intent on bringing AI into the probation world as soon as possible, we clearly need to keep up with what is being planned. This looks like something we need to watch carefully:- 

Welcome to the Justice AI Unit blog

Welcome to the first blog post from the Justice AI Unit, a new team in the Ministry of Justice created to lead the safe and effective adoption of artificial intelligence across justice services.

This blog is where we'll share what we're building, what we're learning, and what's coming next. From pilots and partnerships to real-world tools that make work easier, our mission is simple: to use AI to help make justice faster, fairer and more human.

Who we are

The Justice AI Unit was established in late 2024 as part of the government's wider ambition to responsibly scale AI across public services. We're a cross-functional team bringing together product managers, engineers, designers, policy leads and AI specialists to tackle real problems across prisons, probation, back office functions and more.

So far, we've:

• Laid solid foundations to make sure we can pilot and scale AI safely
• Tested our first shared AI tools and services for use across justice
• Launched a Justice AI Fellowship to attract top technical talent
• Partnered with leading companies to provide secure access to powerful LLMs
• Worked with UK startups such as Taught by Humans and Pair, who bring fresh, practical approaches to enabling our people with AI
• Started to train MoJ staff at all levels on how to use AI safely and effectively, with more to come in 2025!

What we're working on

We're delivering AI tools that save time and improve the experience of public service for both staff and the people we support.

For example, we're currently piloting AI transcription and speech tools to help probation officers reduce time spent on admin, so they can focus on building stronger relationships with those they support. We're also rolling out secure AI assistants to help MoJ staff write, summarise and problem-solve more quickly.

We recently took part in the cross-government Microsoft 365 Copilot pilot, working with DWP, DSIT and others to explore the role of generative AI in day-to-day civil service work. You can read more about the findings here.

And we're scaling these tools so that everyone across the justice system can benefit.

What makes us different

Before joining MoJ, I worked on pandemic response as a No.10 Innovation Fellow. My project was to see if we could use wastewater (yes, measuring sewage) to help predict hospital bed demand. It turned out to be a powerful and cost-effective way to track disease. But what made it work was the team: scientists, engineers, designers and policymakers working directly with decision-makers and users in a new way. That's the model we're bringing to justice.

Here's what sets the Justice AI Unit apart:

• Interdisciplinary teams, co-located and focused. Product, design, engineering, policy, risk and security all sit together, solving problems collaboratively from day one.
• We build with frontline users. Not just designing for them, but working with them. We embed technologists directly in frontline roles, such as probation, to solve the right problems in the right way.
• We move continuously, not in phases. No endless discovery followed by a long wait for delivery. We do continuous discovery and delivery, finding problems, testing fast and improving rapidly.
• We believe in small teams. You don't need a huge team to make an impact. Even a team of two can build and scale the right thing. We are bringing that lean, focused model to government.

These principles help us move quickly, learn fast, and deliver services that are cheaper, better and genuinely useful.

What to expect from this blog

We'll share regular posts from across the team: updates on what we're building, lessons learned, guest blogs from our partners, and reflections on the bigger questions we're tackling.

If you care about justice, public service or responsible AI, we hope you'll follow along.
We're just getting started.

Dan James
Director of the Justice AI Unit

A Brave New Probation World

Those of us that heard the cobbler delivering the Bill McWilliams lecture in Cambridge recently were struck by two things, his lack of understanding of the probation ethos and his complete awe for everything AI. Well folks, you need to get your head around what he has planned for us, a bright future based on technology and super computers. We all know how good the MoJ track record is with information technology, so what could possibly go wrong?

AI action plan for justice

Published 31 July 2025

Foreword by Lord Timpson

The Prime Minister, the Lord Chancellor, and I are committed to creating a more productive and agile state - one in which AI and technology drive better, faster, and more efficient public services.

That is why I am delighted to introduce the AI Action Plan for Justice - a first-of-its-kind document outlining how we will harness the power of AI to transform the public’s experience, making their interactions with the justice system simpler, faster, and more tailored to their needs.

This plan focuses on three priorities: strengthening our foundations, embedding AI across justice services, and investing in the people who will deliver this transformation. It aligns with the Prime Minister’s vision to build digital and AI capability across government and supports our departmental priority of delivering swift access to justice.

Since joining the Ministry of Justice (MOJ) in July 2024, I have seen real opportunities for AI to improve the working lives of our frontline staff and colleagues - and clear evidence of where it is already making a difference.

I am proud to represent a department that is fundamentally rethinking its use of technology to improve outcomes for the public and contribute to wider economic growth.

I will continue to champion our ambition for the MOJ to lead the way in responsible and impactful AI adoption across government.

This plan marks a crucial first step in delivering that ambition.

James Timpson
Minister for Prisons, Probation and Reducing Reoffending
Lead Ministry of Justice (MOJ) Minister for AI

Executive summary

Artificial Intelligence (AI) has the potential to transform our justice system in England & Wales and deliver our ministerial priorities. AI shows great potential to help deliver swifter, fairer, and more accessible justice for all - reducing court backlogs, increasing prison capacity and improving rehabilitation outcomes as well as victim services. But this opportunity must be seized responsibly, ensuring that public trust, human rights, and the rule of law remain central and AI risks are carefully managed.

This AI Action Plan for Justice sets out the Ministry of Justice’s approach to responsible and proportionate AI adoption across courts, tribunals, prisons, probation and supporting services (referred to here as the justice system). It has been developed in consultation with the independent judiciary and legal services regulators and we will implement it in collaboration with our wider justice sector partners such as the Home Office, the Crown Prosecution Service and our trade unions. It complements wider government efforts to safely modernise public services and builds on the UK’s global strengths in legal services, data science, and AI innovation.

We will focus on three strategic priorities:

1. Strengthen our foundations

We will enhance AI leadership, governance, ethics, data, digital infrastructure and commercial frameworks. A dedicated Justice AI Unit led by our Chief AI Officer will coordinate the delivery of the Plan, with critical input from our Data Science, Digital and Transformation teams. A cross-departmental AI Steering Group provides oversight and an AI and Data Ethics Framework, and communications plan will promote transparency and engagement.

2. Embed AI across the justice system

We will deliver more effective services across citizen-facing, operational and enabling functions alike. By applying a “Scan, Pilot, Scale” approach, we will target high-impact use cases. These include:

• Reducing administrative burden with secure AI productivity tools including search, speech and document processing (e.g. transcription tools that allow probation officers to focus on higher-value work).
• Increasing capacity through better scheduling (e.g. prison capacity).
• Improving access to justice with citizen-facing assistants (e.g. enhancing case handling and service delivery in our call centres).
• Enabling personalised education and rehabilitation (e.g. tailored training for our workforce and offenders).
• Supporting better decisions through predictive and risk-assessment models (e.g. predicting the risk of violence in custody).

3. Invest in our people and partners

We will invest in talent, training and proactive workforce planning to accelerate AI adoption and transform how we work. We will also strengthen our partnerships with legal service providers and regulators to support AI-driven legal innovation and with our criminal justice partners on our collective response to AI-enabled criminality.

We are ready to deliver. AI rollout is already underway with encouraging early results. Initial funding is secured, with additional backing anticipated as we demonstrate impact. As AI technologies mature, we will refine our approach and plan based on real-world outcomes, evaluation, and feedback from staff, trade unions, partners, and the public. We are committed to acting boldly, learning rapidly, and ensuring AI adoption delivers real improvements. Together, these priorities will ensure AI is embedded in our services and transformation programmes, supported by the right foundations, and driven by a productive and agile workforce.

Case study: Using machine learning to create a single offender identity

Having a single, consistent ID for each offender is critical to making better-informed decisions across the justice journey. Fragmented and inconsistent data across different services has made it challenging to track an individual’s journey.

We are building a real-time system linking offender data across agencies to provide a single, consistent view. This tackles longstanding issues with duplication and missing data that can compromise sentencing and rehabilitation.

The system uses Splink, open-source data linking software developed by MOJ data scientists. It applies explainable machine learning to deduplicate records and ensure accuracy. This single view will reduce admin burden, support better decision-making, and enable more advanced AI tools to enhance public safety and rehabilitation outcomes.

2.1.2 Accelerate insight with AI-powered search and knowledge retrieval

Justice system staff often rely on large volumes of unstructured information, including operational procedures, policy documents, case records or legal precedents but traditional search tools struggle to surface what’s most relevant. AI-powered semantic or hybrid search understands meaning, context, and language variation, helping users quickly find the critical information they need.

Unlike standard keyword searches, semantic search understands context, meaning, and relationships between concepts. For example, prison officers could quickly review offender notes to identify risk indicators or rehabilitation opportunities, and caseworkers could swiftly locate relevant guidance or evidence, saving valuable time and improving decision-making.

This ultimately will reduce the time spent manually searching through lengthy documents, so staff can spend more time making informed decisions, and providing better support to those they serve.

As resources allow, we will scale these tools across justice services to reduce inefficiencies, speed up decision-making, and improve frontline service delivery.

Case study: Smarter searches for probation staff

Finding the right information quickly is critical in probation work, yet traditional keyword searches often fall short. Staff were spending time experimenting with different keywords to locate case details, leading to frustrating “search flurries.”

To solve this, MOJ Data Science introduced semantic search in the Probation Digital System (launched June 2025), powered by a Large Language Model (LLM). This AI-driven tool understands context, meaning, and variations in language such as recognising synonyms, misspellings, abbreviations, and acronyms. As a result, staff now receive more relevant results from their very first search, reducing search time and improving decision-making.

This AI-driven improvement reduces search time, enhances decision-making, and allows probation officers to spend more time focusing on offender rehabilitation, risk management, and community safety.

2.1.3 Use speech and translation AI to free frontline staff from admin burdens

Frontline staff spend significant time transcribing meetings and documenting interactions. This is time that could be better spent engaging with people and managing risk. We are piloting AI transcription and summarisation tools in probation services in Kent, Surrey, Sussex, and Wales to reduce this administrative load and improve the quality of recorded interactions.

Case study: Scanning for solutions to support probation officers with notetaking

In probation services, officers dedicate valuable time to writing case notes, which impacts their capacity to focus on rehabilitative work with offenders. High caseloads mean Probation Officers sometimes struggle to find the time to evidence and analyse complex conversations with People on Probation in a sufficiently detailed and consistent format. We are piloting AI-powered transcription and summarisation tools across probation services in Kent, Surrey, Sussex, and Wales.

Early results are very encouraging, with the tool reducing note-taking time by 50% and earning a 4.5/5 satisfaction score from officers. Freed-up time is being used for more meaningful work, better engagement, analysis, and decision-making while improving job satisfaction and reducing stress. In short, the tool is already boosting capacity, service quality, and staff morale.

Who Is The Audience?

This from Napo published yesterday in the house magazine, but it's surely not for internal consumption is it?

They don’t wear uniforms. But they keep you safe every day.

Probation staff manage some of society’s most dangerous offenders – but they're being paid less than prison and police colleagues. As staff walk away, the cracks in public protection are growing. This is a crisis. If government won’t act, probation workers will. And you’ll feel the impact.

Respect Probation. Pay Probation.

You probably don’t know the name of any of your local probation officers. But they might be the only reason the man who served time for domestic abuse – who now lives three doors down – hasn’t hurt anyone again. You rarely see them on the front pages. But they are there, quietly working late, managing the release of someone convicted of serious sexual violence back into the community, ensuring conditions are tight, victims are protected, and risks are controlled.

Probation staff don’t wear uniforms. They don’t chase headlines. But they are the last line of defence between high-risk offenders and the public. And now, they’re walking towards the edge as ballot papers are currently landing on their doormats.

A service in crisis is a risk to us all

These are the people who:

• Supervise individuals convicted of rape, stalking, terrorism, and child abuse
• Monitor those released early from overcrowded prisons
• Intervene when people spiral back into violence
• Spend their days surrounded by trauma, navigating risk, and making life-or-death judgement calls

And they’re doing it on pay that in many cases qualifies them for universal credit. Many are now turning to food banks. Some are walking away altogether. Would you trust a system like that to keep your family safe?

Public safety shouldn’t be this fragile

Since 2010, probation staff have lost around 60% of their pay in real terms. One in five have used a food bank in the past year. Over 103,000 working days were lost last year to stress-related illness. Meanwhile, workloads have exploded. Experienced staff are leaving in droves. New recruits are being thrown in at the deep end.

While police staff received pay rises of 20%, and prison officers saw 16.8% increases in recent years, probation workers were handed just 9.9%.

The government has found ways to reward others in the justice system – and rightly so – but probation is always last in line. This is despite the fact that probation staff are now picking up the slack caused by overcrowded prisons and rising police workloads. The people expected to carry the burden of everyone else’s crisis are being paid the least to do it. And the public? You’re being told the justice system is working while it quietly crumbles around you.

Probation doesn’t make the news until it fails

Probation only hits the headlines when something goes wrong. When someone is murdered.
When a high-profile case is mismanaged. When the question on every journalist’s lips is: “Why wasn’t this stopped?” The answer is often the same: the risk wasn’t picked up, or wasn’t followed up, because there weren’t enough staff. Because someone was covering 60+ cases. Because the system was at breaking point.

You don’t see the hundreds of success stories every day. The people turned away from crime, the plans carefully managed, the victims kept safe. But if probation staff walk, if the government keeps refusing to invest, those success stories will stop. And you will feel it. In your community. On your street.

This is about survival for all of us

Probation isn’t just about punishing people after they commit crimes. It’s about stopping them doing it in the first place. It’s about rehabilitation. Risk. Prevention. It’s the difference between a near-miss and a national scandal. And right now, it’s being run on the fumes of goodwill.

The people who do this work are voting on whether to take industrial action. Not because they want to walk out but because they have no other choice.They’ve tried being patient. They’ve tried explaining. They’ve been promised recognition, reward, and respect. What they’ve received is silence.

The government knows what’s coming. Do you?

The prisons are full. Police are overstretched. And the government is relying on probation staff to carry the burden. But probation staff are saying: enough. This is not just a warning from workers. It’s a warning for the public. The justice system cannot function without them. And public safety depends on their ability to do their jobs. They are protecting you. But who is protecting them?

Follow Napo’s probation pay campaign here: https://www.napo.org.uk/respect-probation-pay-probation

Grieving

The following came in yesterday and I think it's worth highlighting, especially given the amount of space devoted recently to high profile positive pieces. I have a feeling the sentiments expressed are widely held:-

"Where do you start with all the issues that are finally “rising to the surface and smelling really off” in the wreck of the Probation Service we now work in?

Staying until I can retire in a few years time is an impossibility for me. For a number of years I have found myself wanting to spend more time in face to face interviews, using my supervision skills to avoid repetitive endless bureaucracy. Unfortunately sitting for endless hours in front of a computer is clearly essential in order to cover your backside as an employee when something inevitably goes wrong.

I know I am a dinosaur in an organisation that is now asked to mirror, but play second fiddle to the police and the prison system. My working day makes me feel missused by my employers and absolutely pointless in face to face work as the current approach we must take nearly always “pokes the bear”. Anger or weary resignation and lack of respect for probation being the inevitable outcome. It is exhausting running at that brick wall.

Regarding the pay review, NAPO needs to learn to hunt cleverly and stop posturing at their members (I am a long term member) expense- previous strikes where I picketed produced very little and wages were forfeited by operational staff.

As for becoming a registered practitioner, there is a consensus around experienced colleagues I know that it is just another way to make operational staff more responsible when things go wrong. Thus allowing management to get staff struck off the register, then naming and shaming them by publicising what decisive action they have taken.

I have finished grieving for the service I knew.

Isn’t it about time the employers considered putting staff in uniform to complete the full integration into HMp(probation)PS. Don’t expect too much natural fibre content as that would be an expense too far….Mind you there is an attractive probation pin available for Registered staff to place on a shirt lapel or pocket."

Not Just Befriending!

Many thanks to the reader for pointing us in the direction of the following from SkyNews Money team last month:-

'My job has made me cry and feel anxious - but I genuinely believe we make a difference': Life as a probation officer

Dreaming of a new career? Sam Gildersleeve talks to our Money team about the realities of being a probation officer.

If you've ever spent your morning commute daydreaming about starting afresh with your career, this feature is for you. Each Monday, our Money team speaks to someone from a different profession to discover what it's really like. This week we chat to senior probation officer Sam Gildersleeve...

The starting salary depends on your role... To become a probation officer, you need to complete the trainee probation officer programme, known as the Professional Qualification in Probation (PQiP). The starting salary for a PQiP is £26,475 (or £30,724 with the London weighting of £4,249). Once qualified, your salary rises to £35,130. With experience, you can apply for promotion to a senior probation officer role.

The PQiP programme... combines classroom learning with hands-on experience in the role. You're paid while you train, and you receive protected study time. Depending on your qualifications, the programme can take 15, 21 or 27 months. Once qualified, you'll be registered as a probation officer and added to the Probation Professional Register. This recognises your competence in managing risk and supporting rehabilitation with the right knowledge, skills, and professionalism.

There are also many other roles... within the probation service, including probation services officers, victim liaison officers, programme facilitators, unpaid work supervisors, case administrators, receptionists, and staff working in approved premises and prisons.

I manage a team of 13 staff... including probation officers and probation support officers. I'm responsible for overseeing risk management and ensuring we work closely with partner agencies like children's services, the police, mental health teams, housing providers, and prisons to manage risk effectively. A big part of my role involves performance management and providing supervision to my team - helping them reflect on their caseloads and professional development. I really enjoy supporting my team to grow in confidence and ability.

Our team currently oversees... more than 400 people on probation.

I work 37 hours a week... Monday to Friday. I'm not personally on call, although some senior probation officers provide out-of-hours cover for approved premises. As a probation officer, you may work later in the evening to accommodate people on probation who are working during the day.

The camaraderie really depends on... the day - some days are busier than others. But we do socialise as a team, especially for birthdays or celebrations. We work in a challenging environment, but the support and humour within the team make a real difference.

I haven't made any solid plans to retire... I still feel too young to think seriously about retirement! I'd like to keep working as long as I can, maybe part-time eventually. We're part of the Local Government Pension Scheme, which is a great benefit. The employer contributes 26.5%, and I contribute 6.5%. It's a very generous scheme and gives peace of mind for the future.

In terms of perks... we get between 25 and 30 days paid annual leave a year, according to length of service, if you are a full-time employee. We're eligible for a Blue Light Card, which gives you discounts at loads of places. You can also win free tickets to events. We have access to wellbeing and counselling services, free physiotherapy (which really helped when I ran the London Marathon), health MOTs, eye care vouchers, and MoJ rewards like free drinks from Cafe Nero or Greggs. There are probably perks I haven't even discovered yet.

I haven't ever felt scared... but occasionally I feel anxious - which I think is healthy. You're often meeting people in challenging situations, so being cautious and prepared is important. I always treat people with respect, explain the purpose of appointments clearly, and listen. That often diffuses tension.

The scariest situation was when... a person on probation with complex mental health needs, homelessness, and substance misuse became very aggressive when I asked him to complete a drug test - a condition of his licence. He threw a bottle and became verbally threatening, and was asked to leave. He later waited outside the office for me. It was frightening, but I was fully supported by my manager, who arranged a safe journey home and provided a personal alarm. The incident was reported to police, and safety measures were put in place. I was reassured and able to carry on with my job.

Of course there are days when I don't want to go in... just like any job. But I do really enjoy my role. It's busy and at times intense, but I genuinely believe in the service and what we do. That belief keeps me motivated.

The most rewarding part of my job now is... seeing my team develop and succeed. But when I was a probation officer, it was supporting people to change.

I worked with a young man involved in drug dealing after being groomed by a gang. On release from prison, we built a personalised risk management plan together. He was housed safely and found a job, away from his old contacts. Over time, he grew in confidence and completed his sentence without being recalled for the first time. At his final appointment, he simply said: "Thanks for believing in me." That meant everything.

Most people don't really know... what a probation officer does. They're usually curious and interested, and often say: "I couldn't do that." I'm always happy to explain the role and share how much good the service does.

The biggest misconception is... that we're just there to befriend people on probation. People don't see the behind-the-scenes work to manage risk and protect the public. Probation is often invisible in the media - unlike the police, courts, or prisons. There's no TV drama or documentary that really captures what we do. Maybe there should be!

The job can be... unpredictable. Things crop up that can change your day. But the team is incredibly supportive. People always help each other out when needed, which makes a big difference.

The job has made me cry... though, it's rare and usually depends on the situation. While I have cried before, I don't see this as a weakness, and it was mostly due to frustration at feeling that perhaps I wish there was more that I could do to help an individual. We're all human, and that's part of caring about the work we do. There is a great support network within the probation service, mainly from colleagues that are always willing to support.

One moment that stands out is... when I was working with a young man involved in domestic abuse. He reflected on how his actions had wider impacts - the "ripple effect.". Later, he told me he'd felt angry during an argument but remembered our conversations and chose to walk away and kick a football instead. That insight and self-control showed real progress.

The reason people reoffend varies but... common reasons include a lack of stability, poor housing, unemployment, substance misuse, mental health issues, and limited support networks. It's rarely just one issue.

This role is for people who are... resilient, empathetic, and curious. You'll face complex, often challenging situations, and need to make decisions that affect lives and protect the public. No two days are the same. You'll work with people at their lowest points, and will need to build trust to help them change.

The probation service values... diversity. We want to reflect the communities we serve. If you bring life experience, emotional intelligence, and a willingness to learn, this could be the career for you. Visit our website to find out more - and who knows, maybe I'll meet you one day!

New Recruits

I'm guessing some regular readers will have noticed the blog has been undergoing a bit of a resurgence of late and the sharp-eyed might have noticed that having gently passed 10 million towards the end of last year, we've sailed past 11 and 12 million in no time at all and are now making rapid progress towards 13 million. I wish this meant something, but sadly a bit of analysis shows the bulk of traffic as coming from Vietnam and unlikely to be real readers but rather 'bots' for some purpose or other. Despite this, I do detect a bit of engagement with real readers and contributors, for which I'm very grateful and especially given the parlous state probation currently finds itself in. 

A recent wag wryly pointed out the following:- 

1000 new probation officers. That old chestnut!

2025: 1,300 new probation officers to be recruited next year
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/probation-service-to-cut-crime-by-focusing-on-dangerous-offenders

2024: Prisons crisis: Probation Service to get 1,000 extra trainee officers
https://www.civilserviceworld.com/news/article/prisons-crisis-probation-service-to-get-1000-extra-trainee-officers

2023: We have hired a record 4,000 probation officers since 2021
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66431061.amp

2022: 1,500 new probation officers to protect the public
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/1-500-new-probation-officers-to-protect-the-public

2021: One thousand probation officers recruited to protect the public
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/one-thousand-probation-officers-recruited-to-protect-the-public

2020: Public safety boosted with 1,000 new probation officers
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/public-safety-boosted-with-1-000-new-probation-officers

But of course some new recruits are coming through all the time and its been suggested that the following article by our recent essay winner and published in Probation Quarterly last December might be of particular interest to the new cohort of PQiP's:-

Probation and Community Supervision: A 'Magic' Journey

A good starting point to explain why I feel I have an informed opinion about probation and community supervision begins with my history and what brought me to a career as a supervisory practitioner in the Probation Service. I grew up in and around inner cities, and as with many places, there were varying experiences and influences. The reality was that crime, deprivation, disadvantage, and adversity were apparent. Still, there were opportunities, and positive influences from family, friends and existing or future graduates, professionals, community leaders, and so forth. I found that life was partly about choices and opportunities, and at times, we all navigate complex situations and circumstances. I think that when I learnt to do this for myself, I fell into a career in which I could help others to do this too. Subsequently, I trained as a probation officer approximately 21 years ago, so my HMPPS Long Service Medal is well overdue.

The work we do as probation practitioners relies on the belief that people can change and requires the building of good working relationships with people on probation. The probation supervision setting can provide a vital opportunity for individuals to be supported to identify, pursue, and review necessary or desired changes in their lives (Rex, 1999; Ministry of Justice, 2012). As a probation officer, I’ve seen first-hand what helps people to move away from offending and to change their lives for the better. I have learned that past behaviour is not the only predictor of future behaviour, because it is important to recognise current behaviour and future potential too (Hylton, 2014). Sometimes there isn’t any immediately observable or measurable success, and sometimes individuals reoffend. This is because changing behaviour and overcoming problems is rarely a straightforward development, where problematic behaviours and circumstances suddenly stop, and positive or desired ones will instantaneously follow (Hylton, 2015).

The key drivers of offending are yet to be fully understood at the individual level, as are the types of interventions that could be most effective (Home Office, 2018). Many will desist from offending after identifying or making changes which enable them to establish a position of stability, safety, and the building of social capital, therefore helping them to legitimately connect and reconnect with society (McNeill, 2006; Weaver and McNeill, 2007; Home Office, 2018). This can include personal, circumstantial, and situational factors such as maturity, education, homelessness, unemployment, finance, debt, mental health, addictions, relationships, and other factors that can be supported in principle (May, 1999).

Findings suggest that individuals supported by tailored interventions and access to specific services can be assisted to improve circumstances through professionals building open, trusting, and consistent relationships with them (Rex, 1999; Phillips et al, 2024). I’d like to see more of this ‘wrapping a package around the person’, and the development of collaborative supervisory and inter-agency approaches to meet needs, address risks and support desistance.

On Probation 

A former Regional Probation Director (Steve Johnson-Proctor) once said,

 “Never forget that the greatest source of support for any Probation worker is to be found in the enormous knowledge base of their colleagues’ shared experiences”.

Accordingly, to draw attention to the importance of supervisory probation practices and the impact they can have in supporting individuals and reducing reoffending, I’ve shared some examples of experiences working in supervisory settings, with a range of supervised individuals who have exhibited a variety of behaviours including serious violence, group offending and recidivism. These experiences have been anonymised, and their inclusion is undoubtedly selective, in accordance with my more memorable experiences, of which there are many.

Supervisee 1 was one of my earlier supervisory experiences, an older individual with a history of anti-social behaviour and a pattern of assaulting public-sector workers. I knew much of the theory but sat thinking about what to say to this person who, I assumed was different to me in so many ways. Yet, I found we were not that different. We spent weekly supervision meetings over the next year talking about their anger and behaviour triggers. I had learnt techniques from rehabilitation programmes and had access to an independent anger counsellor. I used the concepts in individual supervision sessions, ‘red flags, green flags’, ‘perspective taking’, ‘anger cues’, and ‘fact, opinion, guess’. My learning was to try simple methods, like talking and listening about the thoughts and feelings underlying the offending behaviour. This enabled the introduction of strategies they could use to calm and reinterpret emerging frustrations, rather than reacting aggressively to them. Positively, the Supervisee became increasingly motivated to talk through situations they had encountered and avoided.

Supervisee 2 left school at an early age and had endured transient accommodation since their early teens. They had moved away from offending as they felt they were “too old”, had cut ties with former associates, were supported to improve their educational skills, and later helped into mentoring and employment. When exploring their motivations through one-to-one programmes focused on attitudes, thinking and behaviour, they eventually shared that ‘lightbulb’ moment and explained, “after I was stabbed, I couldn’t defend myself anymore. I had to learn to use my head and talk myself out of problems. I’m good at it now, I’ve a job and a home [and most positively] soon I’ll be doing your job”. Through talking we were able to ascertain that at the route of this desistance journey was a desire to ‘stay alive’ and be received back into their family network with trust and respect. The Supervisee certainly had my respect, and it would be a pleasure to one day find them working as a probation practitioner.

Supervisee 3 had in the past been loosely connected to various offending groups (gangs) and attributed their offending to being in the wrong place, lack of money, falling out with family and homelessness. The factors they explained as helping them to move away from offending, were having a stable partner, becoming a parent, and completing a vocational qualification in prison. The Supervisee was positive about completing the qualification, as this had led to a job and legitimate income quite soon after release. At the end of the supervision period, the Supervisee expressed their appreciation for “keeping them motivated, believing in them and encouraging them to do better”. This reiterates the importance of probation practitioners building good working relationships with people on probation, as this can be a motivating factor in changing behaviour and reducing reoffending.

Supervisee 4 was a young drug user with significant health problems. We arranged their supervision and drug service appointments on the same day to support them in engaging. We always met outside because they refused to enter the building for fear of being ‘set up’. Every week we’d walk up the High Street to drug services which they only did because we’d pass McDonald’s and I’d buy the Supervisee chicken nuggets. My manager had a fund put aside for this as it was the only way we could get them to engage. My learning with this Supervisee was simply that, sometimes just showing humanity works (and ditching pre-prepared supervision plans). The goal was to motivate the Supervisee to consistently engage with services to primarily address their drug use. After the supervision ended, I’d bump into the Supervisee from time to time and they’d update me on their progress and ongoing relationship with drug services, which always reiterated the value of the relationship I managed to develop through taking this less prescriptive approach to their supervision.

Supervisee 5 distrusted the police, probation, and the mental health team, and was vocal about this. We overcame this through regular joint meetings with all supporting agencies, during which we just let the Supervisee speak. After about 3 months we had built trust and eventually, we got to a place where we could say “let’s try it this way”, and they’d listen. That’s how we helped the Supervisee engage, reconnect with family, keep a home, and improve independence. The power of communication and taking the time to develop the relationship was essential to the success of this Supervisee.

Supervisee 6 counted their sentence in football World Cups, so when imprisoned for somewhere in the region of 12 years, they were like, ‘boom, 3 World Cups and I’m free’. We once spoke about how they could have made better choices at an earlier stage and they opened up about their journey. At the end, they got up and said, ‘scrap that, I wouldn’t change a thing, I’d have ‘grafted’ more and invested it all in Bitcoin but wouldn’t have committed that last offence’. It wasn’t exactly what I expected, but they were reflecting, showing remorse, and expressing they could have done things differently which is at times all we can ask for as probation practitioners.

Supervisee 7 is my most memorable story and concerns a young person I worked with through their time in prison, back into the community, the family home, and into college, all while struggling to keep away from negative peers. I remember shortly before the end of the supervision period the Supervisee got into university and dropped in to share the news. When I congratulated the Supervisee for what they had achieved, they said, “We did it together”. In truth, I did very little and for me, this is what probation and community supervision work is about, helping and overseeing people lead and change their lives for the better.

The Overall Message 

There is no ‘magic ingredient’ to these stories of rehabilitation and change, a question a Justice Minister once asked me. The real explanation is in the commitment of supervised individuals in pursuing and achieving progressive life changes, and the dedication of the professionals within probation and community services working together to support them. The importance of the supervision session and investing in developing practitioner skills and availability, including the empowerment to be creative, autonomous, and flexible alongside access to suitable resources, is key to the effectiveness of rehabilitation approaches. This could be further explored through the continuous focus on understanding and improving what is achieved within the ‘black box’ of probation supervision and the wide-ranging roles of supervisory practitioners (Hylton, 2015; Raynor, 2019).

The way forward in shaping wider solutions for probation strategies to improve re-entry, resettlement, and rehabilitation should come from frontline supervisory practitioners and those successfully ceasing offending and completing periods of supervision. With the right conditions, the people in prison and on probation today can and do become the professionals and leaders of tomorrow. Therefore, future justice policies must benefit from incorporating input from those currently in prison and on probation with positive messages against the negative forms of behaviours and lifestyles of which they were formally part. (Hylton, 2014; Weaver and McNeill, 2007).

Jamal Hylton