Probation Is Waiting

Here we have Lord Timpson's speech to the PGA a few days ago. I wonder how long it will be before he gets around to addressing probation's problems?

Prison Governors Association Speech

Lord Timpson, Minister for Prisons, Probation and Reducing Reoffending, sets out why prison governors are at the forefront of efforts to drive down reoffending.

Thank you for that introduction, Graham, and for the invitation to speak – it’s great to be here. Thanks to everyone involved for putting this event together. Let me start by saying just how grateful I am for the PGA’s work. You speak up for change, where change is needed…You push Government, where it needs to be pushed…And you do it not just for those you represent, but in the interests of public safety too. Your voice is valued, and we thank you for it… even when you say things we don’t necessarily want to hear.

I know it’s your first annual conference since becoming PGA President, Tom – congratulations again on your appointment. Let me also congratulate your new Vice-Chairs, Mark, and Carl, on their appointments too. I’ve known Tom for a while now - we once even shadowed each other a few years ago, when he was Governor at HMP Wakefield, and I headed up the Timpson Group.

I took Tom to visit some of our shops – one branch was in Uttoxeter Tesco, as I recall – while I found out what it’s like to lead one of our toughest prisons. I know who has it harder…! And now I’m wearing a new hat, I did ask Tom if he fancied another job swap – but for some reason he wasn’t up for it. I can’t think why…

I realise that the CEO of a business and prison governor are very different roles – but there are similarities, too. Both manage complex organisations. Both need a strategic brain, excellent management skills, the ability to communicate, inspire and motivate. But the main difference is this: most people know what a CEO does, what their job entails.

You, on the other hand, are largely hidden from view. Even when prisons are plastered all over our TV screens, as they are right now. The average person would have little idea about your day-to-day – what it really means to lead a prison in 2024, as Tom has set out so starkly just now.

Working every hour, under extraordinary pressure, to run safe and secure regimes. Dealing with self-harm, deaths and the scourge of drugs on a daily basis. Supporting your teams and trying to nurture them in an environment more stressful than most could imagine. Every challenge amplified, because our prisons are full to bursting. These are the realities you face every day.

Now, prisons have always fascinated me – since I was a young boy, and my Mum, Alex, would take the babies she’d fostered into HMP Styal, so their mothers could see them. I’d sit outside in the car and wonder what was going on inside… What had these women done that was so terrible, that they couldn’t be with their babies? It was the start of a life-long interest.

And as you may know, around 10 percent of people who work for Timpson are ex-offenders. It all started by chance 22 years ago, when, as a new CEO, I visited a local prison and met Matt – who got into a fight after his A-levels, and instead of going to university, went to jail. Matt showed me around the wing, and I immediately liked him. He was bright, enthusiastic, and I thought he was just the sort of person we wanted in the business. So I told him – “when you get out, I’ll give you a job.” And the rest is history.

Matt went on to be one of our most successful branch managers – in a branch just a stone’s throw from the prison he served time in. He’s still there today. And while he hasn’t gone far physically, he’s travelled lightyears in terms of what he’s achieved…Because he had the will to turn his life around, and that extra support to get into work. I knew there must be more great people like Matt in our prisons, and from then on, we decided to proactively recruit ex-offenders.

Later, working with you, we set up prison training academies…Then to create Employment Advisory Boards, building those vital links between prisons and local employers. And, in 2016, I was honoured to become Chair of the Prison Reform Trust. So I’ve been behind the scenes.

And in that time, one constant has been your outstanding leadership, in the most challenging circumstances. It has been a privilege to get to know you, and to see the incredible work you do. Thank you. You have our deepest respect, and our gratitude.

Over the years there has been much debate about what prison is primarily for – be it punishment, public protection or deterrence. Of course, it’s all of these things. It’s right that dangerous people are taken off our streets – and that people who destroy lives and wreck our communities face the consequences. But if we cut to the core of it, prison should also be about reducing offending. That’s the only way we are genuinely going to protect the public.

I say ‘should’, here, because it’s something we haven’t always been very good at in this country. I know you’d agree. Serious criminals should see the inside of a jail cell – and the most dangerous should stay there. But what happens next to the many offenders who will someday be let out really matters.

For the vast majority of offenders, being locked up is a fork in the road. One way on that road can lead them to turn their lives around… The other will take them straight back to prison. Too often, it’s the latter. And I’ve no doubt how deeply frustrating it must be for you to see the same faces at your gates again and again.

The numbers are clear – 80 percent of offending in this country is reoffending. That is too high by any measure. But I know just how determined you are to turn that around. We all know what the answers are. I know that you know what needs to be done. My job is to help you realise those ambitions.

Having worked in the family business since I was 14, I hope I’ve learnt a few things about leadership and responsibility along the way. There are plenty of philosophies out there. I found that a strong culture and high standards – rooted in trust, and kindness – was what worked for us. And I firmly believe that strong leaders – you – are the single most important element in a good prison.

You set the culture… You set those high standards for your teams to follow, and for the prisoners you rehabilitate. And I can’t stress enough how important high standards are in our prisons. Put it this way - I’ve never known a great organisation to have poor standards. That starts with the basics - a clean, tidy, environment, where prisoners and staff respect the rules.

When I was a CEO, I’d check the Timpson head office car park for weeds and litter…Small things, I know. But they really matter…Those first impressions for people arriving really matter…And as leaders, it’s our job to lead by example. And in over 20 years of being involved with prisons, I can’t think of a time when your job has been tougher.

For too long, you’ve been doing your best in very challenging circumstances. People don’t turn up to work to get beaten up, they turn up to inspire people, and to and turn lives around. Yet our crammed prisons are breeding violence – which threatens everyone’s safety, staff and prisoners alike…Staff shortages - and a lack of experienced staff - stretch your ability to run the kind of regimes you want to run. While so many of your prisons are dilapidated, in desperate need of repair…

I’m grateful to Charlie Taylor – who is up next – for HMIP’s unflinching focus on these issues. And I know it hasn’t been easy, trying to rehabilitate offenders in a system teetering on the edge of disaster. A system that, when we came into government, had been run at 99 percent capacity for months. I should emphasise - none of this is your doing – in fact, the PGA has been sounding the alarm loud and clear. That’s why we had to take the tough decision to bring in changes to automatic release to ease the pressure on our prisons.

It was, quite literally, a rescue effort. If we hadn’t acted, the justice system would have ground to a halt: Courts would have been unable to hold trials and police unable to make arrests. We would have faced the total breakdown of law and order. We only have to look at the recent disorder on our streets to see how close to catastrophe we came…Because we could deliver justice swiftly, we brought the violence to an end.

But, in the process, we came dangerously close to running out of prison space entirely. We had no choice but to introduce emergency measures in the first few days of this new Government. It was only thanks to the heroic efforts of prison and probation staff, that we pulled through. We didn’t want to do this. But we were left with no choice…To attempt to delay any further, would have allowed our justice system to collapse. We could never have allowed that: This Government will always put the safety of the public – first.

Throughout all of this you have been under immense pressure. Offender management units, in particular, have borne the brunt of several emergency measures…While more broadly the estate has coped with higher numbers of late arrivals and redirections. It’s in times like these that strong leadership matters most. We couldn’t have managed this crisis without you. And while there is still work to be done ahead of the next releases later this month, I want to thank you, again, for everything you’ve done to get us to this point.

So, our changes have bought us some time. Time for the system to catch its breath. But these challenges haven’t just disappeared, and the crisis isn’t over. If things don’t change, we’ll end up in the same position all over again… Sooner than we care to mention. I want us to get a point where you can run your prisons how you want to run them…

That is why the Justice Secretary has been clear that getting prisons built is a priority for her. That is why we will take control of the planning process, and deem prison development of national importance. And we also need decent regimes, that help offenders turn their backs on crime for good.

I know there is brilliant, innovative work going on, and I want to encourage more of it. But innovating is difficult – impossible, even - when you’re so full that you can’t let prisoners out of their cells. That’s why it is essential we resolve this capacity crisis…So we can support and empower you to go even further to reduce reoffending. And, if we create the right conditions for you to do your jobs as you’d want to do them – I hope to see more of you staying in post for longer, too.

Stability at the top is crucial. Because our prisons are on a journey, and there’s a long road ahead. Culture change doesn’t happen overnight. In my experience, it can take anywhere from three to five years to really move an organisation on. Much of our success will be down to you, our prison leaders. So I want to see more of you staying on that road for longer – and I want you to tell me how we can support you to do that.

Great prisons need great leaders. But second, they need hardworking dedicated staff, like the officers in your teams. Fundamentally, prisons are a people business – like any company. As a CEO, I found that the happier people are in their jobs, the better they work. If they feel valued, trusted and cared for, they are going to perform well for you. And in your teams, people are working under such intense pressure day in, day out.

The relationships - between you, and your staff… and your staff and your prisoners – go right to the core of safe, decent prisons. If we invest in officer training – in their well-being, and development – we empower them to do much more than simply maintain order. We empower them to become agents of change – to help people turn their lives around.

I’ve met plenty of men and women who say that a prison officer transformed their life. Officers who took the time to mentor them - who really got to know the people on their wing. Who knew if their mum wasn’t well, or when their kids were starting school. But to be a prison officer requires a unique set of skills – quite unlike any other job. That ‘jailcraft’ equips officers for the challenges they will face every day. It takes time, and continual learning.

Before joining the Government, I had the privilege of leading a review of prison officer training – speaking to hundreds of officers across the estate. It’s clear we have some decent foundations – but we can do so much more. I want to see more in-depth training that fully prepares officers for the realities of the role, right from the start. 

Greater consistency – with a strong curriculum and clear standards…More local ownership of training…Clear channels of accountability…And a culture of ongoing learning throughout an officer’s career…One that rightly builds pride in this absolutely critical role. I want to push forward with these changes, and I’ll say more about this as soon as I can.

The third element of a good prison is, of course, purposeful activity. Prison education and training has a huge influence on the path offenders choose to take. It’s crucial that we get this right if we are to release better citizens, not better criminals. Yet I’ve seen people leave prison not even knowing how to use a computer.

When we spend so much of our lives - and jobs - online, how are they supposed to get on in the modern world? That’s just one example. There are many others. But the point is clear: when you don’t have the right skills to get a job, slipping back into old habits is all too easy. And the lure of easy cash might feel like the only way to put money in your pocket.

So, it might not come as a surprise that I’m passionate about prison education and training. Training that opens doors – that gives prisoners pride - and real skills that today’s employers want. I’m clear that prison is a punishment. But that’s no reason to stop the one in four working-age people in the UK who have criminal records from getting jobs.

We know that prison leavers are less likely to reoffend if they have a job within a year of release. So, getting them into work doesn’t just cut crime, it boosts our economy too. That’s a win-win we can’t ignore. But for many, the process of applying for jobs can be daunting.

That’s why I’m pleased to see a new partnership - between the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development Trust and the New Futures Network. It will embed HR professionals in EABs…Ensure that prison leavers can access HR advice to support them into work…Provide mentoring for Prison Employment Leads…And help us to create even closer links between prisons and local employers. And, I can testify, former prisoners make great colleagues.

In my experience, they work hard, they turn up on time, and they are trustworthy – because they are so hungry to prove themselves. The amount they can achieve – starting from rock bottom – is nothing short of extraordinary. It’s no exaggeration to say that some of the most accomplished people I know were once in prison. They want to grasp that second chance with both hands. Together - let’s make sure they get it.

Our fourth route to reducing reoffending is by tackling the scourge of drugs in our prisons. As you know so well, drugs undermine rehabilitation, fuel violence, debt, and are a sure path back into crime. Nearly half of prisoners have a history of drug misuse. Many will have addictions when they turn up at your gates, but too many who were clean on the outside are drawn into drugs on the inside. That flies in the face of what we want our prisons to achieve.

The answer is clear. First, we need to stop drugs getting into prison. We can hardly expect prisoners to kick the habit if our jails are a sweetshop for drugs. We know what you are up against. Not least the growing use of drones to smuggle drugs - and the phones that power the illicit market - over your walls…And the increasing threat of synthetic opioids…

We have to adapt rapidly if we are to protect our staff and prisoners. Second, we need prisons to drive demand for drugs down, not up. Purposeful activity is so important here. If prisoners have meaningful ways to spend their time, they’re less likely to turn to drugs through boredom, or distress. Staff training is crucial too. Your teams have to understand drugs, and addiction, so they can make sure prisoners get the right support, and are helped to recover.

Third, prisoners with an addiction need treatment. There is good evidence to show this reduces reoffending – but we also need to make sure they stay in treatment after release. That groundwork starts in prison. 

And fourth – where it’s safe and appropriate - we should be driving more people with a drug problem away from prison and into treatment. That could include greater use of drug and alcohol treatment requirements attached to community sentences, for example.

There are no easy solutions, but I want to work with you to create a system where people leave custody prepared to lead productive, drug-free lives. I know there is innovative work going on out there – and I want to explore how we can replicate that work elsewhere.

As I come to a close, let me say again - this is the beginning of a new journey for our prisons. This Government will rebuild and reform the system. We’ll accelerate the prison building programme, to make sure we have the cells we need. We’ll soon publish our ten-year capacity strategy, setting out how we will acquire new land for prisons, and reform the planning process. And, as you’re aware, we will carry out a review of sentencing - with a focus on how it both protects the public and reduces reoffending.

We’ll soon be in a position to share the terms of reference of that independent review and announce its chair – and I know the PGA will play its full part once it is underway. As I’ve said, change takes time. It also takes stamina. The last Government hardly led by example - 14 Prison Ministers in as many years isn’t a record to be proud of. So I can assure you – it’s very much my intention to stay the course.

I want you to judge me on my actions. When I’m back here next year, and the year after that, let’s see where we’ve got to. I’m fortunate to have started this job with a good working knowledge of prisons, but it’s been humbling to visit some of you recently, and be reminded of the complex and challenging work you do every day.

Thanks to everyone who has taken the time to talk to me so far –

Aled at Holme House…
Pete at Five Wells…
Amy at Downview…
Andy at Wandsworth…
Emily at High Down…
Dan at Preston…
And many, many more…

I should say that getting out into the estate is another of my top priorities…So you can tell me straight - what’s really going on in the system, what you’re up against, and how, together, we can make it better. I hear the last Minister to go to Isle of Wight prison was Anne Widdecombe. So, Dougie, you’ve been forewarned. I’ll be coming down!

Let me finish by saying thank you, again…To you, to your teams, and every single person who keeps the system running – the teachers, nurses, psychologists, and non-operational staff. As leaders, your role goes far beyond managing institutions. You are protecting communities..You are shaping lives…And ultimately, you are strengthening our society.

Thank you.

Guest Blog 102

PO's and Computers 

As Jim Brown’s Guest I thought, unlike Jim, I would try and stir up some controversy and hopefully some intellectually driven feedback via the comments. So based upon my 10 years working in Business Support and Computer Roles (2006 – 2016) within the National Probation Service and then a CRC getting PO’s to take any interest in Business Processes and Computers Systems was a mission impossible. Yes there was the odd PO that took an interest but for most of them the moment the first PowerPoint displayed a Process Flowchart then their eyes rolled and any engagement ceased. Based upon my earlier Guest Post on here which included an outstanding Offender Management Workflow Diagram this received no feedback whatsoever. 

So things haven’t changed since 2016 when I was made redundant by the CRC. Significantly they weren’t interested in what I had to offer either but for another reason. They decided to dispose of me to avoid having to listen to the complexity of the Business and Computer Processes they needed to support having acquired the business. They had been sold the idea by the Government that it was a simple straightforward “client services” business just needing some basic computer systems that kept the client off the premises. For starters nobody had told them about the hundred plus variations in Court Sentences that a Court could apply and expected you to service and report back in different ways. So why do the majority of the PO elk show no interest in Business Processes and Computer Systems.

So being a bit of a Techie Nerd I decided to ask Artificial Intelligence (AI) in the form of the ChatGPT App why this was the case. Its response is below which I thought being only a machine designed to do a bit of thinking it described it in a very almost social reformist genre and how I envisaged a Humanist PO describing it to me as Determinist Techie.

The challenge that professionals in the social sciences face in taking an interest in business processes and computer systems can stem from several factors related to mindset, training, and the nature of the fields themselves. Here are some of the main reasons:

1. Different Educational Backgrounds

Social scientists typically focus on human behaviour, society, and cultural dynamics, while business processes and computer systems are more technical, structured, and data-driven. The academic training in social sciences often emphasizes qualitative analysis, critical thinking, and understanding societal structures, which may seem disconnected from the quantitative, efficiency-driven focus of business processes and computer systems.

2. Perception of Relevance

Social scientists might see business processes and computer systems as outside their primary area of interest. They may perceive these fields as more concerned with corporate or economic efficiency rather than with the broader societal issues they study, like inequality, politics, or human development. This perception can make it difficult for social scientists to appreciate the potential role of business and technology in shaping societal outcomes.

3. Cultural Divide

There is often a cultural divide between social science disciplines, which prioritize human experience, and the more technical fields of business and IT, which prioritize logic, systems, and structure. Social scientists might view business and computer systems as too rigid or focused on profit rather than the human element, making it harder to relate to or engage with.

4. Complexity of Business and IT Systems

Business processes and computer systems can be highly technical and require specialized knowledge in areas like software development, systems design, and financial metrics, which may be outside the typical training of social scientists. The complexity and jargon-heavy nature of these fields can be daunting or appear irrelevant unless there is a strong reason to engage with them.

5. Priorities and Research Focus

Social science professionals are often concerned with addressing societal issues like social justice, ethics, and human well-being, which can seem disconnected from the business world’s emphasis on efficiency, profitability, and system optimization. Their focus on social theory, human interaction, and societal improvement can make business processes and computer systems seem like secondary concerns or less impactful on the human condition.

6. Interdisciplinary Gaps

There has historically been a lack of interdisciplinary education and collaboration between the social sciences and fields like business and information technology. Without formal integration, these professionals may not have the tools or language to bridge these gaps easily. However, fields like digital sociology or organizational behaviour are emerging to address this disconnect, helping to show how technology and business processes shape human experience.

7. Concerns About Ethics and Impact

Social scientists might also be wary of the ethics and societal impact of business processes and computer systems. They may be concerned about the effects of automation, surveillance, or corporate behaviour on social inequality, privacy, or the environment. This ethical concern can create scepticism or reluctance to engage deeply with these systems, unless they see a clear societal benefit.

While these are common reasons for the disconnect, there is increasing recognition of the value of integrating social science perspectives into business and technology. Understanding the human factors in systems design, organisational behaviour, and user experience can lead to more ethical and user-friendly solutions. Cross-disciplinary approaches are gaining momentum to bridge these gaps.

Banno

Guest Blog 101

The Privatisation of Probation Failure

The Probation Service has the lowest media profile of any of the public facing Government Services. The only time it makes the headlines is when something has gone seriously wrong, normally resulting in a death, with the blame directed at Probation. So it was a real surprise to see Ian Dunt devoting his whole Introduction in his bestselling book, “How Westminster Works”, to the subject of Probation’s failed attempt at privatisation.

Unusually for a Journalist Writer working outside an organisation he manages to communicate exactly the many issues surrounding the failure of this project. He must have interviewed the exact right people from the front line within Probation to write such a truthful and excellent insight into the real issues. It was so good I have scanned the Introduction and subject to Copyright being acknowledged I have linked to it below for you to read. This is provided upon a “Book Sample” basis to encourage you to buy the book.

It should be mandatory reading for anyone within Probation, past or present, to fully appreciate how a Government can so quickly destroy a 100 year old service that worked. Yes we were all aware it needed improvements particularly in the high level management organisation structure, for example the removal of multiple Trusts, and the National Standardisation of Business and Computer Systems, but not wholesale destruction from which it is unlikely to ever fully recover. Since this is now unlikely to ever happen in the right way due to it existing within the HMPPS.

Probation is fundamentally a Court Service servicing the needs of HM Courts and Tribunal Service (HMCTS). Historically it evolved that way for very good reasons that are just as applicable today as they were in the Probation of Offenders Act 1907. Yes. Prisons and Probation needed to work more closely together as defined by the Carter Report 2003 achieving more comprehensive “end to end” pathways. But implanting Probation into the Prison Service creating the HMPPS went organisationally in the wrong direction. If it had to be implanted anywhere it would have been more logical to implant it into HMCTS which is the source of most of its work.

The real danger is as the old original Probation Officers are now retiring and dying so the original culture of true Probation is being lost. This happened in the HM Prisons when the push towards Prison Privatisation was running full pace. All the old school Prison Officers were made redundant. The new “private” workforce didn’t pick up on the culture that always existed between the Prison Officer and Prisoner. So Prison unrest and even riots increased. The only way things could be recovered was by bringing back into play teams of “old school” Prison Officers. This is happening to the Probation Profession. Processes, systems, procedures, documentation and now AI will never work effectively in the social services unless you establish the right culture.

So what do we mean by culture. It encompasses the shared beliefs, values, norms, behaviours, customs and knowledge that characterise a group of people. Those within an organisation like Probation transfer this culture to those that join the organisation and work hard to uphold all these innate principles. Call it “Best Practice” or “What Works” but they only define the most effective methods and strategies for achieving the desired outcomes. It is how people uphold these principles and the culture that under pins them that really matters. Take the time to read this article by Ian Dunt since he really got it spot on and then buy his book.

Banno

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hQ7DRgL1SLzKd23ERJYuru2Oy3dKU5KJ/view?usp=sharing

All in the Editing?

Ok, so I've been encouraged to watch episode 2 of the new BBC 2 series Parole. "Can Leopards Change Their Spots" screens tonight at 9pm, but I've watched it already. I knew it would irritate, just like series one, but it's my duty I guess, and I've been remiss in ignoring the new series.  

Tonight's episode covers just two cases, a woman serving a life term for murder with a 13 year tariff from memory, and a prolific burglar serving the dreaded IPP x 2 and well over his 9 year tariff. Interestingly, the woman's Oral Hearing was in person at the prison and with a full 3 person panel. The guy's was down the line on video link, also with a full panel, but my strong antipathy towards this cash-saving practice is no secret to regular readers. It's no way to treat people in such life-changing situations in my view. 

Now we all know Oral Hearings are quasi-judicial processes and often lengthy, certainly 2/3 hours minimum and as such pose a serious problem for any TV producer and especially if you use lots of specially recorded sessions with each prisoner as well. I mention this because we have no idea what ended up on the cutting room floor and if it might help explain the lack of probation input.

Ok, the guy had a Community Offender Manager and she states her involvement had been over 10 months and included lots of video calls. This is the moment to state video is not conducive to building a sound professional relationship in my view, but prison visits are not allowed for cash saving reasons. 

We did not hear the officer advocating strongly on the guy's behalf, or speak at length regarding the many worrying issues along the way during sentence, including screwing up in open conditions by absconding and going on a burgling spree that earned him 5 years on top of the IPP. We never heard mention of him attending any programmes during his sentence. 

In essence, I think he was poorly served, especially by his brief and left me pondering on how much better informed the Board could have been under the old system of long involvement by a community PO who could have spoken more authoritatively. I also suspect such an arrangement might well have prevented the guy going AWOL from open with the distorted thinking 'I decided I'd done my time after my tariff'.

I feel really sad for this guy as of course he perfectly represents the gross miscarriage of justice all IPP's find themselves in and the suicide rate is utterly heart-breaking. His absconsion rules out another period in open, so for him it's going to be very tough indeed to demonstrate taking the risk of release any time soon.

There was no mention of any community probation involvement with the female lifer, so we are all left pondering on that. Did anyone from the community write a report? We assume the Prison Offender Manager did, but again we didn't hear any great advocacy or evidence-based professional judgement. To err on the side of fairness, I guess we must presume this all fell foul of editing, but one has to wonder how many Prison Offender Managers had been involved in this woman's case over the years. 

On a positive note, we heard of her period of over 4 years in a Therapeutic Unit and I'm sure this may have helped address the many issues she had from her troubled early life and adolescence. It's one reason why Probation Officers had to be qualified social workers of course. I can't remember why she wasn't in open conditions (drug taking?), but I think I was surprised at the decision to release. Ok it's to a Probation Hostel and I very much hope she does well there and can avoid drugs, alcohol and negative influences. It'll be tough though and she will need a lot of support from the field probation team. But we all know risks must be taken and we all have a duty to offer as much support as possible.

Will I watch the whole series? I suppose I'd better, but I know it will only annoy me as to how downgraded the whole probation input has become and we must hope the new government honours its election promise of a 'Review'. We must thank the BBC for persisting over 5 years to gain permission to cover this topic. I just wish it put probation in a better light though....                         

Guest Blog 100

Probation Past but not Forgotten 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Enjoy, 

Banno

Link to High Level Map below.

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

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

Probation : A Profession?

Thanks go to regular reader 'Getafix for pointing us in the direction of the following Position Paper just published by the Probation Institute:-

Professionalism and Probation

Introduction 

This Position Paper is a contribution to the important discussions about professionalism in probation. The service is taking steps towards formalising the professional status of practitioners through a licence to practice, codes of conduct and values, continuous professional development and registration. We hope that this paper will stimulate discussion in the probation service and among the many various partner agencies, about the meaning of professionalism in probation. 

The Probation Institute is developing a sister paper on the relationships between regulation, scrutiny, inspection, accountability and individual practice, particularly in the context of risk assessment, risk management and victims.

Professionalism and probation over time 

It is interesting to note that the status of probation as a profession has been contested throughout its history. Writing in 1985, in the third of his four papers discussing the evolution of probation practice, Bill McWilliams noted the resistance to professional training for probation officers between the 1920’s and the 1960’s, for fear that professional status may diminish the zeal of the original police court missionaries. Even at time when a professional social work qualification was required to practise as a probation officer, there was no mechanism for setting standards for probation work, nor of regulation and monitoring of practice. And, despite the job role requiring professional qualification, the Probation Service did not have a formal process of registration and monitoring for practitioners, in the way that health roles have always had, and which social work and psychology, for instance, do now.

Following the demise of the reorganisation of probation services through Transforming Rehabilitation, the issue of regulation for probation work was resurrected. Writing in 2021, The Centre for Justice Innovation made the case for professional registration of probation work, and identified the key factors which it considered define a profession; a professional register conferring a licence to practice; a code of practice and associated standards; and an independent body which regulates practitioners who are subject to registration. (Bowen, 2021.) 

It is critical to note that, historically, professional status and regulation evolved out of the recognition that professional roles conferred significant responsibilities on practitioners working with people who could be defined as vulnerable – patients in the case of medicine, children and vulnerable adults in the case of social work, and, for probation, people who are doubly vulnerable, whose status as probation supervisees may well have been informed by their own experience of trauma, and, in addition, who are involuntary users of the Service. In this context, it is important to note that people convicted of crime may also be victims themselves - a commonplace scenario in probation work, and one which confers additional vulnerabilities, requiring corresponding additional responsibilities of integrity and professionalism of probation practitioners. 

The Probation Institute came into existence primarily to seek to enable the formal registration and monitoring of probation practitioners, via an externally regulated independent body, and that remains a priority.

The PI is aware of the recently formed Internal Register for Probation Practice, and that the aim of The National Probation and Prison Service is to formally register all practice roles within the Service. This position paper seeks to look more broadly at professionalism in probation, and to consider key aspects of what being a professional probation practitioner actually means. 

Concepts of professionalism 

The concept of professionalism, and what being a professional means, has been similarly contested over time. The range of perspectives includes seeing professional status as a mechanism for protecting an elite and exclusive group of practitioners. Conversely – and perhaps more helpfully, in terms of probation practice – Elliott Freidson, who has written extensively about professionalism, defines a profession as ‘an occupation that controls its own work, (is) organised by a special set of institutions, and sustained in part by a particular ideology of expertise and service.’ (Freidson, 1994, 10.) 

Clearly, Probation practice does not wholly control its own work, being subject to government policy, for instance, with regard to early release from prison; the sentencing decisions of the Courts; and the workings of the parole process. But the idea of probation work being ‘organised by a special set of institutions’ seems very apt, and may include formal institutions, notably the order of the court which generates the work of the Probation Service; and the organisational practices, often through regulations, which define what practitioners do – such as the induction process for supervisees, systems of reporting and of breach and recall, and the ways in which people are assessed via the utilisation of the Offender Assessment System. (OASys.)

It is also essential to acknowledge the key work of The Probation Service with people who are victims of offending. Alongside working with people who are direct victims of crime, and their families, it is important to reinforce the point made previously, that a significant number of people subject to statutory supervision are, or have been, victims of crime themselves. In this complex scenario, due process demands that victims are treated in their own right, with the acknowledgement that victims hold a different role and place in the court process; and that care needs to be taken not to blame a victim of crime, possibly through prejudice, and inappropriate assumptions and stereotypes as to who constitutes a ‘legitimate’ victim.

Listening to the accounts of victims, and validating their experience, is key to their capacity to move forward; and Restorative Justice, pioneered by The Probation Service, can be a valuable process for both perpetrators and victims, in making sense of their differing experiences, and so to enable positive change. Core probation skills are needed to undertake this delicate and sensitive work, alongside specialist knowledge, and experience, of the contexts in which people have become victims of crime, particularly those from BAME groups, victims of domestic abuse and people who may have been trafficked, or are seeking asylum, and may be in breach of the law themselves. As part of its role in seeking to establish professional status for probation work, The Probation Institute also works with partner organisations on these issues; and is committed to sharing learning regarding situations that victims may find themselves in.

Professional identity and professional practice 

With regard to professional status, It is significant that, consistently over time, research with probation practitioners has concluded that, amongst other traits, they perceive themselves to be professionals, characterised by a deeply held professional identity, and which is justified by the specialist expertise and skills of probation work, manifest in the one to one supervisory relationship (the ‘therapeutic alliance’) with the person on probation; and by collaboration with other agencies of the criminal justice system, notably the courts, but also via, for example, MAPPA arrangements. 

Additionally, it is important to focus on the mental and emotional demands of probation work, for which possessing a sense of professional identity may be key to navigating the challenges of the role. Stuart Collins, writing in 2016, i.e. during the significant period of Transforming Rehabilitation, described what he termed ‘professional commitment:’ by which he means the investment of personal resources, or what is often called emotional labour, of service before self; a strong sense of community with peers – what could colloquially be termed as one’s ‘tribe;’ opportunities for progression in the professional role; a sense of autonomy; and confidence in the organisation to which practitioners belong. (Collins, 2016, 32.)

This sense of professional identity is strongly related to and underpinned by a commitment to what are perceived to be the values of probation work. Professor Emeritus Rob Canton (2011) discusses these ‘traditional probation values’ as including: location in and engagement with communities; social inclusion and reintegration; restorative justice; a belief in the possibility of change; and recognition of the role of social capital in desistance. A study from 2013, conducted by Rob Mawby and Anne Worrall, discussed the persistence of related beliefs over time, noting the significance of themes such as a belief in the capacity of people to change; satisfaction in the job, which was closely linked to a sense of autonomy; and practitioners finding meaning for their work through their professionalism. A particular concept which may find resonance with practitioners is Mawby and Worrall’s discussion of ‘responsible creativity,’ the capacity to work in chaotic and challenging situations, to think on one’s feet, and to continually rethink practice in order to engage the people subject to supervision, and sustain the overarching priorities of effectively assessing and managing risk. 

Two other elements seem to be critical to professionalism in probation work – reflective practice, and anti-discriminatory practice. 

Reflective practice derives from the work of Donald Schon, who formulated the notions of the reflective practitioner, and of reflection in action, as key to professional roles in a range of settings, including social work, education, and criminal justice. He identified what he described as the ‘messes’ where practitioners operate, which inform day to day practice (Schon, 2016: 42). He stated that: 

‘There are those who choose the swampy lowlands. They deliberately involve themselves in messy but crucially important problems and, when asked to describe their methods of inquiry, they speak of experience, trial and error, intuition, and muddling through.’ (Schon, 1991: 43, emphasis mine)

Schon further argues that, within this context, each professional relationship will generate different problems and challenges. This demands specific approaches and skills of the practitioner, working in a febrile and possibly volatile context; but, also, that each encounter presents new situations for learning by both practitioner and supervisee. (Schon, 1991: 155).

In a paper from 2022, written shortly after the reintegration of probation work into The Probation Service, Anne Burrell suggested that Schon’s approach ‘pretty accurately describes the experience of being a probation practitioner. And, consequently and inevitably, a typical day in the working life of any practitioner is unlikely to follow whatever is mapped out in their diary at its outset. This capacity to operate within an incessant state of flux requires particular skills and attributes – as does operating in an environment with scant rewards, whether financial or appreciative; and a setting where the outcomes of the work may be opaque for some considerable time.’ (Burrell, 2022, 441.) In other words, it may not be possible to know whether probation intervention is successful by the end of a period of supervision – the rewards for positive change may well come much later on in a person’s life. 

Relatedly, reflection affords consideration of the practitioner’s own prejudices and ideologies. Ainslie identifies that reflective practice enables practitioners to challenge their own knowledge base and assumptions - arguably, as well as the assumptions of their organisation, particularly with regard to ‘what works.’ In this context of reflective practice enabling a challenge to both personal and organisational prejudices, it is of note that, in 2021, HMIP published a highly critical report into the ways in which probation services were working with Black and Minority Ethnic (BAME) service users, as well as the experiences of BAME staff. This report concluded that, subsequent to Transforming Rehabilitation, The Probation Service had retreated from anti-discriminatory practice; and that there was therefore much work to be undertaken in this regard.

It is inevitable, therefore, that the processes of professional development for probation practitioners remain constant throughout their working lives, as probation work evolves and changes; and as the context and demands of the role are required to continually adapt and reframe. 

Conclusion 

Writing in 2018, the late Paul Senior, former Professor of Probation Studies at Sheffield Hallam University, and also former Chair of the Probation Institute, argued robustly that ‘probation is a profession – never let that go.’ In that article, and elsewhere, he worked to achieve for a Regulatory Body for Probation and Rehabilitation staff. 

And Gwen Robinson, who has researched extensively into probation work, suggests that, as the Probation Service seeks to establish itself as a unified service, key to its effectiveness will be the ways in which the Service addresses ‘issues of agency, identity, and voice.’ (Robinson, 2021:152). Significantly, she suggests that the proposed professionalisation of the service, via a professional register, is one device to seek to gain moral legitimacy within the criminal justice system. Additionally, Robinson suggests that it is the interface on a local level, with other agencies, which will provide the locations where ‘probation work is real and tangible, and where perceptions of legitimacy will be formed.’ (Robinson, 2021,161.)

So, how can professionalism in probation be summarised? The focus could be on the formal organisational processes of professional practice, and the value of monitoring and regulating probation work, and probation practitioners. These are important issues, and the landscape regarding professional registration seems likely to continue to change in the immediate future.

But it is equally important to consider the meanings of professionalism for probation practitioners on the personal level, in terms of what probation practice is, and how it is conducted. 

Firstly, it seems unavoidable that a key component of probation work is that of forming and sustaining relationships, between probation practitioners and the people whom they are supervising, as well as with victims of crime; other criminal justice agencies, primarily at a local level; and, importantly, with local communities. Professionalism encompasses how practitioners present themselves, in a range of settings. It includes skills of reflection, which enable practitioners to identify, and to address unconscious biases. Professionalism and reflection can generate an awareness of issues of power in the supervisory relationship, and the impact of practitioner decision-making on the lives of the people who are being supervise. These qualities can similarly enable effective practice in work with victims of crime. 

In their 2013 study, Rob Mawby and Anne Worrall (2013: 154) refer to probation as ‘an honourable profession.’ They concluded their book on their project by asserting that: 

‘It would be courageous …….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.’ 

And that seems to be a great summary of what probation work is all about...

Probation work is challenging, rewarding, frustrating, satisfying, and sometimes downright scary. But it is intrinsically worthwhile, with the strength of probation practice coming from the people doing the job. The Probation Institute is firmly of the belief that proper professional recognition, independently supported and sustained, will be key to the future effectiveness of this vital work. 

Summary Points 

1. The Probation Service has been in existence for over a century; yet probation work has never held formal professional status. 

2. Probation work inevitably involves working with vulnerable people, whose risks and needs mean that they require effective interventions, with a focus on safeguarding. 

3. Formal professional recognition would provide a mechanism for independent effective monitoring of probation practice, and of probation practitioners. 

4. The registration process would enable application of a code of ethics, which would place responsibilities and duties on the practitioner, whilst also providing protections from unethical or dubious policy decisions. 

5. The current landscape for probation work, and the breadth and gravity of probation practice, including serious organised crime, politically motivated offending, and cases of serious harm and abuse, demands that practitioners working in these settings are professionally qualified, and supported in their role.

References 

Ainslie S: (2020) ‘A time to reflect?’ Probation Quarterly 17: 9–12. London: Probation Institute.

Bowen P. (2021). 'Delivering a smarter approach. Probation professionalisation.' Centre for Justice Innovation. (Online.) (Accessed on 18 September 2022.)  

https://justiceinnovation.org/publications/ delivering-smarter-approach-probation-professionalisation 

Burrell, A. (2022). ‘The Reflective Practitioner in Transition. Probation work during reintegration of probation services in England and Wales.’ Probation Journal 69 (4) pp 434 – 451. 

Canton 2011: (2011). Probation: working with offenders. Abingdon: Routledge. 

Collins S: (2016). 'Commitment and probation work in England and Wales.' European Journal of Probation, 8 (1) pp. 30 – 48. 

Freidson E: (1994). Professionalism reborn: theory, prophecy and policy. Oxford, Polity press. HMIP: (2021) Race equality in probation: the experiences of black, Asian and minority ethnic probation service users and staff. London: 

HMIP. Available at: Race equality in probation: the experiences of black, Asian and minority ethnic probation service users and staff (justiceinspectorates.gov.uk) (accessed 3 August 2021). 

Mawby R. and Worrall A. (2014). 'Probation worker cultures and relationships with offenders.' Probation Journal 61 (4) pp. 346-357.

McWilliams W: (1985). The Mission Transformed: professionalisation of probation between the wars. The Howard Journal, vol 24, no 4, pp 257 – 274.

Robinson G. (2021). 'Rehabilitating probation: strategies for re-legitimation after policy failure.' The Howard Journal of Crime and Justice, 60 (2) pp 151-166. 

Schon D: (1991) The Reflective Practitioner. London: Arena publishing. 

Schon D: (2016) The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. Abingdon: Routledge. 

Senior P: (2018). ‘Probation is a profession, never let that go.’ Probation Quarterly, issue 8, pp 6 – 8.

PSR Lament

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

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

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

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

Right from the introduction the HMI report proudly confirms:-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I wholeheartedly agree! The blog continues:-

Failed reforms and increased time pressures

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

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

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

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

Impact on the revolving door group

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

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

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

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

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

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

Return to more thorough PSRs to break the cycle

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

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

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

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

Kelly Grehan
Policy Manager

A Sadly Familiar Thread

The last couple of days has triggered us to return to a sadly familiar thread and I think it's important to pull it together because I'm acutely aware many probation staff are currently under even greater stress. It began with this:-

My partner and I have made the decision for me to resign, after 24 years as a PO with numerous successful secondments, I have simply had enough. The change I have lived through is breath-taking and disturbing. I have seen inspirational POs, who never sought high office and whose professional curiosity was amazing to witness, marginalised and put down by young upstarts not in the slightest ashamed to voice their lofty ambitions. Bullying, racism and homophobia are now rife in an organisation that once was held up as a beacon of progressive professionalism and recognised internationally. My resignation is going in tomorrow morning and the sense of relief is beyond description, odd as it may sound I feel free.

Following yesterday, my notice is in. A very slow response from management, no doubt a huddle took place to formulate a response however one rather youthful SPO passed comment on “how difficult it must for you to adapt to change”. I bit my tongue. At 48 years of age she was young enough to be my daughter but really lacked the dignity of my children. This one moment just solidified my decision to leave. I feel unshackled, I feel free and I feel sadness. But my overriding feeling is of relief. As I speak my wonderful partner is cracking open a bottle of wine whilst she sings only now right now as I type do I realise how my probation frustrations were so visible to her. I respect and love her so much. I wish all of you the best and I have to express my utter admiration and respect to Jim for the legacy of your blog, you are truly a legend.

--oo00oo--

The Weight of the Badge - A Personal Reflection on Nearly 20 Years in Probation:

As I approach two decades in the probation service, I find myself feeling more isolated than ever. In a role designed to foster rehabilitation, support, and second chances, it's ironic that I now feel in desperate need of those very things myself. Over the years, I’ve navigated countless changes, adapted to new policies, and checked boxes that seem to multiply by the day. But the toll of it all is undeniable.

I lead a team of dedicated officers who, despite their best efforts, are also feeling the strain. Together, we try to keep morale afloat, to stay motivated amid constant shifts, but the pressures from above – from the Head of Service and beyond – have become suffocating. It feels like we’re caught in an endless cycle of demands that never seem to let up, and each day leaves us running on fumes.

For over a year now, I’ve been covering more than one team, stretching myself thin in every direction. The demands of the job have drained me completely. Where there once was pride in the work, now there’s only exhaustion. Weekends don’t offer enough time to recover, and by Sunday, the anxiety of the week ahead sets in. Monday is a day filled with dread as I face another seemingly insurmountable five days.

I’m struggling. My anxiety is constant, and my depression has deepened. It feels like the joy has been sucked from my life. I’m left questioning how much longer I can keep going like this, trying to juggle the needs of my team, my own mental health, and the overwhelming weight of this job.

I share this not just as a personal release, but in the hope that others who feel similarly might realise they aren’t alone. Probation work is hard – harder than many understand – and we need to acknowledge the toll it can take on us all.

--oo00oo--

I totally agree with the sentiments you express and I empathise with the dilemma you are in however merely acknowledging the problem will not make it go away. As has been said previously, and again by [others] there is ample evidence to support a private prosecution by the unions on the grounds of health and safety, but it is also up to individuals to do whatever is necessary to protect themselves and to safeguard their own well-being. Strategies have been outlined in the past but people, for various reasons feel obliged to keep turning the wheel despite it being obvious that nobody listens, nobody cares and nothing will change of its own volition. Simply making yourself ill or taking your frustrations home with you won’t change anything and you are unfortunately no better thought of. Do something positive to help yourself, even if it is going off sick or semi- retirement or taking a sabbatical and surveying your options.

--oo00oo--

Hello Jim,

I resigned as a PO in June after joining the service initially as residential support worker in AP. I have met numerous brilliant people who are working within a broken organisation.

I trained as a PO with very much a focus on wanting to aid rehabilitation but found myself ground down by the corporate nature of senior management. A regional director likening his background as an investment banker to managing high risk offenders being an prime example.

The eagerness to recall and enforce rather than explore behaviour left me disillusioned and questioning the point of the job - I concur with a recent submission that the role has essentially an extension of custodial supervision. There is a culture of fear amongst frontline staff of being thrown under the bus by management if something goes awry.

I do not have all the answers but the culture needs to change to empower staff to make brave decisions and not revert to risk averse behaviour out of fear for their job.

Kind regards,
An ex PO

--oo00oo--

This is what many of us remember, but it seems the memory no longer extends to current management, but if it does, how can things have become so toxic in the workplace and why is nobody doing anything about it?

I missed this in 20/21... don't know if it made your blog, Jim, but it should hold a place in the archive:

https://www.butlertrust.org.uk/eve-chester/

"As I see it I am doing what I ought to do, work in a way that demonstrates my values and the values of the Probation Service I joined in 1982. [When I started] I was completely bowled over by the amazing staff I met at Hull Probation Office where I took up my first student placement. I work on the basis that we need to treat clients with respect. That doesn’t mean we admire all that they have done in life but we act on the basis that there are reasons why people behave as they do – blaming people for actions is not very productive – and the majority of people want to live lives where they can feel safe and valued. Most people do not care to work with others whom they perceive to be patronising, judging them and/or fault-finding.

“We do hear and see things as Probation staff that disgust or appal but if we want people to move on to live better, less harmful lives then we have to see people as a whole, not just the offence; where feasible, get beneath the behaviour (not ignore it) to understand if possible what it is about, the value and purpose of it to the client and integrate that with where that client wants to be as a person in the future and how to get there. If we want Probation clients to treat their family and fellow citizens with respect then we as staff supervising them, need to demonstrate that in how we treat them; we recognise the capacity to harm and also the capacity to move away from further harming. It also means discussing boundaries, we all have them and know how we dislike others’ attempts to breach them. I see my role in Probation is to address those breaches and to try and help people steer away from further similar behaviour.

“If a person’s behaviour harms people and if society values people, society needs to find ways of unravelling that purpose and helping re-channel that energy. What has taken years to develop isn’t going to dissolve over-night so one has to be patient and tempered. You have to withstand set-backs, client lapses, rejection. It’s a joint enterprise but the engine is the client. If their energy or will can’t be engaged, it’s a very slow process but still worthwhile. I’ve kept true to this approach of respect and looking for ways to connect because I have found it works; it engages most clients, works at a pace they can manage and keeps the majority out of re-offending. That sounds very simplistic but it requires considerable patience, willingness to keep fresh in thinking, attention to detail and adaptability. You can’t work this way on your own, you need good support from colleagues whether in Probation or linked agencies to share ideas, check out assumptions and access resources so you also need to be an adept advocate and team worker.”

Eve concludes with a personal recollection – and a vivid description of how she’s found her career:

“I hated it when as a child and young person I experienced personally or saw others, being ‘labelled’ or ‘written off’ so yes, I have a passion for challenging labels and negativity and I have found in Probation an amazing albeit demanding space in which to do this… It’s a career I have found fascinating, infuriating, wearying and stimulating but overall, incredibly worthwhile in seeing the majority of clients lighten up, move on, have families, handle lurch and sway to regain equilibrium and… stay out of trouble!”

Eve Chester